Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[jonboltz]

So, according to LHUCKS, by stopping Maria the housecleaner in Phoenix

This isn't the type of person the police officers will target.

 

[timschochet]

For the one thousandth time, this isn't promoting racism

You can say it a million times if you want. Doesn't change anything.

 

[LHUCKS]

So, according to LHUCKS, by stopping Maria the housecleaner in Phoenix

This isn't the type of person the police officers will target.

How do you know?

Because civic leaders have consistently stated that their officers will be trained on targeting certain attributes that are warning signs...maria cleaning a house is not going to be a targeted attribute...she doesn't match the intent of this law.We're trying to get rid of the troublemakers, not just any brown person.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I am saying that draconian laws promoting racism (never mind being totally unconstitutional) are not the answer.

For the one thousandth time, this isn't promoting racism, this is an anti-illegals law.

The majority of immigrants, legal or not, are decent people.

Every Arizonan I know agrees with this...but that doesn't solve our problem.

Dude.....how can you not think this will not promote profiling???Man....I did some volunteer work (court ordered) at the Mexican cathedral to Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denver a few years ago. The dude I worked with had just come here....legally. He could barely speak English and we used to work on his English while we worked. He was working on getting the rest of his family here legally. He was a very great guy. He worked construction during the day.Do you honestly think a guy who barely spoke English and worked construction during the day wouldn't be targetted by this?ETA: He worked there after hours.....he wasn't court-ordered

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

So, according to LHUCKS, by stopping Maria the housecleaner in Phoenix

This isn't the type of person the police officers will target.

How do you know?

Because civic leaders have consistently stated that their officers will be trained on targeting certain attributes that are warning signs...maria cleaning a house is not going to be a targeted attribute...she doesn't match the intent of this law.We're trying to get rid of the troublemakers, not just any brown person.

And we all know police officers always use their training the best they can and never use excuses for searching anyone.

 

[timschochet]

Here is some information on the writer of the law, legislator Russell Pearce. This comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Forced out as an Arizona state representative after eight years because of term limits, immigrant-bashing legislator Russell Pearce was elected to the state Senate in November, 2008. A Republican from Mesa, Pearce defeated his Democratic opponent by getting 56% of the vote.

Several months before the election, Pearce wrote a letter to Glenn Spencer's anti-immigrant hate website, americanpatrol.com, seeking $5 contributions. His campaign also received money from Rusty Childress, a Phoenix car dealer and president of United for a Sovereign America, a hard-line nativist extremist group; Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps; and Al Rodriguez, a retired Army colonel who heads You Don't Speak For Me!, a group bankrolled by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Simcox and Rodriguez also served on Pearce's campaign committee.

Pearce is the former deputy sheriff who E-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters in October 2005. After he was lambasted for that remarkable move, he claimed that he hadn't read the screed in its entirety. He once dismissed critics of his use of the word "*******" as "sissies."

Pearce latched onto immigration hard as an Arizona legislator, co-authoring an initiative to ban the use of Spanish in most official communications. The state legislature in 2007 passed his bill that provided for the suspension of a business's license if it was caught knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. A second offense within five years results in permanent revocation.

Arizona business groups opposed the law and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to a proposition on the November ballot that would have loosened its requirements. It was soundly defeated, so in essence Pearce scored two election victories. "We've got a great, smart electorate here in Arizona," he said.

Russell Pearce promises to continue to push for tough anti-immigrant legislation as a state senator. "I will not back off until we solve the problem of this illegal invasion," he told National Public Radio last year. "Invaders, that's what they are. Invaders on the American sovereignty, and it can't be tolerated."

 

[LHUCKS]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I am saying that draconian laws promoting racism (never mind being totally unconstitutional) are not the answer.

For the one thousandth time, this isn't promoting racism, this is an anti-illegals law.

The majority of immigrants, legal or not, are decent people.

Every Arizonan I know agrees with this...but that doesn't solve our problem.

Dude.....how can you not think this will not promote profiling???

It will promote profiling for illegal aliens, not Mexicans...big difference.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I am saying that draconian laws promoting racism (never mind being totally unconstitutional) are not the answer.

For the one thousandth time, this isn't promoting racism, this is an anti-illegals law.

The majority of immigrants, legal or not, are decent people.

Every Arizonan I know agrees with this...but that doesn't solve our problem.

Dude.....how can you not think this will not promote profiling???

It will promote profiling for illegal aliens, not Mexicans...big difference.

WTF?????????ETA: You're ####### ######ed

 

[LHUCKS]

Here is some information on the writer of the law, legislator Russell Pearce.

