Arizona Adopts Stricter Immigration Laws

[EpyonXero]

If local cops dont think you look American enough they can ask you to prove your citizenship, if you cant they can arrest you.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/15immig.html?ref=us

Arizona Endorses Immigration Curbs
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
While pressure increases on the Obama administration for a long-anticipated and much-promised overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, Arizona is moving ahead with anti-illegal-immigrant legislation widely considered among the most stringent in the states. It would hand the police in the state broad power under state law to check the legal status of people they reasonably suspect are illegal immigrants.

The legislation was approved by Arizona’s House of Representatives on Tuesday and is heading back to the Senate, which is expected to pass it and send it to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican facing an election challenge from conservatives. Although she has not stated her position, people on both sides of the bill expect her to sign it.

The police would be authorized to arrest immigrants unable to show documents allowing them to be in the country and the legislation would leave drivers open to sanctions in some cases for knowingly transporting an illegal immigrant, even a relative. It expressly forbids cities from adopting “sanctuary” policies that restrict the police and public workers from immigration enforcement, though it was a matter of debate if any cities had such policies.

The bill, hotly debated by police, business and faith groups, represents a step back from an earlier proposal that would have broadened the state’s trespassing law to encompass being in the state illegally. But advocates for immigrants described it as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling that is ripe for costly constitutional challenges and par for the course in a state where debate over immigration is as heated as the desert sun.

It is “the most anti-immigrant legislation the country has seen in a generation,” said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “Arizona has long been a laboratory for anti-immigrant experimentation, and its demagogue leaders have become folk heroes for white supremacists throughout the United States, but this bill ushers in a new chapter of disgrace for the state,” he said.

Muzaffar A. Christi, a lawyer and policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington, said Arizona would be the first state to allow the local police to determine a person’s immigration status based solely on their “reasonable suspicion” that they were in the country illegally. No other state, he added, makes it a state crime not to carry an alien registration card or other immigration document, though federal law requires legal immigrants to do so.

He said the Arizona law could face legal challenges. “How can you ‘reasonably believe’ someone is an undocumented immigrant if you are a local cop?” he said. “Federal agents have training on that, but local cops don’t know that.” Supporters of the bill, which included a handful of Republicans who doubted its effectiveness but voted for it anyway, said it reflected frustration with a federal government that they believed had fallen short on revamping immigration law and securing the border. More people and drugs cross illegally into the United States through Arizona than any other state.

The chief sponsor of the legislation, State Senator Russell Pearce, said in an interview that he hoped that the legislation, and other measures, would send the message to illegal immigrants that they were not welcome in Arizona. “That absolutely is what we are doing here,” he said.

He brushed aside concerns that immigrants would not cooperate with police investigations or report crime, noting that the law would allow officers not to ask about immigration status if it would hinder an investigation.

State Representative John Kavanagh, a Republican, noted that the flow of illegal immigration might have slowed during the recession. But the problem remained a top concern of his constituents, he said, and the bill would give the police additional tools to root out people without authorization to be in the country. “So when the new tsunami of illegal immigration comes, we will be ready for them,” he added.

The bill also serves as a reminder that, for all the back and forth in Washington, the states continue sewing a patchwork of legislation intended to answer local demands to confront illegal immigration.

Since an effort to overhaul federal immigration law collapsed in 2007, immigration-related bills in the states have surged, with more immigration bills than ever posted last year, including efforts to restrict public services and encouraging more local police cooperation with federal authorities, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

If the bill was a rebuke to the Obama administration, it was also a tweak to Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona governor who is now secretary of homeland security and a key adviser to the administration on immigration. Ms. Napolitano, a Democrat, had a contentious relationship with the Republican sponsors of the bill and had vetoed similar legislation as governor.

Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for Ms. Napolitano, declined to comment directly on the merits of the bill but defended federal enforcement of immigration law and border security. He said that the government concentrated on “smart, effective immigration enforcement” focused on removing illegal immigrants who committed crimes, and that it had bolstered border security.

“D.H.S. has replaced old policies that merely looked tough with new policies that remove convicted criminals and make our streets safer,” he said.

