again do the math
 

You obviously are not doing your math look at the figure that is given as illegal aliens imprisoned? The GAO 2005' report does not give that figure. No GAO report from any year gives anywhere near a number of 600,000 illegal aliens being imprisoned in ?
Monday, August 31, 2009 4:25 PM

By: Ed Koch (x mayor of New York City)

I have a proposal which I hope the Obama administration will consider and implement.
Immediately, or as soon as possible, the United States should deport all illegal aliens who are in federal and state prisons, and in our municipal jails, to their countries of origin. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the number of illegal aliens incarcerated in the United States.
The GAO reported that the number of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prison on Dec. 27, 2003 was 46,063, and the number incarcerated in state prisons and local jails was 262,105.
*******

Well the 2003 report on data probably back from 2000, if correct, as you ARE quoting an EX mayor or New York, is 262,105 nationwide. It is possible for that number to grow in a couple of years.

Here is the 2005 report I believe Sangetsu was quoting:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf

With an estimated 7 million illegals in 2000 nationwide as the report states. Now with an estimated 30 million in 2010. I can imagine the number to go up to match what Sangetsu's numbers are. I doubt it has gone down. It is not a far fetched number being 262,105 in Dec of 2003 and this being 2010. It could be more than 600k.

In any case there is an obvious problem. The result of too much impoverished
desperate individuals when an area can't sustain them. This is why we have borders. This is why we have an immigration process.

nice try
 

You sir are obviously high. No GAO report from any year or on this planet supports a number near 600,000 imprisoned illegal aliens. No GAO report from any year but possibly your over-worked imagination can conjure up this or any number close to this number.

Back to reality and put the pipe down dude.

Read more: GOP worries Arizona immigration law could hurt party

by Kasie Hunt - Apr. 30, 2010 04:35 PM
POLITICO.COM


Arizona's immigration law has been an immediate hit with the Republican base, but some of the party's top strategists and rising stars worry that the harsh crackdown may do long-term damage to the GOP in the eyes of America's Hispanic population.


From Marco Rubio to Jeb Bush to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Republicans who represent heavily Hispanic states have been vocal in their criticism of the Arizona law, saying it overreaches. Even Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a conservative hero for his win last fall, has questioned the law.

And the party's long-term thinkers worry that the Arizona law is merely a quick political fix which may create a permanent rift with the fastest growing segment of the U.S. electorate.

"It's like a virus that you get and you don't feel like you're unhealthy for the first few days, but after that you have a fever and you're really sick," says Matthew Dowd, former President George W. Bush's chief strategist in 2004. "You can't win a national election


and you can't win certain states without the Latino vote. And Republicans already had a problem."

"I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill," top Bush strategist Karl Rove said during a stop on his book tour. "I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way."

"I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas," Perry said earlier this week.

Jeb Bush was also blunt: "I don't think this is the proper approach."

The already burning issue will escalate this weekend with protests around the country, including one in Los Angeles where police are preparing for a crowd of 100,000.

Yet polls show Arizona's law is popular, even with independents, and it's given Republican Gov. Jan Brewer a boost in the polls. In September she trailed her likely Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, by 3 points with white voters. Now she leads him by 8 points with whites. But Goddard has increased his lead with Hispanics from 20 points to 46.

Arizona has far more white voters than it does Hispanic voters—for now – so the immigration law may not have an immediate impact on the election. But the long term demographic outlook for Republicans and the Hispanic vote is troubling for the GOP.

Ninety percent of Hispanics under 18 in Arizona are U.S. citizens, and the explosive growth of the Hispanic population this decade has been driven by U.S. births. That's a switch from the 1990s, when most of the Hispanic population's increase was due to non-citizen immigration.

"This law and potential copy cat laws have the ability to seal the fate of the Republican Party with Hispanics in the exact same way that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act did with African Americans," said Matt Barreto, a pollster for Latino Decisions and an adjunct political science professor at the University of Washington.

