AZ legislature “fixes” new immigration law

posted at 10:55 am on April 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

After becoming a nine-day wonder on the national political stage, the Arizona legislature has amended its new law on immigration enforcement.  Byron York notes that the conditions for investigating the residency status have gotten less ambiguous and more reflective of the intent of the legislature:

In the past days, some critics of the new Arizona immigration law have said that it will lead to Arizona becoming a police state. Many of the criticisms — some including the words Nazi and fascist — have been based on a general objection to the law and to the enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. But some have been specifically focused on a few key phrases in the law. …

The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

I agree that this issues of this passage got exaggerated, but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully?  After all, it wasn’t just people on the Left who objected to the vague notion of “lawful contact” in this passage.  Plenty of people on the Right also expressed concern about the potential for police to assume expansive powers to stop and question people with no probable cause other than assumptions about immigration status.  Even some of the police in Arizona objected to it.

The Arizona legislature could have saved everyone the trouble by defining the parameters from the beginning.  Governor Jan Brewer more or less had the same criticism, signing the bill but issuing an executive order to clear up the ambiguity by establishing rules for “lawful contact” simultaneous to the bill signing.  The change now makes plain the intent to have Arizona law enforcement check residency status while enforcing the other laws of the state, a common-sense approach that other states should also adopt — since the federal government stubbornly refuses to enforce their own existing laws.

The new clarifications are welcome indeed, and should defuse the controversy that threatened to distract the GOP from the larger issues of economic crisis and government encroachment.  But just as with the surprises that we keep finding in the ObamaCare bill, the entire problem could have been avoided had the legislature paid more attention to the details before voting it into law.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I agree that this issues of this passage got exaggerated, but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully? –Mr. Ed

Ed, the talking horse RINO, coming from the sloppy progressive’s end. Did Ed bother reading the 15 page law and comparing it to Federal Law before critiquing slop? Fred Thompson has read it, and strongly endorses it’s original wording as legally sound.

1. AZ law contained nothing NEW but reflected precisely Federal Laws. There is no “new” element introduced to immigration law in the AZ bill signed into law.

2. According to Fred Thompson, there is absolutely no reason to stipulate EVERY type of incident wherein the law will and won’t apply. Ed ought to listen to The Fred Thompson Show and get an education. Ed’s ignorance is unbearable whenever there’s a conflict between Constitutional Conservatives and Marxists and Ed clings to his neoconservative-socialism to play both sides as another smartass who knows squat.

3. There was nothing “sloppy” about strictly aligning to the federal laws, despite Ed’s ignorant critique. That this wording is updated from what’s on the federal books proves two things. First, there was no malfeasance by AZ legislators as the illegal minded criminal detractors accused. Second, contrary to ex-Californication progressive Ed’s MSM aligned opinion, Arizona Constitutional Conservatives are not hard nosed ideologues unwilling to diplomatically communicate and clarify their position to lawfully secure the peace in AZ.

What is the illegal alien response? Watch as their “parades” become criminal riots today. THEIR tradition is to begin with the Mexicans (not “Hispanic” US citizens) taunting, then from within the crowd women and children begin throwing rocks at the police stationed along the way to maintain order.

Btw, WHO is paying for the pro-illegal immigration parades’ costs? CITIZEN tax payers. Illegal aliens do not pay taxes, even if their employers withhold, because the employers pocket that money, another criminal kickback for hiring an illegal workforce. Take for example the Dallas school district for years hiring illegal aliens as teachers, assigning those illegal alien teachers OTHER PEOPLE’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. The Dallas ISD is not paying the IRS the taxes withheld from the illegal alien teachers with OTHER PEOPLES’ SSN.

It is a severely convoluted and SLOPPY refusal of government outside of Arizona to enforce immigration law that has created hell inside of AZ for US citizens.

And Texans should note well that given the AZ Law exactly aligned with Federal Law, Rick Perry announced that enforcing law “isn’t right for Texas” brand of neoconservative politics which has nothing to do with the Tea Party Constitutional Conservatism.

