President Obama

[AtticaFlinch]

Police routinely ask drivers if they are carrying weapons or narcotics, and request to search their vehicles.

Which is legal if they've had probablle cause to pull themover in the first place. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against this bill's implicit justification of being hispanic as being probable cause enough to be pulled over in the first place. There's a big difference between what I posit and what you're talking about.

I'm not saying whether that's right or not, but the questions raised seem similar to those raised by the Arizona law.

I just want to know why there's a widespread concern that harassing people because of their perceived race or nationality = bad.

Harassing people because of their attire or length of hair = who cares?

I don't think cops should harass people period. I don't think that should be a function of the police. I think the police should only be around to protect our civil liberties, and anything beyond that is a usurpation of power.

Just a few...you seem to be trying so hard to make it about race.

Considering it is about race (or actually just a census classification called "hispanic"), I didn't have to try too hard.

The border in question leads to an obvious assumption that most immigrants involved will be hispanic. So what? When Maine passes one we can then go nuts about profiling Nova Scotians? Those are some odd people though...

The progeria comment was about judging people visually. Whatever. The 4th amendment argument is a decent one to make and I think I'm with you there, but the race nonsense is just stretching it to be dramatic, in my opinion.

Oh good. You, me and Marksmu can all agree the bill targets Mexicans, we just disagree as to the motivations underpinning the targeting. I say the Republicans in Arizona are xenophobic buttholes. You and he think they're merely being ultra-legalistic and either not terribly pragmatic or just plain retarded. Ok, fair enough. Six in one, half dozen in the other. Either way the bill is a turd.

[AtticaFlinch]

As the estimates of oil leaking from the broken well were quintupled, oil began washing ashore tonight.

http://abclocal.go.c...orld&id=7412867

Well...

This was my worst fear for this.

Why has capping this well proven to be so difficult? Does anyone know?

[20thStDad]

Oh good. You, me and Marksmu can all agree the bill targets Mexicans, we just disagree as to the motivations underpinning the targeting. I say the Republicans in Arizona are xenophobic buttholes. You and he think they're merely being ultra-legalistic and either not terribly pragmatic or just plain retarded. Ok, fair enough. Six in one, half dozen in the other. Either way the bill is a turd.

Yes it does target illegals, who may be hispanic. So what? Drinking laws target people under 21, who may be hispanic. Rabble rabble!

There's a difference between this

bill -----> illegals ------> hispanics, greeks, danes, brits, canadians, etc.

and this

bill -----> hispanics

You making the leap speaks to your hangups, not any that I have. Do you realize that most of the US citizens in the border towns are hispanic, even including the cops? Find your own data if you want to dispute that, I don't think it's worth my time to provide any. The key issue here has nothing to do with race, it's back to your valid point about probable cause and Red's point about effort/$ that will be put into this. It's illegal to be an illegal alien, that's pretty clear. Now we will just see if law enforcement can begin to develop some methods of noticing behavior that is indicative of illegals so they can attempt to enforce the law. "Looking hispanic" is not a realistic or practical method that could ever be successfully employed in that regard.

[AtticaFlinch]

Yes it does target illegals, who may be hispanic. So what? Drinking laws target people under 21, who may be hispanic. Rabble rabble!

There's a difference between this

bill -----> illegals ------> hispanics, greeks, danes, brits, canadians, etc.

and this

bill -----> hispanics

You making the leap speaks to your hangups, not any that I have. Do you realize that most of the US citizens in the border towns are hispanic, even including the cops? Find your own data if you want to dispute that, I don't think it's worth my time to provide any. The key issue here has nothing to do with race, it's back to your valid point about probable cause and Red's point about effort/$ that will be put into this. It's illegal to be an illegal alien, that's pretty clear. Now we will just see if law enforcement can begin to develop some methods of noticing behavior that is indicative of illegals so they can attempt to enforce the law. "Looking hispanic" is not a realistic or practical method that could ever be successfully employed in that regard.