In Florida, Senate candidate Rubio's extremely calibrated response showed the fine line Republicans have to walk on this issue. Rubio is young, bilingual, Cuban-born and running to the right of Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist. And according to a new SurveyUSA poll, 82 percent of Florida Republicans who have heard about Arizona's law agree with it—and 81 percent think Florida should pass a similar measure.

So Rubio has his sound bite ready on amnesty—"I hope Congress…will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation," he said.

But he is terribly uncomfortable with the racial profiling he sees in the Arizona bill. "I do have concerns about this legislation," Rubio said, pointing out that the law could "unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens."

Rubio's logic recognizes Florida's changing demographics—and acknowledges that Obama tilted the state in Democrats' favor in 2008 largely because of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote.

It's a lesson California learned in the 1990s when state legislators passed and then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed Proposition 187, a law that required police officers to verify and report the immigration status of anyone who was arrested and denied a litany of basic services to anyone in the country illegally.

While most Republicans dismiss claims that it hurt the party, chalking Democratic gains up to demographic changes, the issue is still radioactive in California. Democrats are calling on Republican Meg Whitman to dismiss Wilson, who is now chairing her campaign for governor.

I frankly could care less about how this could hurt this party or the other.
It is frankly shameful that this issue is being politicized in order to get party votes. I just want secure borders, and illegals to get in line like everyone else if they want to immigrate. Is that asking too much? The one few things the US government is REALLY responsible for, it is failing to do at all levels.

600K imprisoned is not a far fetched number with est 7 million illegals in 2000 and est 270k imprisoned in 2003. Even 270K out of 7 million is pretty bad. 270K are convicted and imprisoned only. Are you trying to argue the fact that illegal immigration isn't a problem?

If we fail to secure our borders, more legals and citizens will be at the hand of crime as a result of illegal immigration. Do you are argue this?

No matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince anyone that illegal immigration is good for the states, as well as any other country.

You are avoiding the questions and facts put before you.

Though you may try with childish insults or comparisons, that you have done throughout this thread, you fail to make a valid point.

The only thing this law does is allow Arizona police to enforce FEDERAL LAW that's allready on the book. It's that simple. Besides, you have to "show your papers" in 42 states allready, so what's the beef here? I mean really, guess what happens if you have no ID in Iowa after your pulled over for speeding?

There is no "police state", that's ridiculas. Honestly, the US could just inforce immigration the same way Mexico does, that will end the debate right there. ( Mexico has much harsher immigration laws than the US does)

More on why Arizona has to enforce the federal law:


Border disorder - NYPOST.com

mow your own lawn
 

Again there is no GAO report from any year that gives a number of 600,000 illegal aliens being imprisoned in the US? Provide a far fetched number that approaches that number from any GAO report?
Provide a GAO report from any year that supports your fantasy 600k imprisoned figure.
Again what exactly are you selling? You do'nt know how to add? The GAO number from the Ed Koch article is from GAO report not from Ed Koch?
So far you've demonstrated your ability to manufacture numbers not supported by anything but your inability to read a GAO report.

Yeah but the Ed Koch article is quoting data from 2000-2003. I'm talking about today. I don't think the number has gone down Just as illegal immigration has gone down from 2003; it has sky rocketed some estimated 30 million nation wide.

I'm not sure exactly what numbers you want or what you hope to see from them. Are you denying there is a problem?

Also from the Ed Article too:

"According to the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, “Today, criminal aliens account for about 30 percent of the inmates in federal prisons and 15-25 percent in many local jails. Incarceration costs to the taxpayers were estimated by the Justice Department in 2002 to be $891 million for federal prison inmates and $624 million for inmates in state prisons [annually].” Every year, about 600,000 of those incarcerated, not limited to illegal aliens, are released and within three years, two-thirds become recidivists and are back in prison."

That was back on '02. It surely isn't going down, despite all that has been done.