Immigration remains a potent issue in Arizona; during debate over the bill on Tuesday, a few legislators invoked the killing of a rancher at the border that the police theorized was related to smuggling. Governor Brewer’s campaign Web site features pictures of razor wire on a border fence, and she has sought to play up her toughness on immigration as she prepares for a challenge to a full term from candidates considered to be to the right of her.

A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she would not take a position until the bill arrived on her desk.

Some Republicans called the bill flawed and promised to fix it later, but they supported it as a step forward. “This is not a comprehensive solution,” Kirk Adams, a Republican and the speaker of the House, said before casting his vote for it. “That’s not going to occur until the federal government takes up its responsibility to protect Arizona. But that doesn’t mean we should wait until then.”

[pauldun170]

Thats just sad.
Appearing hispanic becomes probable cause.

[Rider]

Thats just sad.
Appearing hispanic becomes probable cause.

Not a problem if you're white. Just saying...

[Avatard]

Don't do anything wrong, and you have nothing to...

Nevermind.

[goof2]

Muzaffar A. Christi, a lawyer and policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington, said Arizona would be the first state to allow the local police to determine a person’s immigration status based solely on their “reasonable suspicion” that they were in the country illegally. No other state, he added, makes it a state crime not to carry an alien registration card or other immigration document, though federal law requires legal immigrants to do so.

He said the Arizona law could face legal challenges. “How can you ‘reasonably believe’ someone is an undocumented immigrant if you are a local cop?” he said. “Federal agents have training on that, but local cops don’t know that.”

I'm curious what "training" federal agents receive on this. Developing a reasonable belief based on someone looking foreign and having an accent isn't exactly rigorous scrutiny. Either way the documentation requirement is already federal law, though one the feds don't seem particularly interested in enforcing. If Arizona wants to make it state law and actually enforce it I'm not particularly bothered.

[101lifts2]

As much as I can't stand free loaders, this is b.s. If you are here AND you do something illegal and then found to not have citizenship, then ur ass gets shipped back to Mexico.

[askmrjesus]

As much as I can't stand free loafers, this is b.s. If you are here AND you do something illegal and then found to not have citizenship, then ur ass gets shipped back to Mexico.

What's wrong with free loafers?

The last pair I looked at were 200 bucks.

JC

[Avatard]

I want the nice Italian driving ones, with the little balls on the sole...

[askmrjesus]

I want the nice Italian driving ones, with the little balls on the sole...

Can you get those with tassels?

Tassels are in this year.

JC

[Avatard]

I think they clash with the tassels on your robes. Frankly, the sandal look for you just works.

[Homeslice]

“How can you ‘reasonably believe’ someone is an undocumented immigrant if you are a local cop?” he said. “Federal agents have training on that, but local cops don’t know that.”

Maybe because those cops have lived there for years, maybe all their lives, and know what's up?

If you are Hispanic and legal, then it might be a good idea to start carrying your drivers license or other form of ID at all times.

Don't like it, move to another state. :idk:

[Cruzergirl]

Just sayin...

:pat:

[EpyonXero]

Just sayin...

:pat:

Maybe people should read whats written on the base of the statue.

[goof2]

Maybe people should read whats written on the base of the statue.

You are probably right, a sonnet from a 19th century poet should really determine our immigration policy.:skep:

[Avatard]

Yeah, those old, traditional human values the world once so respected us for are just so cliche anymore...

[goof2]

Yeah, those old, traditional human values the world once so respected us for are just so cliche anymore...

Those "old, traditional human values" were never actually practiced. This poem was cliche when it was written.

[pauldun170]

Actually, our immigration policy has always been a bit "anti-them people" going back to the 19th century.

Statue of liberty is nice and all, unless you are oriental, dark or have a wierd religion.
That comment applies to when Ellis Island opened.
That comment applies to when they were putting the statue up.

In light of our southern neighbors internal issues (AKA bat-tom-crewed fuckery ) I have no problem with border states going batshit to secure the border.
What I do have a problem with are laws that encroach on the constitutional rights of American citizens, specifically those rights incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
A citizen of Arizona has the right take a stroll or drive without their fourth and fifth amendment right being penis slapped by every constable with tazer fetish.