I've said several times that the bill never explicitly promotes an organized Mexican roundup, and that the powers granted to the cops to illegally violate the fourth amendment rights of hispanics in the state of Arizona were granted implicitly. I also said the only way this law can be applied fairly, and not in a racist or xenophobic or whatever other way, would be to pull everybody over, regardless of whether or not they've committed a crime and regardless of their appearance (including your Greeks, Danes, Brits and Canadians). Of course, that's an impossible task, even more impossible than pulling over all the hispanics in the state, but it reeks no less of an abuse of power and an ever more pervasive police state. You're fine with that, I guess, but I'm not.

And, I'm certain if the big illegal immigration problem was with people who looked more like you, and this same authority was granted to cops to pull you over simply because of the way you look, you'd be a bit less devil-may-care about it. (And one thing you have to consider as a common-law nation, if this law holds water in the court system, a precedent will be set to legally persecute anyone based solely on appearance - Yee Haw! a return to the 50s!)

[Marksmu]

Oh good. You, me and Marksmu can all agree the bill targets Mexicans, we just disagree as to the motivations underpinning the targeting. I say the Republicans in Arizona are xenophobic buttholes. You and he think they're merely being ultra-legalistic and either not terribly pragmatic or just plain retarded. Ok, fair enough. Six in one, half dozen in the other. Either way the bill is a turd.

You dont like be called out for lying and intentionally attempting to deceive others by selectively choosing your statutes to post but, by god, we can call anyone who disagrees with you "retarded"

I post facts, you call us racists, and xenophobes...I show why your wrong, you say I had a disclaimer. You cant ever be wrong...you want to be able to call anyone anything, and then play the emotional race card, or lets not make this personal. Its sick.

Notice I treat Red with significantly more deference than I do for you?? Its because he responds intelligently using these things called facts, and backing up his stance with reason, not emotion. He may still think I am a racist xenophobe, but he is intelligent enough to know that calling someone that is actually counter-productive.

The majority of illegal immigrants are hispanics from Mexico. That is a fact. The majority of hispanics take more money out of this country than they put into it. That is another fact. I dont understand why it has to be about race to you. We are not saying we do not want them here because they are Hispanic....we are saying we dont want them here because they are a drain on the system.

The majority pay no income taxes. Many come here illegally to have kids here...They put those kids into our schools at our cost, while they pay nothing for it. They utilize our hospitals and pay nothing for it. The tiny amount of property tax funding for schools they do pay is a joke. Many cram 10 families under one roof, pay $200/month property tax and put 10 kids into our schools. That is still a huge loss for our public school system...A loss that those of us who are here legally have to bear. Employers pay a huge chunk to the local governments for education in their taxes, and when the companies employ illegals, they accept cash, they pay cash, and they run a whole shadow economy, the only person who is coming out ahead on that is the illegals. There are ancillary benefits to having more people here, but currently those benefits are FAR outweighed by the negative aspects.

[Marksmu]

And, I'm certain if the big illegal immigration problem was with people who looked more like you

Well, your wrong. I guess you will have to be "certain" about something else, because you are "certainly" wrong.

Its not about race, its not about maintaining the status quo of diversity, its not about becoming a minority in our country, its about pure and simple rules and economics. They are destroying the country. They are bankrupting huge sections of our state and local resources. They take out more than they put in, and they send their money earned here back to MEXICO...I dont see how that helps the United States.

They have no desire to become Americans, they want to be Mexicans, they want every benefit that the US has, but none of the responsibility...they just want Mexico to have the same opportunities as America. We are not like Mexico b/c we have laws and we have order. They are coming here and ignoring our laws and causing disorder....I dont know how much more clear I can be....its not about race at all.

[AtticaFlinch]

You dont like be called out for lying and intentionally attempting to deceive others by selectively choosing your statutes to post but, by god, we can call anyone who disagrees with you "retarded"

I post facts, you call us racists, and xenophobes...I show why your wrong, you say I had a disclaimer. You cant ever be wrong...you want to be able to call anyone anything, and then play the emotional race card, or lets not make this personal. Its sick.

Notice I treat Red with significantly more deference than I do for you?? Its because he responds intelligently using these things called facts, and backing up his stance with reason, not emotion. He may still think I am a racist xenophobe, but he is intelligent enough to know that calling someone that is actually counter-productive.