But here, read up on how great it is on the border and how there isn't any need for action in Arizona.:

Border disorder - NYPOST.com

"And Arizona's "discriminatory" new state law empowering police to pursue criminal aliens? Should Phoenix let the rule of law collapse because Washington prefers political correctness to public safety? In DC, it's about politics. In Arizona, it's about survival."

As you and the majority of liberal parrots are trying to make this about politics...

Sure we will both go back to our safe little lives knowing the we are both right in our own mind, but in the end the problems there are really happening.

Read the NY POST Ralph Peters article (the guy has lived and been there).

Has anyone got any ideas of what the State should be doing if you are not for this bill?

I have been quiet for a little too long on this one.

Clint, no one is arguing that criminals shouldn't be punished and that immigrants here illegally shouldn't be dealt with properly.

That is not the problem with Arizona's new law.

The problem is that LEGAL CITIZENS will be treated as criminals.

Two phrases from the law: LEGAL CONTACT.

LEGAL CONTACT is any lawful interaction by a police officer with an individual. Well, that is pretty much any contact outside of criminal activity by a police officer. A police officer can approach anyone for any reason at any time.

REASONABLE SUSPICION.

This is the catch phrase that no one can define. I think we all know what merits "reasonable suspicion" in the spirit and intention of the law, but I want to hear the legal definition as you understand it. You say race has nothing to do with it.

If it isn't skin color, accent or language ability, then what would make a police officer reasonably suspicious of an individual that would merit them asking for proof of citizenship under this law?

I really just want to hear the answer to that simple question.

Now, now, you promised you were going to "leave it at that" on your last post and gracefully bowed out. I knew you couldn't resist rehashing your points back from the start of the thread. Weak. Don't bow out and pop back in; it is bad form.

You were afraid your posts were being buried by all the logic of this thread. Well read up. This question has been answered a million times over by now.

Okay I'll answer your one question. If a cop pulls over that individual for a traffic violation and can't produce a DL to ID him or herself, then there is reasonable belief that he or she is illegal because illegals don't have ID. The cop didn't pull them over because they weren't the right shade of skin, it was because of traffic violation. The person didn't have ID.
Being in the area of the border or anywhere in Arizona where there is an illegal problem, the officer can now ask the death question "Are you here legally?"

Now if the cop was to pull them over for no other reason, no traffic violation, other to ask
them are they here legally, then the cop is violating the new Arizona law.

The answer is the STATE IS GOING TO DO IT LIKE THE FEDS. THE STATE LAW IS THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL LAW. IT IS LEGAL.

Satisfied?

Now answer mine:

How does Japan handle their illegal problem? If you are stopped and asked for proof of being in the country legally, are you going to scream racist? No? Didn't think so.
Japan hasn't got politically correct foolishness on the brain, even when there isn't a state of emergency, nor would any country with a problem like the US has got. That is how they keep the illegal population at bay. For a person who writes on what to expect in Japan and on the Japanese in general, you sure are race baiting on this issue. You refused to answer last time because of "godwine's law". But funny how the left calling this nazism to stir up what they do best; as you can see from the videos I posted throughout this thread.



Arizona is doing the job of the federal government. The state can now do what is already on the books as federal law. Arizona is now doing what the rest of the world is doing but even less so because they still have to be politically correct and not just stop anyone by their race for no other reason to ask about their legalization.

The left only offers politcal correctness and similies to nazis while ignoring the problems.

Read the bill for what it is (not for what the lib talking points are making it to be), read this thread in its entirety, read the NY post article on the state of CA and Arizona, then you can gracefully bow out again, because I'm fed up with where the left is taking the country; especially on this issue. CAN YOU TELL?

This law violates nothing and that is why it will stand and I sleep well at night knowing it is on the books now. How are you going to track down illegals? Oh wait I hear MMM already typing up his "take the lollipop away and all the problems will go away" line... Sorry illegals that are criminals don't work those jobs.