[Cruzergirl]

Tazer fetish? :lol:

Mexicans are just the new Irish, Polish, Russian, etc.

[pauldun170]

Tazer fetish? :lol:

Mexicans are just the new Irish, Polish, Russian, etc.

Those dirty (fill in the blanks) turn into Americans
By Hugh D. Spitzer

Hugh D. Spitzer


My grandmother, who was born on a farm in Cowlitz County in 1883, once told me with a twinkle in her eye that when she was young, her neighbors called Swedish immigrants "dumb" and "dirty."

The Swedes were "dumb" because they had only a basic education and they spoke English haltingly. They were "dirty" because they always did the toughest, dirtiest jobs no one else wanted to do — cleaning other people's barns, houses and shops, setting chokers on logging crews, moving from farm to farm during harvest to help bring in the crops on time.

The Swedes, Norwegians and Finns who came to Washington state were usually among the poorest in their home country, those who couldn't afford a home, a farm or a fishing boat back in Europe and came here looking for a better life. They certainly weren't the upper crust.

But Scandinavian immigrants were needed to make the economy hum, and to populate parts of America where settlers were needed: Northern Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana. In fact, South Dakota wanted homesteaders so badly that its 1889 constitution allowed noncitizens to vote if they declared an intent to stay in the state for good.

My grandmother had that twinkle in her eye because she found it amusing, three-quarters of a century later, that Americans ever thought of Scandinavians as anything but very smart and very clean.

Yet, that is how we have always reacted to the latest group of people who arrived in this country: They talk funny. Most of them don't have college degrees. They have odd customs.

That's how it was when the Irish came in the mid-19th century, packed in "coffin ships," to escape the famine at home — often smuggled in illegally. They were ridiculed for their speech and their dress. They were forced into crowded but expensive tenements. They did the toughest, dirtiest jobs that "real Americans" didn't want to do.

The Irish were resented. The Chicago Post wrote: "The Irish fill our prisons, our poor houses. ... Scratch a convict or a pauper, and the chances are that you tickle the skin of an Irish Catholic. Putting them on a boat and sending them home would end crime in this country."
Then there were the Chinese, recruited to build the railroads in the West while Irish workers were doing the same in the East and Midwest. Chinese were desperately needed. They took the hardest and most dangerous jobs that "real Americans" didn't want. By 1880, 25 percent of California's work force was Chinese.

But they were resented because they looked different, talked funny, and had strange customs. These attitudes led to the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which blocked new immigrants from China for almost 100 years. In 1886, rioters in Seattle, Tacoma and Port Townsend tried to force Chinese workers onto boats to "send them back where they came from" — which was San Francisco!

It was the same story with the Italians, Filipinos, Japanese and the Jews. They were all viewed as "dumb," "dirty" and "different" when they came to America. They were all needed. They were all resented.

And today? They are all just plain Americans.

It sounds odd to hear Latin American workers referred to as "aliens" as though they come from Mars. But if America needed immigrants from Mars to do the least desirable jobs in our economy, they would come.

Those Martians would be looked down upon. But after a few years, they would miraculously change into fine upstanding citizens, just like those formerly "dumb and dirty" Swedes.

Hugh D. Spitzer is an affiliate professor at the University of Washington School of Law and an attorney with Foster Pepper.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003014307_spitzer24.html

[Avatard]

It was the same story with the Italians, Filipinos, Japanese and the Jews. They were all viewed as "dumb," "dirty" and "different" when they came to America. They were all needed. They were all resented.

Italians were called "dago", and it was just about as bad as being "negro".

Seems like hazing is a long standing tradition for new peoples to get into this club.

:shrug:

[pauldun170]

Italians were called "dago", and it was just about as bad as being "negro".

Seems like hazing is a long standing tradition for new peoples to get into this club.

:shrug:

Want to know how awesome our welcome mats have been for anyone who is a bit different?
Our distaste for Catholics, eastern europeans, jews, asians and random darkies inspired a Eugenics movement at the beginning of the 20th century.

Part of their motto
"I believe in such a selection of immigrants as shall not tend to adulterate our national germ plasm with socially unfit traits."