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 7:33 AM

There is long established Texas Law requiring ALL ADULTS CARRY IDENTIFICATION.

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 7:37 AM

How does liberal crap sandwich taste? The low IQ liberal lawyers lost this one before they even opened their lisping lips. The law will stand and be a model for other states.

ray on May 1, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Except it didn’t stand, the part of the law that was going to give the police the most enforcement power possible has been taken out. The law is basically useless now.

Seems to me like the liberals won this one.

Proud Rino on May 1, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Except it didn’t stand, the part of the law that was going to give the police the most enforcement power possible has been taken out. The law is basically useless now.

Seems to me like the liberals won this one.

Proud Rino on May 1, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Baaahaaaahaaaa, keep telling yourself that while you munch on liberal turds and stale bread. Clarification of intent striped nothing, it strengthened. The best part is seeing low IQ liberals admit defeat through deception and whining.

ray on May 1, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Obviously the parasites become restless when their access to free stuff is in jeopardy. What part of “illegal aliens” do these dolts not understand.

Let the games begin and there can be no retreat.

rplat on May 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Why…why…how dare Arizona try to make things safer for its’ citizens?

Mr. Robert Krentz remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on April 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM

I know you are trying to make a point but that is not funny. Bob Krentz was a neighbor of ours and his death is not funny here.

usarmyretired on May 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

I for one am PROUD to live in Arizona. Our state is highlighting all that is wrong with the liberal line of thought. Of course thought and liberalism is an oxymoron but what the hey. Our legislature and government are passing laws which most Americans agree with shining a bright light on the lunacy of progressives. Nice new concealed carry laws, love it, illegal immigration enforcement, love it, no more state funded ethnic studies programs, love it. We must be doing something right, look at all the liberals and trolls who have their panties in a bunch on HotAir.

usarmyretired on May 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM

the context is fear. As the Arizona abomination makes clear, there is a desperate need for federal immigration action to stop the country from turning into a nation of vigilantes suspicious of anybody with dark skin.

–Dana Milktoast, WAPO

Only accurate point Milktoast made is the “desperate need for federal immigration action”–to enforce Federal Immigration Laws– “to stop the country from turning into a nation of” –at which point Milktoast spills his Marxist beans of prejudice against legal immigration in favor of illegal immigration, in favor of illegal immigrants and prejudiced against American citizens seeking law enforcement to protect citizens from VIOLENT illegal alien thieves, arsonists, kidnappers, rapers and murderers. Why should citizens allow the nation to be overrun by illegal aliens shooting sheriffs in the stomach on AZ and interstate highways while transporting and transferring bails of drugs from one vehicle to another? Only a bastard proposes that federal immigration laws restated now in AZ State law is an “abomination”–or “sloppy legislation” for wording exactly as federal law is worded and already tested and won in cases challenged before the Supreme Court, having been presented by illegal alien interests. THOSE cases cost the national treasury a pretty penny, not to mention every locale and regional court proceedings FUNDED BY LOCAL TAX PAYERS, each hearing that led up the the SCOTUS.

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM

My sympathy lies with the people of Arizona. I don’t know why the governor just does not call out the National Guard and patrol the border. Perhaps those on the other side would get the message!

SC.Charlie on May 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM

For longterm HotAir commenters, note well the timing of Malkin’s sale to the new neoconservative owners, and the PC brazenly ignorant take by Ed Morrissey on the AZ law written in the exact language of Federal law, already approved by SCOTUS having won in previous cases contested.

Point being, Malkin’s early claim to fame on the internet that built her popular reputation amongst conservative readers was the hard stance pro volunteer citizen MinuteMen aiding the Border Patrol with visual observation and communications of illegal border crossings as they occurred. Malkin took the stand against illegal alien immigrants being granted the socialist Republican neoconservative alignment with Democrats, bipartisan supported amnesty. Bush’s administration meant to seal the McCain comprehensive reform legislative deal with Mexican (not US citizen) “entitlement” tax funded benefits, regardless of the illegal alien criminal activity and criminal records and the fact that the US can not indefinitely support Mexicans (not US citizens) via US citizen taxes. The economy is bust. CA is bankrupt but won’t admit it except to demand a bail-out from other states like AZ.