He is a moron, and I'm not surprised given his district.That being said, this law got a lot of support from more moderate districts.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I am saying that draconian laws promoting racism (never mind being totally unconstitutional) are not the answer.

For the one thousandth time, this isn't promoting racism, this is an anti-illegals law.

The majority of immigrants, legal or not, are decent people.

Every Arizonan I know agrees with this...but that doesn't solve our problem.

Dude.....how can you not think this will not promote profiling???

It will promote profiling for illegal aliens, not Mexicans...big difference.

This makes perfect sense. Well done.

 

[timschochet]

Here is some information on the writer of the law, legislator Russell Pearce.

He is a moron, and I'm not surprised given his district.That being said, this law got a lot of support from more moderate districts.

It certainly did. 70% of Arizonans support this law. Around the nation, 60% of Americans support it. I think (hope) this is because they don't really realize what the law entails. But I acknowledge that my own views about immigration are in the minority and likely always will be.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.And protecting Arizonans from drug cartels is worth every penny.

So the resouces of the collective should go to fighting the bottom feeding leeches who take more than they give?Because that's pretty much the scenario with pumping federal funds to az to fight this issue.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

Here is some information on the writer of the law, legislator Russell Pearce.

He is a moron, and I'm not surprised given his district.That being said, this law got a lot of support from more moderate districts.

It certainly did. 70% of Arizonans support this law. Around the nation, 60% of Americans support it. I think (hope) this is because they don't really realize what the law entails. But I acknowledge that my own views about immigration are in the minority and likely always will be.

Tim, your views on immigration are your brightest star.

 

[LHUCKS]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.And protecting Arizonans from drug cartels is worth every penny.

So the resouces of the collective should go to fighting the bottom feeding leeches who take more than they give?Because that's pretty much the scenario with pumping federal funds to az to fight this issue.

Um...AZ wouldn't be the ones pressing the legal battle...that would be the liberals.

 

[Desert_Power]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.

So much for pretending you care about the deficit.

 

[LHUCKS]

Here is some information on the writer of the law, legislator Russell Pearce.

He is a moron, and I'm not surprised given his district.That being said, this law got a lot of support from more moderate districts.

It certainly did. 70% of Arizonans support this law. Around the nation, 60% of Americans support it. .

Now what do you think the reasons for that are??

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.And protecting Arizonans from drug cartels is worth every penny.

So the resources of the collective should go to fighting the bottom feeding leeches who take more than they give?Because that's pretty much the scenario with pumping federal funds to az to fight this issue.

The guy who has proclaimed loudly over the past few months about being "fiscally conservative," now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

 

[LHUCKS]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.

So much for pretending you care about the deficit.

For the second time, AZ wouldn't be the entity that would be legally challenging the law, the liberals/ACLU will be the ones initiating litigation...put the wasted legal fees on them, not Arizona.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.And protecting Arizonans from drug cartels is worth every penny.

So the resouces of the collective should go to fighting the bottom feeding leeches who take more than they give?Because that's pretty much the scenario By with pumping federal funds to az to fight this issue.

by your own admission, enforcement will be federally funded, so now we can all inheret your budget shortfallUm...AZ wouldn't be the ones pressing the legal battle...that would be the liberals.

 

[Spuds_McKenzie]

So, according to LHUCKS, by stopping Maria the housecleaner in Phoenix

This isn't the type of person the police officers will target.

How do you know? Does the law say who will be targeted and who won't? It says anyone suspected of being an illegal alien. If I were looking for illegals, housecleaning is one of the first places I would look.

Thank god you're not running the operations. Yikes.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.

So much for pretending you care about the deficit.

For the second time, AZ wouldn't be the entity that would be legally challenging the law, the liberals/ACLU will be the ones initiating litigation...put the wasted legal fees on them, not Arizona.

But AZ would be guilty by proxy, yes?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You would think that given the wide array of topics discussed at FBG LHUCKS would be knowledgeable in at least one of them. He's doing the mathematically improbable, basically treating knowledge as if it were the powerball lottery.

 

[LHUCKS]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Ooh Ooh! Bring up the murdered rancher! Like, man, NO ONE has heard of this one!!!!

 

[LHUCKS]

So, according to LHUCKS, by stopping Maria the housecleaner in Phoenix

This isn't the type of person the police officers will target.

How do you know? Does the law say who will be targeted and who won't? It says anyone suspected of being an illegal alien. If I were looking for illegals, housecleaning is one of the first places I would look.

Thank god you're not running the operations. Yikes.

