....i needed a "festivus miricle " with my pick 4 yesterday:(

just moving this forward. i didn't get an answer from anyone on why the feds, mexico, or anyone else should be up in arms about this law. it wasn't a rhetorical question-i really want to know why this is a bad law, or misinformed, etc.

How about this: Your state can make it state law that it's a crime to not pay your federal income taxes. The wording can duplicate federal law. They can include a provision allowing them (the state) to look at and review your federal income tax return at their discretion, and for them to notify the IRS if the state workers thought your federal return wasn't accurate. Do you think that is constitutional?

The federal government controls immigration, not states. Our governmental system says a state doesn't have the right to intrude in federal law.

A example would be desegregation and the integration of schools. Federal law supercedes state law. And the feds will send in the troops to prove it (some states apparently didn't learn that from the Civil War)

What a mess. Anyone who agrees with the State of Arizona is going to be called a racist, and the politicians in Washington are squirming in their seats and loosening their tie for fear of messing with Hispanic votes.

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...s-Must-Do-More

Too bad John McCain hasn't done anything about immigration in the past 28 years he's been a politician.

Too bad Arizona didn't do anything with it's "illegal to hire an illegal" law they passed previously.

Racist? I doubt many non-brown people who don't have a drivers license when requested will be asked to produce proof of American citizenship or legal visa, etc. A third of Arizona is brown people, btw.

It's unfortunately a bit parallel to Nazi Germany, however. American citizens having to carry and produce their "papers" upon demand or "suspicion"? Specific provisions to anonymously report someone you suspect of harboring or helping or hiring illegals? Bet the soup kitchens for the homeless will love that one.

And your solution to the ever mounting problem is?

This is not a Democrat or Republican problem. It's been going on since 1986 through Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama. Washington, for some reason, does not want to enforce the Constitution. It has to be about votes.

not much of an analogy, since paying federal taxes isn't illegal, but being an illegal immigrant is just that. as for the feds being in charge, if the fibbies are looking for someone on their most wanted list, and a sherriff arrests him, they don't have a problem with that. az didn't change any laws, they just said if a cop has a suspicion, he is to question-which is the same thing they do if they suspect drunkenness, drug use, etc.

I want to know WHO IS GOING TO MOW MY LAWN?

Regarding immigration reform, which has little to do with Presidents and much to do with Congress and the Senate, I'll continue to support aggressive immigration reform. You are right, they have avoided this subject at all costs the past 20 years.

Regarding Presidents, I voted for Obama, and I guarantee I'll vote for him again in 2012.

The analogy was to NOT paying your federal taxes, or the "suspicion" by state officials that your federal taxes might not be accurate.

You'll just have to continue to hire those illegal, outstayed-their-student-or-work-visa'd immigrants: the Irish, the Dutch and the German.

You'll "continue to support aggressive immigration reform."? What aggressive reform has there been?

I specifically said Washington has done nothing - just naming the administrations since 1986, but as Harry Truman wisely said, "The buck stops here."

This is a 34-page report which some of you may or may not want to read in its entirety, but I urge you to read the chart on page 4 entitled
State-by-State Changes in Illegal Immigrant Populations

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2009/pdf/sr0066.pdf

It is a comparison - state by state - of the increase in undocumented alien population in 1980 as compared to 2008.

If those numbers don't astound and concern you, well.... I guess it's okay to just open up the floodgates, let anyone into the country that wants in, and just forget about it.

Washington is not going to do a thing about this until they are forced. I applaud Arizona for striking the first bell. Other states will soon follow.

This IS the Arizona law -

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

It may be ruled unconstitutional, but it will take time and it just might get those D.C. suits and skirts off their dead butts and start doing something about it because they stand to lose more votes by angry citizens than they can expect to gain by even entertaining the thought of giving amnesty to illegal aliens. A promise made in 1986 that there would not be another amnesty.

I'd say some of those border states could say, "taxation without representation".

Let's see. You said, "It has to be about votes." I responded by saying, "I'll continue to support aggressive immigration reform." My very next sentence was, "You are right, they have avoided this subject at all costs the past 20 years."

So I don't understand why you are asking me what "aggressive reform" there has been, as I just said there hasn't been any?