I didn't promise anything, but you are correct, it is bad form. The only reason I felt the need to pop back in is that the arguments are being so steered from reality, I really couldn't help myself. I don't like seeing baloney walk like it is reality.

You still aren't reading my posts.

This is one example of a LEGAL CONTACT and no one here is going to argue with you that if a cop pulls over a person without licence they have the right to pursue proof of legality.

You are arguing something no one here is arguing against.

What you aren't doing is addressing my question.

LEGAL CONTACT is any contact with a police officer as long as the police officer is not committing a crime. This isn't just about pulling over people who make traffic violations. This is the point you are NOT addressing.

LEGAL CONTACT is not only about shining the red and whites and pulling a car over. LEGAL CONTACT can happen in a McDonald's or on a street corner.

Not in the least. You didn't address either of my points. I know what the definition of LEGAL CONTACT is, but you haven't acknowledged it.

And you didn't answer my question about REASONABLE SUSPICION. What is REASONABLE SUSPICION?

If I am a white guy driving without a licence am I within REASONABLE SUSPICION of being an illegal alien? Is Arizona going to spend their resources on deporting unlicensed drivers?

You first.

They do this anyways... you have not been to place like FT Lauderdale at spring break where they stop you just randomly for enjoying holiday asking for id's. And have we forgotten the road blocks that are setup at big holidays to check for license all over the USA to hand out tickets and wish you Happy Thanks Giving or w/e. Arizona did nothing different then what happens in America every day. They made the mistake of telling people it was to fix their frustration with our bad policies of forcing individual communities to pay for illegal day workers who "steal" the jobs. And if you do not think that this happens all over this country, go to any street corner at 7am in Miami.

Bottom line if you are "for" not checking the papers and not forcing these people to join the "taxed" then you obviously have not tried to get a simple day job in these states and don't mind giving them some of "your" money. I am not prejudice btw about any one race, but I vote make the law National and maybe we would not be so in debt paying for peoples services who cant even both to be part of the country.

We pay for this place.... called America they do not.

(dang this is only my 2nd post i hope you do not think me ranting but this does annoy me)

sort not again
 

Congratulations dude, you do'nt know the difference between '600,000 not limited to illegal aliens' - used in this statement, - uses the term 'not limited to illegal aliens' - Translation the 600,000 number is refering to the general prison population numbers combined with illegal aliens.

Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform CAIR

U.S. Department of Justice and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation contradict your numbers and CAIR

The U.S. Department of Justice reported at mid-year 2005 that 16,613 noncitizens (legal and illegal) were incarcerated in California prisons, representing 10.1 percent of the total California prison population. And, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Jail Profile Survey: Annual Report 2005, "The percentage of criminal/illegal aliens in California jails has continued to drop since 2000, and now stands at 10.6% of the total ADP [average daily jail population] (versus 14% in 2000)." The report showed that, of the average daily population of 80,725 during the fourth quarter of 2005, 8,523 were "criminal/illegal aliens."
Another factoid error about your numbers regarding illegal aliens -

excerpted fron Los Angeles Times
...,
The problem is, the Los Angeles Police Department doesn't collect information on the immigration status of criminals, much less suspects, so there is no database of how many illegal aliens are wanted on outstanding homicide warrants.
Citing federal Bureau of Prisons data, an April 7, 2005, GAO study reported that in 2002, 2003, and 2004, the "percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens" (legal and illegal) was "about 27 percent." The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has reported lower numbers. According to the BJS, on June 30, 2004, "noncitizens" represented 20.3 percent of federal prisoners, down from 23.5 percent in 2003 and 25.0 percent in 2002.

According to the BJS, 6.4 percent of all state and federal prison inmates at midyear 2005 were "noncitizens" -- not just illegal immigrants -- down from 6.5 percent in 2004, 6.6 percent in 2003, and 6.9 percent in 2002.
Since you have a obvious problem with math the trend according to the BJS figures shows a decline not a increase or a 'far fetched' number.
last but not least Colorado Alliance Immigration Reform CAIR is a affiliated with white separitist / militant anti immigration organizations such as MAD.