Where’s the announcement on HotAir of Duncan Hunter’s announcement of proposed legislation to neutralize anchor babies to discourage the popular Mexican (not US citizen) practice of illegally crossing the border to deliver a baby stateside. While Malkin rode the MinuteMen bandwagon, the Duncan Hunter political agenda was extremely popular. Readers promoted Hunter Sr.’s name for the POTUS ticket early on in the primaries. Again, that was before Ed Morrissey abandoned his Captain’s Quarters’ ship to join Allahpundit who also forfeited his own blog to do HotAir for Malkin who has now forfeited HotAir to join the neoconservative big shot bandwagon.

So the original hardline against illegal immigration at HotAir was just a bunch of opportunistic hot air to garner readers and popularity, to later espouse neoconservatism full time? So it appears.

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM

BallisticBob

Thanks for the link to Mark Steyn, Washington Times.

Send Keith Olberman to live/work for a summer month on a ranch somewhere along the border with Mexico mending fences. You’d see him cutting the fences, and buying the drugs himself from the criminal drug lord invaders.

“Boycott Arizona-stan!” urges MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, surely a trifle Islamophobically: What has some blameless Central Asian basket case done to deserve being compared with a hellhole like Phoenix?

Actually, the universities in AZ host a huge population of Middle Eastern Muslims of oil rich nations, particularly those with extremist anti-American views since 1970, who after graduation, remain stateside instead of returning to their home country to improve the lives of their less fortunate countrymen.

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM

My,my aren’t you the pissy little drama queen! Why are you here?

katy the mean old lady on May 1, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Report from Cochise County, Arizona
By T.J. Woodard

Katy @ 1:12, too bad you haven’t the intelligence to think and respond according to this “fixes” post and my series of comments. What do you know of the federal matched AZ immigration law, and the state of criminal current affairs in AZ? After reading Woodard’s column, let us know your take on his article linked above.

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

For instance:

Working on a U.S. Army fort, one would think we were fairly secure from these threats. Just not true. Reading the Fort Huachuca newspaper one morning, I noticed an interesting part of the “community” page. It asked for volunteers to assist in cleaning up “dumps” on posts where the illegals would drop their supplies used to cross the border and change clothing. They do this in order to blend in and not look like they just spent a day or two crossing the border in the dust and heat of southern Arizona. The most frightening part of this is that Fort Huachuca is the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, where the Army trains its intelligence soldiers — analysts, interrogators, radio intercept specialists, and counterintelligence agents — for operations overseas. If we can’t secure the fort we use to train our intelligence soldiers, how can we secure anything else?
Woodard

maverick muse on May 1, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Yeah, this has no far-reaching implications.

Like, what are they going to do…pull over people just because they have Ron Paul bumper stickers?

Crazy.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 1, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I’m amazed at the vitriol conservatives bring to bear against those who oppose the original wording of the bill. There was a time not too long ago when the Fourth Amendment was cherished by the Right.

hicsuget on May 2, 2010 at 12:03 AM

I’m amazed at the vitriol conservatives bring to bear against those who oppose the original wording of the bill. There was a time not too long ago when the Fourth Amendment was cherished by the Right.

hicsuget on May 2, 2010 at 12:03 AM

What was wrong with the bill’s original wording?

Inanemergencydial on May 2, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Maverick Muse: I knock heads with these guys all the time. But I find your allegations towards them and Malkin as unfounded and sort of silly.

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 3:20 AM

…but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully?

Ed: No, it wasn’t sloppy. As you may have noticed, there is a lot of disagreement as to what or what language should not be in the bill. The best course of action was to get the law written and passed knowing it could and would be revised later. It’s not like the usual suspects wouldn’t be complaining about it anyway no matter what language they used. And I’m on the Right and I had no objection to the language in the bill. So, by claiming that people on the right were complaining there the bill was sloppy is nonsense. Some people on the right that you happen to agree with complained.