No, that is NOT the entire law. You are leaving out some quite significant provisions.

You can't "continue" to support something that has never existed. Symantics - I know, but say what you mean.

And, here's the text of the entire Arizona law:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....vernor.doc.htm

Of course its about the votes. What else could it be. This has been an ongoing problem for years now. Arizona has said the hell with whoever is in the White House and decided to take matters into thier own hands. Its my hope that Texas isnt far behind in dealing with these taxpayers burden. I hope the sheriff that said he is not going to enforce this law gets a swift kick in the @ss out of office.

I think this would be a very good immigration policy for the USA to adopt.

___________ has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Let's look at _____________ main immigration law.

______________ welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to ______________ society:

Foreigners are admitted into _________ "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken ___________ laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
_______________ authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from ____________ and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in _____________ -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under ________________law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand ______ will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from __________ instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

_______________ who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

A _______________ who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into ____________ will be fined. (Article 132)

Anyone want to take a guess as to what country has adopted this policy?
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Give up?
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
It's Mexico.

And I hope the Tea Baggers, those folks who call themselves strict and faithful Constitutionalists, who are against government infringement upon our rights as individuals, and who support the Fourth Amendment, fight this tooth and nail.

Seems Arizona doesn't need a law to harass non-white Americans

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...irth-certifica

Sorry. No National Identification Cards with Registry to be carried on my person at all times for me. I don't believe in that amount of government intrusion and control over my life.

You might read your own country's immigration laws. They are pretty inclusive. The problem isn't the law, it's enforcement. Of course, that costs federal dollars. So you support an increase in the budget, and in the budget deficit, to address this, right?

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be offended if anyone called me this.

When they themselves call themselves Tea Baggers, what should I call them?

Angry old white folks.

Im not saying that you should call them something else. I just don't know why someone would call themselves that.

What do you think Coach?

I do think that some have read the Urban Dictionary ...

How would you take care of the illegals? Just curious. Dont you show identification at a Doctor's office when you show your insurance card?

You're apparently a racist.

You must be because if anyone else responds with an opposite stereotypical description to "Angry old white folks", describing those on the other side of the argument, they'd be classified as racist.

Members of the Tea Party didn't start out calling themselves "teabaggers". That name has been given to us by the left wing media. I'm relatively certain that a vast number of Tea Party members have no conception as to the vulgar meaning of the word. But, we have been called worse. Sticks and stones....

I'm all for a National ID card. It would solve a lot of problems. I wouldn't consider it any more of an infringement on my rights than showing my photo'd driver's license. If the federal government chooses inertia on the issue, perhaps each state could issue different DL's - one type to USA citizens, and another type to those who are not. I'd gladly pay extra $$$'s for that type of national security.

you are SUCH a dumb ass like always Riot.

You know who proposed a National ID Card and who voted it down?

I'm not blaming any person or party for the failure to launch on this proposal. Both parties are afraid to do anything about it because it just might decrease their Hispanic votes.

I am in favor of it, fyi. Clinton tried to push it through it '93 and both sides slammed him hard.

According to this, the Clinton administration was against it:

http://www.apatheticvoter.com/NationalIdentityCard.htm

Good read - gives both pros and cons. A lot of the cons are "fear mongering". That nutcase Ron Paul says the government will implant some kind of chip whereby everyone can be tracked. HUH?!

Keep it simple - proof of citizenship gets you a National photo ID photo. Perhaps it can be counterfeited - just spend money on the technology whereby it can't.

Better yet - make it VOLUNTARY - not mandatory. Wonder how many people would go for it. HMMMmmmmmm - think the go for its would far outnumber the hell no's.

She would hire them.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/arizona...2.1662622.html

yay Michael Bloomberg

Oh, yeah, the same Bloomberg who offered one way tickets out of town to homeless people - many of whom were citizens.

Can't have no homeless people cluttering up the streets of NYC.

That Bloomberg?!~:D

:tro::tro::tro::tro:

That about sums up Airizona.

Joey,

Would you consider yourself a teabagger?

Uh ... no.

Nice try, though ;)

Can it, Lori.

Can it, Beth.