The majority of illegal immigrants are hispanics from Mexico. That is a fact. The majority of hispanics take more money out of this country than they put into it. That is another fact. I dont understand why it has to be about race to you. We are not saying we do not want them here because they are Hispanic....we are saying we dont want them here because they are a drain on the system.

The majority pay no income taxes. Many come here illegally to have kids here...They put those kids into our schools at our cost, while they pay nothing for it. They utilize our hospitals and pay nothing for it. The tiny amount of property tax funding for schools they do pay is a joke. Many cram 10 families under one roof, pay $200/month property tax and put 10 kids into our schools. That is still a huge loss for our public school system...A loss that those of us who are here legally have to bear. Employers pay a huge chunk to the local governments for education in their taxes, and when the companies employ illegals, they accept cash, they pay cash, and they run a whole shadow economy, the only person who is coming out ahead on that is the illegals. There are ancillary benefits to having more people here, but currently those benefits are FAR outweighed by the negative aspects.

Well, your wrong. I guess you will have to be "certain" about something else, because you are "certainly" wrong.

Its not about race, its not about maintaining the status quo of diversity, its not about becoming a minority in our country, its about pure and simple rules and economics. They are destroying the country. They are bankrupting huge sections of our state and local resources. They take out more than they put in, and they send their money earned here back to MEXICO...I dont see how that helps the United States.

They have no desire to become Americans, they want to be Mexicans, they want every benefit that the US has, but none of the responsibility...they just want Mexico to have the same opportunities as America. We are not like Mexico b/c we have laws and we have order. They are coming here and ignoring our laws and causing disorder....I dont know how much more clear I can be....its not about race at all.

She doth protest too much.

Notice I treat Red with significantly more deference than I do for you?? Its because he responds intelligently using these things called facts, and backing up his stance with reason, not emotion.

Then provide us with some facts to back up these claims you've just made.

And, I really couldn't care less how you treat me.

[AtticaFlinch]

You dont like be called out for lying and intentionally attempting to deceive others by selectively choosing your statutes to post...

And on this specious charge...

I must be a really lousy liar and deceiver considering I attached the entire bill to the post where I supposedly did my lying and deceiving about it.

Your ad hominem attack is lame and unfounded.

[august948]

Well...

This was my worst fear for this.

Why has capping this well proven to be so difficult? Does anyone know?

It's almost a mile down to the seabed there so it requires deep sea equipment just to reach the spot. Then you have to contend with the surrounding environment and the pressure at the well head. Capping a blowout isn't that easy on dry land, much less under these conditions.

[Jeebus]

There's a difference between this:

bill -----> illegals ------> hispanics, greeks, danes, brits, canadians, etc.

and this

bill -----> hispanics

What part of that do you not understand Attica?

[20thStDad]

I've said several times that the bill never explicitly promotes an organized Mexican roundup, and that the powers granted to the cops to illegally violate the fourth amendment rights of hispanics in the state of Arizona were granted implicitly. I also said the only way this law can be applied fairly, and not in a racist or xenophobic or whatever other way, would be to pull everybody over, regardless of whether or not they've committed a crime and regardless of their appearance (including your Greeks, Danes, Brits and Canadians). Of course, that's an impossible task, even more impossible than pulling over all the hispanics in the state, but it reeks no less of an abuse of power and an ever more pervasive police state. You're fine with that, I guess, but I'm not.

And, I'm certain if the big illegal immigration problem was with people who looked more like you, and this same authority was granted to cops to pull you over simply because of the way you look, you'd be a bit less devil-may-care about it. (And one thing you have to consider as a common-law nation, if this law holds water in the court system, a precedent will be set to legally persecute anyone based solely on appearance - Yee Haw! a return to the 50s!)

You assume that the only way to enforce this bill is to pull everyone over. Even if that was true, it's so infeasible that it would never happen. So, we're back to the point of law enforcement having to work on discovering ways that they can best identify illegals without them having to commit other crimes first. That's a challenge, but from your perspective I would think you see this as a good thing since it means the bill as-written will be impossible to enforce (i.e. not going to pull everyone over), and no one will be violated so there is no reason to be up in arms.

As for the impact on me, even if I was "targeted" as you say, I don't see it as a big deal. Here's how I see this going down:

Officer: Sir can I see some identification?