Many laws need to be revised or have minor changes in their language. It’s not a big deal to those who read and are affected by new legislation. You can go on any state legislative website and read the legislative histories and see how common this is yourself.

I don’t think you are being fair or accurate by characterizing the legislature’s actions as “sloppy.” I think we have more than enough people in the GOP shooting us in the foot. Though I thought Maverick Muse’s comments were over the top, I can say I’m also sick of this stuff, too.

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM

…but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully?

Ed: No, it wasn’t sloppy. As you may have noticed, there is a lot of disagreement as to what or what language should not be in the bill. The best course of action was to get the law written and passed knowing it could and would be revised later. It’s not like the usual suspects wouldn’t be complaining about it anyway no matter what language they used. And I’m on the Right and I had no objection to the language in the bill. So, by claiming that people on the right were complaining there the bill was sloppy is nonsense. Some people on the right that you happen to agree with complained.

Many laws need to be revised or have minor changes in their language. It’s not a big deal to those who read and are affected by new legislation. You can go on any state legislative website and read the legislative histories and see how common this is yourself.

I don’t think you are being fair or accurate by characterizing the legislature’s actions as “sloppy.” I think we have more than enough people in the GOP undermining us every chance they can get. Though I thought Maverick Muse’s comments were over the top, I can say I’m also sick of this stuff, too.

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 3:38 AM

Oops! Sorry for the double posting.

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 3:39 AM

I’m sorry I missed this post and opportunity to comment on Friday (publ. date), but I am enjoying reading most of the comments.

BUT THIS IS OUTRIGHT ERRONEOUS:

Mexico, which is in North America anyway.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:11 PM

No, Mexico is in CENTRAL AMERICA.

North America, Central America, South America.

Separate continents. Though I realize in the last decades, the public educational system has “streamlined” a lot of definitions and teaches whatever-is-liberal-and-trendy rather than facts, mostly, when I was receiving my education, those were the continents in the Western Hemisphere: North America, Central America (Mexico on South through Panama) and South America (South of Panama down to bottom of Tiera del Fuego or however it’s spelled.

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:33 AM

Southernmost part of South America is The Chilean Islands, having just looked at an atlas…

North America includes the countries of the U.S.A. and Canada.

Central America includes MEXICO, Guatemala, Nicauragua, Costa Rica, Panama and whatever else is down there that I may have overlooked here.

South America starts where Panama ends and reaches down to where the Chilean Islands stop before the Straight going on to Antarctica.

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:36 AM

Jeez, no wonder some people are having so many problems with the simple, straightforward statements in the Arizona SB1070.

Which law was clear to me as it was written though I see that the Governor was wise enough to think ahead and anticipate having to “clarify” portions afterward, which now is done. So the complaints need to now end.

The Left will and would’ve complained and “marched” regardless of what was written in the legislation.

And the point of the complaints appears to be that the Left does not want illegal aliens identified nor penalized (deported). I note that deportation of illegal aliens is the Constitutional penalty.

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:39 AM

Don’t write stupid laws, people won’t get into an uproar. Easy-peasy.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:12 PM

IF you’re referring to SB1070 in Arizona, it’s not a “stupid law.”

I do think another comment here earlier had it right and that is that you appear to simply not want the laws enforced.

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:42 AM

As if police haven’t already been using poor and brown as ‘reasonable suspicion’ of drug involvement.

ernesto on April 30, 2010 at 11:54 AM

It depends on where one is. For example, a Caucasian can go to Hawaii and walk into any retailer there and be literally followed around by some employee watching your every move. Well dressed, doesn’t matter, it’s that you’re “different” from the mostly-Brown population. So they study you and stare at you and analyze what you’re wearing and look at you more closely and critically than anyone else if you’re the one Caucasian in a room or building among a dozen or a hundred “Brown” people.

Same for most countries that are of by majority one ethnicity or race versus another.