Tim is making the mistake of interpreting the law for the worst instead of the best....classic ACLU approach.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

So, according to LHUCKS, by stopping Maria the housecleaner in Phoenix

This isn't the type of person the police officers will target.

How do you know? Does the law say who will be targeted and who won't? It says anyone suspected of being an illegal alien. If I were looking for illegals, housecleaning is one of the first places I would look.

Thank god you're not running the operations. Yikes.

Tim is making the mistake of interpreting the law for the worst instead of the best....classic ACLU approach.

No.....interpreting the law for the worst is being realistic.

 

[LHUCKS]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Ooh Ooh! Bring up the murdered rancher! Like, man, NO ONE has heard of this one!!!!

Like man, did you read the Doctor Detroit's ridiculous statement that I just quoted.I'm done here tonight...too much intellect for me to handle.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Juarez a much more volatile place had 2500 murders last year. El Paso is the 2nd safest city in the U.S. with a population over 500k. There is no reason to start a war on this side, after the drugs are through they are distributed and a long way from Arizona before anyone knows. Chicago is exponentially more dangerous than any place in Arizona, so are most big cities in the U.S. No reason to give Arizona a dime to protect from drug cartels.

Peddle your bs somewhere else Clucks.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Ooh Ooh! Bring up the murdered rancher! Like, man, NO ONE has heard of this one!!!!

Like man, did you read the Doctor Detroit's ridiculous statement that I just quoted.I'm done here tonight...too much intellect for me to handle.

If you can't handle intellect God only knows why you continue to post anywhere on the internet.......4chan included!

 

[LHUCKS]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Juarez a much more volatile place had 2500 murders last year. El Paso is the 2nd safest city in the U.S. with a population over 500k.

Okay, what does that have to do with AZ's rapidly increasing rate of violent crimes attributed to illegal aliens, including the one I provided a link for?

 

[dickey moe]

So people know, in AZ we are currently cutting teachers, firefighters and policemen.We simply don't have the resources.

That's a great reason to violate the constitution.

Question -- is the failure of the federal government to enforce immigration laws a violation of the Constitution?

 

[LHUCKS]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Ooh Ooh! Bring up the murdered rancher! Like, man, NO ONE has heard of this one!!!!

Like man, did you read the Doctor Detroit's ridiculous statement that I just quoted.I'm done here tonight...too much intellect for me to handle.

If you can't handle intellect

that was sarcasm, ace.

 

[Shirtless]

The rampant xenophobia that oozes out of this bill and its supporters is absolutely ludicrous. This isn't about legality. This is about "the face of America."

In the past 3-4 years, the rhetoric about illegal immigration has progressed as such:

1) Taking American jobs

2) Sucking up resources like health care and education

3) Committing crimes

4) Bringing in drug cartels

5) “They vandalize the golf course, throwing flags in the ponds. Burglaries. There are too many immigrants. I get tired of seeing all these people standing on the corner.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26immig.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us&src=me)

6) "The culture is being destroyed. You call anywhere, it's 'Push one for English, two for Spanish.' All it does is make it easier for people to live here once they sneak into the country" said Gary Arbitter, who supports the new law and carried the "Silent no more" sign. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042600226_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010042601130)

Arguments #1 and #2 are specious. #3 and #4 are completely unproven except for personal anecdotes. #5 and #6 are just disgusting.

I've said this in a previous post -- I truly believe the vast majority of people who make a big deal about illegal immigration also dislike legal immigration. However, they don't have much ground on which to stand to protest immigration in general, so they express their xenophobic feelings behind a farce of protesting illegal immigration instead. It's so sad.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Juarez a much more volatile place had 2500 murders last year. El Paso is the 2nd safest city in the U.S. with a population over 500k.

Okay, what does that have to do with AZ's rapidly increasing rate of violent crimes attributed to illegal aliens, including the one I provided a link for?

I was responding to your drug cartel post Greenspan. The internet isn't this hard.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

that was sarcasm, ace.

mine wasn't

 

[LHUCKS]

now wants to dump a bunch of money into fighting drug cartels who are doing about as much damage in the state as roadrunners are.

Uh, no.LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Juarez a much more volatile place had 2500 murders last year. El Paso is the 2nd safest city in the U.S. with a population over 500k.

Okay, what does that have to do with AZ's rapidly increasing rate of violent crimes attributed to illegal aliens, including the one I provided a link for?

I was responding to your drug cartel post Greenspan. The internet isn't this hard.

Clearly, my point was that your arguments have little to nothing to do with AZ's problems. I don't care if Chicago is undergoing a civil war, AZ has it's own problems and we're trying to fix them.