Me: Sure, here's my driver's license.

Officer: Ok thanks, have a nice day.

alternate scenario....

Officer (suspects the license is a fake): Do you have any other form of identification, this license appears to be a fake.

Me: Sure, here's my SS card with some credit cards to corroborate the name.

Officer: Ok thanks, have a nice day. (officer then decides whether to even bother with the fake ID issue)

alternate scenario...

Me: I don't have any ID, I'm just out running and I don't carry a wallet. My house is that way if you would like to bring me or follow me so I can show you some ID.

Officer: Ok thanks, have a nice day.

Where is the part where legal citizens get reamed? It's not that hard.

[dbigtex56]

I don't think cops should harass people period. I don't think that should be a function of the police. I think the police should only be around to protect our civil liberties, and anything beyond that is a usurpation of power.

And I'm sure that if you surveyed people nearly 100% would agree with you - so long as the survey was conducted among TDC inmates.

May I timidly suggest that the police might occasionally fight crime too? You know, so long as they hurt no ones feelings....

edit: Incidentally, this is w-a-a-y off topic. Chronicles of Obama, indeed!

[AtticaFlinch]

What part of that do you not understand Attica?

Why is it difficult for you to understand my beef with this law is that it embodies an erosion of constitutionally protected liberties? The Mexican and other hispanics in Arizona just happen to be the victim today, but there's no telling who the hate du jour crowd will target tomorrow. We need to tone down the veiled racist (or xenophobic) rhetoric and return to the reason this country was founded on.

You assume that the only way to enforce this bill is to pull everyone over. Even if that was true, it's so infeasible that it would never happen. So, we're back to the point of law enforcement having to work on discovering ways that they can best identify illegals without them having to commit other crimes first. That's a challenge, but from your perspective I would think you see this as a good thing since it means the bill as-written will be impossible to enforce (i.e. not going to pull everyone over), and no one will be violated so there is no reason to be up in arms.

So long as it's applied (or not applied) evenly, then I suppose I'd have no problem with it. The only thing is, this is one of those nasty little laws that'll rear its ugly head at random and strictly at the cop's discretion. And that's not without precedent. Remember how that anti-sodomy law was applied against that gay Austin couple about five years back? Now imagine if they applied the same law to every person they suspected of being gay, broke their doors in and hauled them off to county jail - simply on suspicion of being gay. Sodomy was, afterall, against the law. And if they'd had no need for real probable cause other than suspicion, what would have stopped them from terrorizing the entire gay community? Frankly, not having enough resources to commit a massive violation of fourth amendment rights against many people simultaneously isn't reassurance enough for me.

No, I'd just rather not have the law on the books in the first place.

And I'm sure that if you surveyed people nearly 100% would agree with you - so long as the survey was conducted among TDC inmates.

Only inmates are concerned with the ever-increasing police state?

I mean, I have no doubt they are concerned with it, considering many of them are themselves victims of draconian drug laws or otherwise that criminalizes our very humanity.

I'm not going to take the high-and-mighty approach here. I break laws all the time. I just tend to get caught considerably less than others (or have had very good luck once caught). But, I doubt only inmates are the only ones concerned with the rise of the new Gestapo. (Yeah, I took it down the Godwin highway.) Who here has never broken a law? I say if you've never violated any laws then, and only then, can you ride this legalistic high horse. Only if you've never broken a law will your cries of "But it's illegal for them to be here!" be nothing more than a disingenuous canard.

(And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, that last sentence wasn't directed at anyone in particular. No, I'm not directly calling you a racist.)

[dbigtex56]

Remember how that anti-sodomy law was applied against that gay Austin couple about five years back? Now imagine if they applied the same law to every person they suspected of being gay, broke their doors in and hauled them off to county jail - simply on suspicion of being gay.

Is this the incident to which you refer? Just to clarify:

In Lawrence vs. Texas, two gay men say the state of Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having sex in a Houston home.

A neighbor had reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence, and when police arrived they only found two men having sex. Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the state’s Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.

Sodomy Laws

The Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003, so I'm mystified as to what happened with "that gay Austin couple about five years back".