(Little fun fact - Big dogs of the US eugenics movement made a bunch of trips in the 30's to germany to advice the Nazi movement)

[Kaneman]

Spitzer's article doesn't apply to Mexican immigration in that the Irish, Japs, Italians and so on never became the majority of America enabling them, collectively, to heavily influence Federal policy.

I'm always pretty conflicted on the Mexican debate, considering half my son's Kindergarten class doesn't speak English. On the other hand they bring a lot of culture and uniqueness to an area overcome with conformity.

Either way, I don't like Arizona's new laws as spelled out.

[Homeslice]

Italians were called "dago", and it was just about as bad as being "negro".

Seems like hazing is a long standing tradition for new peoples to get into this club.

:shrug:

The discrimination you're talking about is racial hatred......Which is different than checking to make sure somone is legal to be here or not.

Like it or not, racial profiling will always be used, just like "age profiling" will always be used by cops to pull over teenagers just because they are young. Or just like Friday and Saturday night profiling.........Pulling over drivers for random BAL testing even if there was no suspicion of them being impaired. I don't see the ACLU complaining about those things.

[pauldun170]

The state senator who wrote the law, Russell Pearce, had long been considered a politically incorrect embarrassment by more moderate members of his party - often to the delight of his supporters. There was the time in 2007 when he appeared in a widely circulated photograph with a man who was a featured speaker at a neo-Nazi conference. (Mr. Pearce said later he did not know of the man's affiliation with the group.)

In 2006, he came under fire for speaking admirably of a 1950s federal deportation program called Operation Wetback, and for sending an e-mail message to supporters that included an attachment - inadvertently, he said - from a white supremacist group.

http://gawker.com/5520534/a-friend-of-neo+nazis-drafted-arizonas-new-immigration-bill

[Trip]

So basically, new people suck

[Cruzergirl]

So basically, new people suck

Not very eloquent but definitely to the point. Yup, I believe that's the way it is, has been, and always will be.:shrug:














Kinda sad really.

[askmrjesus]

Like it or not, racial profiling will always be used, just like "age profiling" will always be used by cops to pull over teenagers just because they are young. Or just like Friday and Saturday night profiling.........Pulling over drivers for random BAL testing even if there was no suspicion of them being impaired. I don't see the ACLU complaining about those things.

I don't like illegal aliens. They're so....smarmy.

However, I'm not ready to throw my constitutional baby, out with the tainted Arizona bath water. This law would leave probable cause weeping by the curb.

Keep in mind that illegal aliens come in all shapes and sizes. Armenians, Brazilians, Cambodians, Pomeranians, where do you stop? Should we all pull over and flash our passports for every fucking cop with boredom/quota issues?

No. Fuck that.


So basically, new people suck

It sucks to be the FNG.

Funny part is, in terms of history, we are the FNG.

JC

[Homeslice]

Keep in mind that illegal aliens come in all shapes and sizes. Armenians, Brazilians, Cambodians, Pomeranians, where do you stop? Should we all pull over and flash our passports for every fucking cop with boredom/quota issues?


I didn't see anything saying that cops would only check Hispanics. :shrug:

If you are a LEGAL immigrant, federal law already says you need to carry an ID saying so. And as far as natural-born citizens, I've never met any who don't carry their drivers license everywhere they go (unless maybe they are on the beach in a bikini). So it seems to me that the only people who wouldn't be able to produce ID's upon request are..........people who don't belong here.

[askmrjesus]

I didn't see anything saying that cops would only check Hispanics. :shrug:

That was my point.

If you are a LEGAL immigrant, federal law already says you need to carry an ID saying so. And as far as natural-born citizens, I've never met any who don't carry their drivers license everywhere they go (unless maybe they are on the beach in a bikini). So it seems to me that the only people who wouldn't be able to produce ID's upon request are..........people who don't belong here.

Well that's just fucking wonderful. Let's make every day living, just like checking in at the airport.

"Sure Officer, I'd be happy to show you my ID when ever you bloody well feel like asking for it, since I have have nothing better to do than help you look like you're not engaged in racial profiling".

Oh joy.