It’s human nature, people look more critically at the “unusual” and the “unusual” depends on what is not majority or most common.

I remember very clearly the first time I ever walked into a sushi bar in Los Angeles before sushi bars were trendy and popular and all over California (and elsewhere). The lone sushi bar in downtown “Japantown” was open, I visited and the whole place just stopped mid-chopstick-in-the-air and waited until I’d seated and they had sufficiently looked me over (a White person) and were satisfied I was there for a bite. I was just probably the first “White person” who’d ever been in there.

Same thing once when I had a leg injury and had to use paratransit and wait for their pickups at doctors and such. I walked across the street from my doctor’s to a food-truck that was stopped at a public bus station for some coffee while I waited for the Paratransit.

The truck was surrounded by Hispanics. I approached and they all looked shocked and LITERALLY TOOK OFF RUNNING IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

Obviously, they thought I was ICE or some sort of authority…I was and am also White.

So it depends on where you are, what the circumstances are.

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:50 AM

No, Mexico is in CENTRAL AMERICA.

North America, Central America, South America.

Separate continents. Though I realize in the last decades, the public educational system has “streamlined” a lot of definitions and teaches whatever-is-liberal-and-trendy rather than facts, mostly, when I was receiving my education, those were the continents in the Western Hemisphere: North America, Central America (Mexico on South through Panama) and South America (South of Panama down to bottom of Tiera del Fuego or however it’s spelled.

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:33 AM

1. No, Mexico is in North America.

2. “Central America” is not a continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_countries

EPIC FAIL

Proud Rino on May 2, 2010 at 8:04 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America

Click on this and, whoa, look at who’s not in Central America! Mexico!

Idiot.

IF you’re referring to SB1070 in Arizona, it’s not a “stupid law.”

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:42 AM

That’s right, it was written so well that it almost made it a week and a half before they had to start amending the gigantic flaws in it, some of which, by the way, are still not fixed.

Proud Rino on May 2, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Wow,

Mexico is part of North America. Stop fulfilling stereotypes guys.

Magnus on May 2, 2010 at 9:22 AM

No, Mexico is in CENTRAL AMERICA.

North America, Central America, South America.

Separate continents. Though I realize in the last decades, the public educational system has “streamlined” a lot of definitions and teaches whatever-is-liberal-and-trendy rather than facts,

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:33 AM

LMAO.

crr6 on May 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Proverbs 18:7 ~~A fool’s mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.

Inanemergencydial on May 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM

1. No, Mexico is in North America.

No, it’s central america.

2. “Central America” is not a continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_countries

No, but most people consider it not part of North America which is a continent.

EPIC FAIL

Proud Rino on May 2, 2010 at 8:04 AM

No, you’re not a failure. You always succeed at being an a-hole, poseur.

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Click on this and, whoa, look at who’s not in Central America! Mexico!

I have a several books left over from my university days on the central american country of mexico. That the leftards, of which you are one, decided for political reasons to move it, is irrelevant.

Idiot.

Says an idiot and an a-hole.

IF you’re referring to SB1070 in Arizona, it’s not a “stupid law.”

Lourdes on May 2, 2010 at 6:42 AM

That’s right, it was written so well that it almost made it a week and a half before they had to start amending the gigantic flaws in it, some of which, by the way, are still not fixed.

Proud Rino on May 2, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Thank you for confirming once again, that you know nothing about what you are always shooting your mouth off. You have no knowledge or experience in legislative analysis. All laws require minor revisions. Frankly, these revisions were done just to shut up the a-holes like you since they weren’t really necessary.

Now, why don’t you stop pretending that you are anything but a leftard?

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Magnus on May 2, 2010 at 9:22 AM
crr6 on May 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Inanemergencydial on May 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM

You three idiots the backup group for Proud Leftard?

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 2:21 PM

You three idiots the backup group for Proud Leftard?

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 2:21 PM

What? I’m in the Proud Leftard is a insincere agitator camp…

For the love of…don’t lump me in with those retards.