[TheNiche]

I mean, I have no doubt they are concerned with it, considering many of them are themselves victims of draconian drug laws or otherwise that criminalizes our very humanity.

I don't doubt that the "war on drugs" has affected the number of people who are imprisoned. But do you think that there might also be other factors at play, such as that there are so many more prison beds than there used to be, thereby giving more leeway for severer sentencing or for denial of parole than there would otherwise be?

But what does this have to do with illegal immigration, anyways?

[AtticaFlinch]

Is this the incident to which you refer? Just to clarify:

In Lawrence vs. Texas, two gay men say the state of Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having sex in a Houston home.

A neighbor had reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence, and when police arrived they only found two men having sex. Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the state’s Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.

Sodomy Laws

The Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003, so I'm mystified as to what happened with "that gay Austin couple about five years back".

That could very well be it. I may be off by a few years, and I lived in Austin when it was working its way through the court system which may be why I've associated Austin with the story in my memory.

[AtticaFlinch]

I don't doubt that the "war on drugs" has affected the number of people who are imprisoned. But do you think that there might also be other factors at play, such as that there are so many more prison beds than there used to be, thereby giving more leeway for severer sentencing or for denial of parole than there would otherwise be?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

According to evolutionary ideas, the egg had to come first. According to creationism, the chicken had to come first.

Pick one that makes more sense to you logically and go with it.

But what does this have to do with illegal immigration, anyways?

Beats me. Dbigtex appeared to suggest that only criminals were concerned with the encroaching police state. My response is, in a nutshell, that we're all criminals, and that many of those now in prison are there because laws are getting more restrictive which justifies their concern.

[20thStDad]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

According to evolutionary ideas, the egg had to come first. According to creationism, the chicken had to come first.

Pick one that makes more sense to you logically and go with it.

I figure evolutionism says that some precursor to the chicken came first, which eventually evolved beyond mitosis to a better form of reproduction.

[ricco67]

I figure evolutionism says that some precursor to the chicken came first, which eventually evolved beyond mitosis to a better form of reproduction.

Well, since chickens are evolved from lizard, which are themselves egg layers, wouldn't that mean that the egg came first?

[AtticaFlinch]

Well, since chickens are evolved from lizard, which are themselves egg layers, wouldn't that mean that the egg came first?

While it's absolutely impossible to pinpoint one single bird that was the very first chicken, it stands to logic if there was one single first chicken, established as a separate species from its parents, it would have to have hatched from the egg that was the first chicken egg.

20thStDad, this ^^ was a silly argument.

[20thStDad]

While it's absolutely impossible to pinpoint one single bird that was the very first chicken, it stands to logic if there was one single first chicken, established as a separate species from its parents, it would have to have hatched from the egg that was the first chicken egg.

20thStDad, this ^^ was a silly argument.

Yep

[dbigtex56]

I don't think cops should harass people period. I don't think that should be a function of the police. I think the police should only be around to protect our civil liberties, and anything beyond that is a usurpation of power.

And I'm sure that if you surveyed people nearly 100% would agree with you - so long as the survey was conducted among TDC inmates.

Only inmates are concerned with the ever-increasing police state?

Dbigtex appeared to suggest that only criminals were concerned with the encroaching police state. My response is, in a nutshell, that we're all criminals, and that many of those now in prison are there because laws are getting more restrictive which justifies their concern.

If dbigtex appeared to suggest such a thing, it's news to him. Perhaps I'm not understanding your remark "police should only be around to protect our civil liberties." I'm of the opinion that they should also protect us from criminals- and if you aver that there's no such thing as a criminal, I find you delightfully naive.

[AtticaFlinch]

Perhaps I'm not understanding your remark "police should only be around to protect our civil liberties." I'm of the opinion that they should also protect us from criminals...

And in protecting your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, do not find the same mandate implied?

Perhaps this disconnect is in how we define criminality. It appears you're basing your definition on the letter of the law, whereas I think as long as someone isn't hurting another person, they should be allowed to do pretty much whatever it is they want to do. I hold libertarian views on individual liberty within the social construct, but this doesn't mean I think criminals should go unpunished, just that many people now considered criminals shouldn't be considered as such.