 

[LHUCKS]

#3 and #4 are completely unproven except for personal anecdotes.

Ummm no.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

Clearly, my point was that your arguments have little to nothing to do with AZ's problems. I don't care if Chicago is undergoing a civil war, AZ has it's own problems and we're trying to fix them.

and yet one of your talking points was that this would consume federal dollars......i think that includes everyone.............sport

 

[Shirtless]

#3 and #4 are completely unproven except for personal anecdotes.

Ummm no.

Sigh. OK, I'll bite. Show me that illegal immigrants are causing significantly more crime than everybody else. Better yet, after this law passes, show me that the the illegal immigrant drug lords are going to be standing on the street corner with the day laborers so they can be rounded up by the immigration gestapo.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Uh, no.

LINK for those who have no idea what's going on in this state.

Juarez a much more volatile place had 2500 murders last year. El Paso is the 2nd safest city in the U.S. with a population over 500k.

Okay, what does that have to do with AZ's rapidly increasing rate of violent crimes attributed to illegal aliens, including the one I provided a link for?

I was responding to your drug cartel post Greenspan. The internet isn't this hard.

Clearly, my point was that your arguments have little to nothing to do with AZ's problems. I don't care if Chicago is undergoing a civil war, AZ has it's own problems and we're trying to fix them.

Clearly you're really bad at geography also as I explained that El Paso is right ####### across the border from the biggest issue in North America. If it doesn't negatively effect El Paso, all your about drug cartels being a problem in AZ is bull####. Basically you are wrong here, I applied logic which you have none of, and now you are trying to steer the argument and it's failing miserably. Just like everything else you ever try to discuss.

 

[LHUCKS]

Clearly, my point was that your arguments have little to nothing to do with AZ's problems. I don't care if Chicago is undergoing a civil war, AZ has it's own problems and we're trying to fix them.

and yet one of your talking points was that this would consume federal dollars....

No, that's not one of my talking points...it was a subtopic based on a false premise mentioned by Timschochet.

 

[LHUCKS]

#3 and #4 are completely unproven except for personal anecdotes.

Ummm no.

Sigh. OK, I'll bite. Show me that illegal immigrants are causing significantly more crime than everybody else.

Disproportionate, not "more"...big difference.

 

[Shirtless]

#3 and #4 are completely unproven except for personal anecdotes.

Ummm no.

Sigh. OK, I'll bite. Show me that illegal immigrants are causing significantly more crime than everybody else.

Disproportionate, not "more"...big difference.

Again, show me.

 

[Desert_Power]

Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.

Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.

So much for pretending you care about the deficit.

For the second time, AZ wouldn't be the entity that would be legally challenging the law, the liberals/ACLU will be the ones initiating litigation...put the wasted legal fees on them, not Arizona.

So in your mind, Arizona can enact an unconstitutional(and immoral) law while blaming the costs of enforcing it on liberals/ACLU?Just pure idiocy.

 

[LHUCKS]

Basically you are wrong here, I applied logic which you have none of, and now you are trying to steer the argument and it's failing miserably. Just like everything else you ever try to discuss.

Unless you change your tone and start behaving like an adult, I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[Radical Larry]

Basically you are wrong here, I applied logic which you have none of, and now you are trying to steer the argument and it's failing miserably. Just like everything else you ever try to discuss.

Unless you change your tone and start behaving like an adult, I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Basically you are wrong here, I applied logic which you have none of, and now you are trying to steer the argument and it's failing miserably. Just like everything else you ever try to discuss.

Unless you change your tone and start behaving like an adult, I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion with you.

So basically you are admitting you hadn't heard of the city of El Paso prior to 15 minutes ago? Good enough for me.

 

[videoguy505]

What's the legal basis for ACLU's beef?

Might as well answer this myself, dug this up:http://www.acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20...d%204-14-10.pdf

Will for later.

ETA: initial skim shows a few 'this is unnecessary because there's already a federal law for it' things, but some of their items of dispute are interesting angles.

The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders and, with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration. Page 3. I've heard this in the past with other local laws, but am not certain if this has been used strike any of them down.

Gonna continue to preface with "I'm not a lawyerguy":

I guess the counter-interpretation is that this isn't a new law created by the state of Arizona. It's an existing Federal law that aliens must carry their paperwork at all times. But honestly I don't know the precedents for a state co-opting a federal law. It's an interesting argument but one I'm not sure matters that much... State & local police are allowed to arrest people who have committed federal crimes. Deleting this section would still mean people could be prosecuted for violating the already-existing federal statute.