June 15, 2009 10:04 AM
Anti-Illegal Immigration "Extremists" Murder Girl And Father, Say Police
PHOENIX (CBS/AP) Anti-illegal immigration "extremists" murdered a Hispanic father and his 9-year-old daughter and gravely injured the man's wife in order to raise money for their cause, say Arizona police.

Jason Eugene Bush, 34, Shawna Forde, 41, and Albert Robert Gaxiola, 42, have been charged with two counts each of first-degree murder and other charges, said Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona.

The trio is alleged to have disguised themselves as law enforcement officers, forced their way into a home in rural Arivaca on May 30, and shot and killed Raul Junior Flores, 29, and his daughter Brisenia Flores, 9. Raul Flores' wife obtained a gun and fired back, hitting Bush. The wife was also wounded, according to police. Her name is not being released at this time.

Forde is the leader of Minutemen American Defense, a small border watch group, and Bush goes by the nickname "Gunny" and is its operations director, according to the group's Web site. She was once associated with the better known and larger Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

Their motive was financial, police say. They sought a large sum of money to fuel their anti-illegal immigration operations.

You can hit this argument all you want.
The fact is lawful contact hasn't changed despite how you and the left want to make this racial. Police still must uphold stopping someone legally.

I gave you an example. You refuse to acknowledge it.
Reasonable suspicion will extend to anyone according to law. There is nothing written into the law to prevent state officials to ask a black, white, red, yellow, green, blue man or women if they are in the country legally. Does the fact that they can ask this race satisfy you? I doubt it.
Race baiting is the oldest lefty political trick in the book when this has nothing to do with race.

You refuse to answer my questions on Japan and other countries.
The fact is you can't answer it without losing face.

Japanese law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally without cause. There is no race debate.
Does that make Japanese racists? No.

Federal law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally without cause. There is no race debate.
Does that make Feds racists? No.

Country X law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally without cause. There is no race debate.
Does that make Country X racists? No.

Arizona State law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally after being lawfully stopped. Lawfully being stopped doesn't extend to only suspicion of being in the country illegally based on race. That would be defined as an illegal stop. There is no race debate. Does that make police racists? No.

Arizona state law doesn't go far enough in my mind. I would like them to have the power Japanese Police and the Federal government has.

The fact is this is the law of a sovereign country.
It is law now. I believe it is a good law.

Silly race baiting talking points of the left and Charlatans in power boycotting their own nation's neighboring states. The most foolish crap I've seen in a long time.

Stop being a part of the problem MMM.

"Every year, about 600,000 of those incarcerated, not limited to illegal aliens, are released and within three years, two-thirds become recidivists and are back in prison."

The preceding sentence is talking about illegals in prison. Of the 600k illegals incarcerated in the next sentence. The not limited to illegals is referring to all criminals, not just illegals, when context of 'can be released within three years'. Not that they are suddenly changing the predefined subject of illegals in prison. You could be right, that is how I took that poorly formed sentence. If I'm wrong, I have egg on my face.

In any case we are arguing over data that is 7-8 years old.
The fact is it is a lot. My assumption is with the crime on the border at an all time high as described in my Ralph NY Post article, and illegals in the country at 25-30 million vs 7 million in the GAO article, one can assume the prison population is up and high.

Hope those extremists idiots get what is coming to them.

again sorta not
 

dude you've just been elected 'JF,s deputy sheriff of 'massive and epic fail'. pick up your official badge at the office, sir. and report to the border.
:eek:

You are so witty in your retort as usual.

I haven't posted here because by the time I read it, clintjm had already steered it in a ridiculous direction. I will just say to clintjm that if you think this law will not lead to profiling, even thought the law says otherwise, you do not understand Arizona, and you do not understand Arizona police.