So forcing, or even merely allowing, cops to violate the fourth amendment of the constitution is a usurpation of power.

Next time I'll try to remember you're not along for the ride within my head, and I'll walk you along from point A to points B and C before arriving at point D.

[Jeebus]

So forcing, or even merely allowing, cops to violate the fourth amendment of the constitution is a usurpation of power.

The 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Well, "probable cause" seems to be the hang up, which could be argued indefinitely. Perhaps this would be a better question, as it seeks a resolution: If you don't agree with this law, then how should illegals be treated? Should they be allowed to continue to drain our resources indefinitely? Do you think that this is at least a small reason (where as us who are in favor of the bill see it as the main reason, with terrorism prevention as a close second) that this law has passed? Or are you going to stick to your guns that the 70% of polled voters in Arizona who approve this bill are all just racists?

Since I asked the question, I'll volunteer to answer it. I think FEDERALLY we need a fence, on top of a wall, behind a moat, with armed guards, the entire length of the USA/Mexico border. Once that is done, I think we should offer amnesty one last time to all those here illegally who have no criminal record (felony offenses). Get your name on a list and get an ID card. One year after that, then we start enforcing the laws on the books, as Arizona is attempting to do. The reason I'm okay with Arizona skipping to the last step is because THEIR federal government has forgotten them for as long as this has been a problem - and this has been a problem since way before Obama, and they are ALL to blame.

But just like a flat or fair tax, private investing for social security, real medicare/medicaide reform or bi-partisan patriotism based politics, it will never happen. We're just gonna keep putting bandaides on our blood soaked bandaides.

[Fringe]

And that's the problem. Our Federal Government is NOT doing it's job of protecting our borders so we have to pass our own ridiculous laws. 

[AtticaFlinch]

Perhaps this would be a better question, as it seeks a resolution: If you don't agree with this law, then how should illegals be treated?

Not sure. Frankly, I don't think the problem posed by illegals is as big as some (many) people are making it out to be. I think the reason it's on all our radars right now is because it allows the Democrats and the Republicans to distinguish themselves from one another and to take the focus off our crappy economy in the build-up to the 2010 midterm elections. I think after November 2010 has passed, nobody will mention illegal immigration again until around February or March of 2012. Illegal immigration is just another in a long line of pet issues that serve for nothing but to give the American voters the illusion of choice at the polls. There is little to distinguish the two parties except for the lip service they pay immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc...

But, in a serious answer to your question, I actually think George W's plan of gradual amnesty was spot on. One of the big complaints about illegal immigrants is that there's no loyalty to the US, but if they all had an opportunity to become citizens eventually, through good works and staying out of trouble, then that complaint would go away. Oddly, Republicans were the ones apposed to it. I wonder why.*

Or are you going to stick to your guns that the 70% of polled voters in Arizona who approve this bill are all just racists?

I think most of those 70% don't grasp the legal implications of this law. I think most of that 70% blindly think what they're told to think. I don't think that all of that 70% are racists and xenophobes, though certainly some are. However, I do think the lawmakers who crafted this bill and the lawmakers who sold this bill to the public are racists and xenophobes. Every one of them.

We're just gonna keep putting bandaides on our blood soaked bandaides.

It'll eventually coagulate and heal on it's own.

* I really don't.

[RedScare]

The 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Well, "probable cause" seems to be the hang up, which could be argued indefinitely. Perhaps this would be a better question, as it seeks a resolution: If you don't agree with this law, then how should illegals be treated? Should they be allowed to continue to drain our resources indefinitely? Do you think that this is at least a small reason (where as us who are in favor of the bill see it as the main reason, with terrorism prevention as a close second) that this law has passed? Or are you going to stick to your guns that the 70% of polled voters in Arizona who approve this bill are all just racists?

Since I asked the question, I'll volunteer to answer it. I think FEDERALLY we need a fence, on top of a wall, behind a moat, with armed guards, the entire length of the USA/Mexico border. Once that is done, I think we should offer amnesty one last time to all those here illegally who have no criminal record (felony offenses). Get your name on a list and get an ID card. One year after that, then we start enforcing the laws on the books, as Arizona is attempting to do. The reason I'm okay with Arizona skipping to the last step is because THEIR federal government has forgotten them for as long as this has been a problem - and this has been a problem since way before Obama, and they are ALL to blame.