[Edit: another half-hour thinking about this, and I'd say there's more merit to the ACLU's position than I initially gave it credit for. Federal statue names both the crime and the punishment, and I think Arizona might lack the authority to change the punishment. Not a lawyer. It'll be interesting to see if this part of the challenge holds up, and if just this section would be struck down or the entire law. And, if not the entire law, what teeth it would have left without this section, if the assertion about part E (ACLU challenging per Gonzales v. City of Peoria) also goes the ACLU's way.]

Now, I'm not going to jump into LHUCKS's idiocy/fishing and those that jumped on the bait, other than reply to:

It certainly did. 70% of Arizonans support this law. Around the nation, 60% of Americans support it. I think (hope) this is because they don't really realize what the law entails. But I acknowledge that my own views about immigration are in the minority and likely always will be.

Tim, with the depressing lack of discussion in this thread on the real facts of what's actually in this law, and how you and others have turned it into an argument of policies that are either impractical, farcical, or just totally irrelevant, either the entire FFA has me on ignore, or, no one really realizes what's in this law. And I mean both the people arguing for it or against it. And, for that matter, the media too, which hasn't accurately or in any detailed way explained it. Some of you want absolutely no border restrictions at all. Others want to argue for giant concrete walls and armed guards on watchtowers. Whatever. It's irrelevant to this law, but to continue to bring it up when arguing the law makes no sense and doesn't further your point.

 

[Desert_Power]

http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle

If you regularly listen to talk radio, or get your crime news from anti-immigration pundits, all of this may come as a surprise. But it's not to many of those who study crime for a living. As the national immigration debate heated up in 2007, dozens of academics who specialize in the issue sent a letter (pdf) to then President George W. Bush and congressional leaders with the following point:

Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that, in fact, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be behind bars than are the native-born. This is true for the nation as a whole, as well as for cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami, and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border such as San Diego and El Paso.

One of the signatories was Rubén G. Rumbaut, a sociologist who studies immigration at the University of California, Irvine. Rumbaut recently presented a paper on immigration and crime to a Washington, D.C. conference sponsored by the Police Foundation. Rumbaut writes via email, "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the same conclusion: Rates of crime and conviction for undocumented immigrants are far below those for the native born, and that is especially the case for violent crimes, including murder."

Opponents of illegal immigration usually do little more than cite andecdotes attempting to link illegal immigration to violent crime. When they do try to use statistics, they come up short. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), for example, has perpetuated the popular myth that illegal immigrants murder 12 Americans per day, and kill another 13 by driving drunk. King says his figures come from a Government Accountability Office study he requested, which found that about 27 percent of inmates in the federal prison system are non-citizens. Colorado Media Matters looked into King's claim, and found his methodology lacking. King appears to have conjured his talking point by simply multiplying the annual number of murders and DWI fatalities in America by 27 percent. Of course, the GAO report only looked at federal prisons, not the state prisons and local jails where most convicted murderers and DWI offenders are kept. The Bureau of Justice Statistics puts the number of non-citizens (including legal immigrants) in state, local, and federal prisons and jails at about 6.4 percent (pdf). Of course, even that doesn't mean that non-citizens account for 6.4 percent of murders and DWI fatalities, only 6.4 percent of the overall inmate population.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle

If you regularly listen to talk radio, or get your crime news from anti-immigration pundits, all of this may come as a surprise. But it's not to many of those who study crime for a living. As the national immigration debate heated up in 2007, dozens of academics who specialize in the issue sent a letter (pdf) to then President George W. Bush and congressional leaders with the following point:

Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that, in fact, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be behind bars than are the native-born. This is true for the nation as a whole, as well as for cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami, and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border such as San Diego and El Paso.

One of the signatories was Rubén G. Rumbaut, a sociologist who studies immigration at the University of California, Irvine. Rumbaut recently presented a paper on immigration and crime to a Washington, D.C. conference sponsored by the Police Foundation. Rumbaut writes via email, "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the same conclusion: Rates of crime and conviction for undocumented immigrants are far below those for the native born, and that is especially the case for violent crimes, including murder."

Opponents of illegal immigration usually do little more than cite andecdotes attempting to link illegal immigration to violent crime. When they do try to use statistics, they come up short.

Hey LHUCKS, any comments re: the bold in DP's post?Care to retract any/all of your posts on this issue, since it seems like the AZ police would be better off pulling over white males who appear to be natives as opposed to those who they suspect to be here illegal if fighting crime is truly the impetus for the new legislation?