JC

[Homeslice]

:lol:

[sherri_chickie]

I had a Texas drivers license when I was in the states and did not need to show any proof of my legal status there ( work visa) I could have easily ran out of my visa and had no problems living there. ( would have been a bit harder to work though) and I would have been an illegal alien ( he he, funny)

[pauldun170]

I've known quite a few illegal immigrants. They either had Irish or English accents.
:lol:

[karl_1052]

That was my point.



Well that's just fucking wonderful. Let's make every day living, just like checking in at the airport.

"Sure Officer, I'd be happy to show you my ID when ever you bloody well feel like asking for it, since I have have nothing better to do than help you look like you're not engaged in racial profiling".

Oh joy.

JC


What do you know? You are a Jewish immigrant.:tremble:

[defector]

Saw this on the local news this AM. Local hispanic man was pulled over and showed his state issued CDL. Officer requested a birth certificate, or other form of ID.

On a related note: (9) people were arrested during a candlelight vigil. It seems they chained themselves to the Capitol building in protest of the new immigration law.

Lawsuits to follow....

[pauldun170]

Saw this on the local news this AM. Local hispanic man was pulled over and showed his state issued CDL. Officer requested a birth certificate, or other form of ID.



Wow...anyone can be birther.

[Homeslice]

What proof of identity is needed to get your first drivers license? I forgot.

[askmrjesus]

What proof of identity is needed to get your first drivers license? I forgot.

In Arizona, they just check your pockets for tacos, and you're good to go.

JC

[shmike]

In Arizona, they just check your pockets for tacos, and you're good to go.

JC

:lol

[goof2]

What proof of identity is needed to get your first drivers license? I forgot.

They recently changed it here. Now you need a birth certificate/passport, a social security card or a legal document showing your social (W-2, 1099), and 2 documents proving your residential address. Previously I think they required the ability to write your name, birthday, and address on the application form.

[Homeslice]

They recently changed it here. Now you need a birth certificate/passport, a social security card or a legal document showing your social (W-2, 1099), and 2 documents proving your residential address. Previously I think they required the ability to write your name, birthday, and address on the application form.

The reason I ask is, if Arizona does not require proof of citizenship to get a drivers license, then the police are perfectly justified in requesting more info, IMO at least.

Arizona 1, Obama 0 :zowned:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/obama.immigration/index.html?hpt=T1

[sherri_chickie]

I had to take in my old Alberta license and proof of where I lived, like my utility bill.

[Amorok]

Yeah, everyone who comes here seems to get shit on. And yet, people still keep coming here. Must be worth it.

[101lifts2]

.... So it seems to me that the only people who wouldn't be able to produce ID's upon request are..........people who don't belong here.

The law IMO is a catch all to give ultimate authority to police. It is similar to filling in legal voids when detaining someone or pullling someone over.

The police can pull you over for expired tags, burnt out lights, unsafe vehicle components, driving too fast, driving too slow, weaving, tinted windows etc. etc. So...if they cannot find anything wrong legally, this law will act as the cover-all to pull someone over regardless of reason.

It's pure bullshit IMO. The more power we give government, the more it will take. I hope the people of AZ fight this tool and nail and fix immigration by securing the fucking border.

[Homeslice]

It's pure bullshit IMO. The more power we give government, the more it will take. I hope the people of AZ fight this tool and nail and fix immigration by securing the fucking border.

But they won't. The border will still remain a big joke. And the next major terrorist attack will be because of it. NOT because airports didn't have enough full-body scanners, which are a complete waste of taxpayer money.

[101lifts2]

But they won't. The border will still remain a big joke. And the next major terrorist attack will be because of it. NOT because airports didn't have enough full-body scanners, which are a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Terrorism exists because governments fund them. Subdue government and terrorism inherently will be subdued.

[101lifts2]

But they won't. The border will still remain a big joke. And the next major terrorist attack will be because of it. NOT because airports didn't have enough full-body scanners, which are a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Terrorism exists because governments fund them. Subdue government and terrorism inherently will be subdued. Besides, government always needs a reason to pull more money from taxpapers and "terrorism from open borders" is a grand one. We should be protecting our borders so we don't have millions of people flocking over here undocumented.