But just like a flat or fair tax, private investing for social security, real medicare/medicaide reform or bi-partisan patriotism based politics, it will never happen. We're just gonna keep putting bandaides on our blood soaked bandaides.

And that's the problem. Our Federal Government is NOT doing it's job of protecting our borders so we have to pass our own ridiculous laws.

Actually, "probable cause" is a concept that has been debated, defined and refined by courts, both state and federal, for decades. It is a well defined term in the legal world. So is "reasonable suspicion". The Arizona statute has brought these terms out of the courtrooms and into the realm of public debate, and therefore, into the dialogue of those who are not familiar with the long line of court cases that define the terms. I deal with these definitions virtually every single day. But, most of the people debating the Arizona law (on BOTH sides) do not. Even non-criminal lawyers often confuse the terms and define them incorrectly. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are not interchangeable, yet I see them used routinely as the same thing.

I don't blame the non-criminal lawyers for not knowing the exact definitions. When a brick mason starts talking about bull-headers and soldier rows, I have to look up those terms myself. However, large numbers of people are forming opinions on the constitutionality of this law based on the blogged opinions of non-lawyers, and much of the legal analysis is flat wrong. To be honest, I am not too concerned with the way that the police enforce the law. If they follow the suggestions of some of the non-legal opinions I've read, Arizona will simply be sued out of existence. And, as I stated earlier, Arizona taxpayers are about to get a cruel lesson in the costs associated with arresting, and incarcerating large numbers of people in addition to the usual criminals they round up. It will bankrupt them (an example can be found in Texas regarding drivers with suspended drivers licenses. There are so many out there that most big cities refuse to arrest them anymore. They simply write them a ticket and tow their car).

I am more concerned with the ramifications of individual states deciding to take over federal responsibilities. While the anti-immigrant crowd sees no problem with it on the issue of immigration, once usurpation of federal powers is allowed once (known as setting precedent), where will it end? Will states be able to field armies and navies if they deem the federal military to have not done its job (note that the State National Guards currently answer to the President as Commander In Chief)? Will states begin regulating their borders with other states (for example, what if Arizona decides that other states that do not round up illegals cannot be trusted to have an open border with Arizona)? Will they enter trade agreements with other countries in competition with the United States? Will they issue their own currency? It could easily spiral out of control, once the precedent is set.

I look forward to the legal debate on this issue, as well as the attempt by Arizona to actually carry out the mandate they have enacted upon themselves.

[AtticaFlinch]

I am more concerned with the ramifications of individual states deciding to take over federal responsibilities.

Not me. That question has already been resolved. Precedent already exists to address your concern.

[VicMan]

I agree that money is among the most important aspects of keeping a state of a city afloat, and Arizona may not have considered how trying to enforce this law could hurt state finances.

As you know, the City-Data forums have a lot of the people who supported the Arizona law talking on the illegal immigration forum. I liked your point, so I decided to start a new thread on City-Data and quoted a snippet of your post: http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration/964575-will-trying-enforce-new-law-bankrupt.html#post13990781

So let's see the pro-Arizona law crowd explain this one.

I don't blame the non-criminal lawyers for not knowing the exact definitions. When a brick mason starts talking about bull-headers and soldier rows, I have to look up those terms myself. However, large numbers of people are forming opinions on the constitutionality of this law based on the blogged opinions of non-lawyers, and much of the legal analysis is flat wrong. To be honest, I am not too concerned with the way that the police enforce the law. If they follow the suggestions of some of the non-legal opinions I've read, Arizona will simply be sued out of existence. And, as I stated earlier, Arizona taxpayers are about to get a cruel lesson in the costs associated with arresting, and incarcerating large numbers of people in addition to the usual criminals they round up. It will bankrupt them (an example can be found in Texas regarding drivers with suspended drivers licenses. There are so many out there that most big cities refuse to arrest them anymore. They simply write them a ticket and tow their car).

[LTAWACS]

Why is it so expensive? I dont understand. Take them to the border and that's it. Get them out of here.