Inanemergencydial on May 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Who gives a damn, we have a federal government who REFUSES to do one of the few things they are supposed to do, meanwhile, we have Barack Obama sticking his idiot nose into every piece of other business in this country.

How Arizona turns out to be the bad guy in this scenario is beyond me.

The Feds are completely negligent, irresponsible and worthless as usual.

The Feds are only interested in coddling terrorists and illegal alien foreigners while they beat the hell out of and transfer income away from the people who actually make this country work.

NoDonkey on May 2, 2010 at 3:57 PM

The change now makes plain the intent to have Arizona law enforcement check residency status while enforcing the other laws of the state, a common-sense approach that other states should also adopt — since the federal government stubbornly refuses to enforce their own existing laws.

Exactly. It is supposed to be just like searching for a bench warrant from another state. Just a normal procedure when they already have someone in custody. Check for legal status.

I would like it explained why if a cop pulls me over my name is searched to see if I’m wanted in another state–but we aren’t allowed to figure out the status of someone who’s name doesn’t even show up in the computer.

Being a non-legal resident is flying under the normal legal protections of the state.

They could be anyone, done anything, and because they aren’t documented we should just allow them to roam freely?

petunia on May 2, 2010 at 4:52 PM

No, but most people consider it not part of North America which is a continent.

Blake on May 2, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I mean, we all know you’re pretty dumb but…you can’t possible be this stupid.

Let’s play a fun game.

What does “NAFTA” stand for?

Now, which countries signed NAFTA?

crr6 on May 2, 2010 at 11:16 PM

2. “Central America” is not a continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_countries

No.
Blake on May 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Well, at least Blake knows that there aren’t 8 continents. Give him some credit folks!

crr6 on May 2, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Why doesn’t the democratic party government secure our borders when they know that’s what the public most want?

The reason is that the Democratic Party really wants amnesty for illegals (knowing, of course, that it will encourage more illegals) in order to have a large population of voters that will secure their party in power forever. If they secure the border now then the public will never let a vote on amnesty succeed. Hence this screw-you sellout party with multi-forked smooth-tongue Obama leading will always try to tie boarder security to a “comprehensive reform” package that must include amnesty ( for “fairness” & “human rights”, of course). They need boarder security held hostage to amnesty to get amnesty for power. Once they get their amnesty don’t count on them to come through on border security.

Arizona is obstructing this sellout plan for perpetual power. Only if the courts allow a few shreds left of what was once State Rights per the original US Constitution can Arizona succeed in protecting its citizens.

Chessplayer on May 3, 2010 at 7:48 AM

There should me no conditions under which a law enforcement office cannot ask someone, anyone for ID.

If there are close to half a million illegals in Arizona, of which lets say 99% are of Hispanic decent, why would it be unreasonable to “profile” brown people, who look Hispanic, as a potential illegal? Lets be serious here. If your here LEGALLY show you drivers license or other government issued ID and move along.

Because I’m white, every time I go to the bank they make me show my drivers license if I want to take money out of “MY” bank account. My civil rights are being violated.

New Patriot on May 3, 2010 at 9:20 AM

They pushed this through haphazardly without thinking just like the dirty socialists do and the doofus governor signed it without thinking in her daft little politically desperate head.

I’m not impressed with these Arizona losers.

happyfeet on April 30, 2010 at 10:59 AM

happydouche,

I suggest you use your happy appendages to carry your sorry ass to the country just below our southern border. When you get there, demand free health care, subsidized housing, food stamps, SSI, education, and whatever else they’re giving away down there in exchange for your lifetime vote.

Adios, now vamoose!!

Sweet_Thang on May 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Some had permits to demonstrate, others not. And the “peaceful” pro-illegal aliens and pro-criminal demonstrations broke into violence.

And the When they were going home, MinuteMen who had silently stood their ground with permit and police protection given the San Franciscan crowds threatening them, were violently attacked near their cars, accosted and beaten by the pro-illegal thugs.

maverick muse on May 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3