[pauldun170]

Texas lawmaker to introduce anti-immigration bill
Wed Apr 28, 8:30 am ET

AUSTIN, Texas – A Texas lawmaker says she plans to push for a law similar to Arizona's get-tough immigration measure.

San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle report Wednesday that Republican Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball says she will introduce the measure in the January legislative session.

The new Arizona law would require local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status — and make it a crime for immigrants to lack registration documents.

Riddle says if the federal government did its job "Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas."

Democrats say such legislation is misguided and predict it will hurt the GOP politically.

[Homeslice]

Democrats say such legislation is misguided and predict it will hurt the GOP politically.

Disagree, most Hispanics don't vote Republican anyway

[goof2]

Riddle says if the federal government did its job "Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas."

I agree with this. The Feds appear to have decided illegal immigration is not a priority for them. It should come as no surprise that some of the states most affected by the problem would not be content with that decision. That Arizona's new laws are overwhelmingly supported by the voters there (~70%) doesn't hurt either. I doubt that percentage will change much when the venue is moved to Texas.

[nhgunnut]

Like or dislike the bill, but expect to see more of a similar nature. With fewer and fewer resources States are very likely to enact legislation that APPEARS to protect the resources they have left. This is most likely to occur in states along the country's southern border. Since darn few Canadians sneak into the US , yup expect it to target People with Hispanic appearance.

[Homeslice]

Terrorism exists because governments fund them. Subdue government and terrorism inherently will be subdued. Besides, government always needs a reason to pull more money from taxpapers and "terrorism from open borders" is a grand one. We should be protecting our borders so we don't have millions of people flocking over here undocumented.

Exactly, spend the money where the threat is -- The border. Not airports.....We have already spent enough money trying to protect those as best we can. We don't need full-body scanners, they are a waste of taxpayer money because they don't prevent someone from packing explosives in their carry-on. I've had big sacks/pouches of protein powder in my bag many times, and nobody ever asks to inspect it. It could have been explosives and they wouldn't have known.

[101lifts2]

Exactly, spend the money where the threat is -- The border. Not airports.....We have already spent enough money trying to protect those as best we can. We don't need full-body scanners, they are a waste of taxpayer money because they don't prevent someone from packing explosives in their carry-on. I've had big sacks/pouches of protein powder in my bag many times, and nobody ever asks to inspect it. It could have been explosives and they wouldn't have known.

Yup.....the real reason for the AZ bill is to send a message to the Federal government to do something about securing our borders. Hopefully they will listen.

[RACER X]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niY8spnsXDw

[defector]

This is turning into a South Park episode. Shakira and Al Sharpton are both supposed to be at the Capitol building today.

[pauldun170]

This is turning into a South Park episode. Shakira and Al Sharpton are both supposed to be at the Capitol building today.

:lol

[pauldun170]

Op-Ed Contributor
Why Arizona Drew a Line
By KRIS W. KOBACH
Kansas City, Kan.

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

[goof2]

Absolutely predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

The Op-Ed contained a typo. I have fixed it. To dispel the partisan argument I suspect the article would have contained the exact same typo if it was "President McCain" instead.

[Homeslice]

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them.

How is it unfair?

If someone has done you a favor (like, ya know, allowing you into the country even though you're not a citizen), you should be willing to do something THEY ask of you, such as showing your ID. It's common courtesy.

Besides, it's just more incentive to either finish your citizenship process, or GTFO :idk:

[Tsunami]

What about people that look like immigrants but aren't? How do you prove legal status then?

[goof2]

What about people that look like immigrants but aren't? How do you prove legal status then?

According to the post Paul put up you show your license.

[defector]

What about people that look like immigrants but aren't? How do you prove legal status then?

Driver's license, passport, etc...

BTW, EVERYBODY looks like an immigrant to me. :idk:

[defector]

Sent to me today (by a Mexican).:lol

[6doublefive321]

Italians were called "dago", and it was just about as bad as being "negro".

Seems like hazing is a long standing tradition for new peoples to get into this club.

:shrug:

Did you hear about the new Italian helicopters? Dago wop wop wop.

[Trip]

Did you hear about the new Italian helicopters? Dago wop wop wop.

i laughed

[EpyonXero]

:lol:

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/5