Rather, I came here to post this article, which I think pretty much shows the mood in Arizona:
Arizona Ethnic Studies Classes Banned, Teachers With Accents Can No Longer Teach English. If that doesn't explain the mood in Arizona right now, I don't know what does.

Also, wouldn't "lawful contact" includes questioning potential witnesses of crime? So does this mean that if I witness a crime in Arizona, and I go to the police to report it, they can now legally check my citizenship status? Isn't that a big step backwards?

Just doing what the rest of the world is doing, including the feds.
Is the rest of the world racists and wrong?

What don't I understand about Arizona and the police in Arizona?

This article deserves its own thread if there is really any debate. <hint>

"Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes." "Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English."

Sounds good. We should only expect the best English education for our children. I mean the subject is ESL English being taught to non-fluent students. It is unfair to spoken English students when the teacher is unable to articulate the language properly or in grammatically correct ways. The article even has English mistakes: What is an ungrammatical accent?

Heavy accents to the point of not being understood and improper grammar is unacceptable.



"Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Also another high praise for the Gov.
I'm liking her more and more.

Thanks for the article.

You are incorrect in your assumption. Nice try though.
In your example you haven't been stopped for a violation of a crime.
Suspicion can only be assumed after lawfully being stopped for a crime.

I agree. But do we really need a STATE LAW for this? This seems to be something that should be decided on a local level. If a local school district really thinks that a teacher with an accent is still the best person for the job, they should be able to decide that. Personally, I would take a dynamic, engaging teacher with an accent over a dull teacher with perfect English, any day.

It MAY be the case this this law is actually trying to bypass the teacher's union and allow local school districts to remove unqualified teachers easily. I don't know, but I don't really think that is the case.

Unless there is some background to this, having a state law to this just seems unnecessary and divisive.


"promote the overthrow of the U.S. government" -- that's one I think we can all get behind. But this is a red herring. Is there really an epidemic of Arizona public schools teaching kids to overthrown the government? I think not. This one is bull shit, pure and simple.

"promote resentment of a particular race or class of people" -- while this sounds good, even a moment's thought shows why this is a problem. There are, unfortunately, several episodes in USA history that are racist and we now feel is wrong. Starting with slavery, of course, but continuing to the Jim Crow / Black laws, the anti-Chinese laws in California, the anti-Jew laws, and the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. By this law, classes that teach these episodes in American history would now be illegal. Is this good? I think not. While unpleasant, we need to face our past, or we will repeat it. Which, unfortunately, we seem to be doing in Arizona right now.

"are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals" -- as clearly stated in the article, this is aimed to eliminate ethnic studies classes. Why is this beneficial? Personally, I'm not very interested in taking such classes, but many people are. So why ban them? A state law removing them just seems unnecessary and divisive, and shows that Arizona is turning racist or borderline-racist.

You are correct, I take back that example. It seems the original senate version used the word "contact", while the house bill changed it to "stop, detention or arrest". Much better. Reference: Text of Arizona's Anti-Illegal Immigration Law - Part 1 | KEYTLaw

Thank you for clarifying and the new link.

From part 5 of the bill: Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 5 | KEYTLaw

Here's how I see it. Either they are going to need to ask EVERYONE for proof when applying for such benefits (or some random subset), or they are going to engage in (racial) profiling. I don't see any other option. clintjm, do you? Can you explain to me a third option of how this would be enforced?

This to me is the issue with the law. I think that most people in Arizona that are in favor of this law thinks it applies to "those other people". I think they if they really applied it "fairly" -- that is, ask everyone, I think support will drop quickly.

As an aside, one potential effect of this, and I know they had this in mind when drafting the law, is that it to some extent "forces" other states to change their laws as well.

From the first part: Text of Arizona's Anti-Illegal Immigration Law - Part 1 | KEYTLaw, section B

AFAIK, MN, the state in which I live, does not require proof of legal presence to get a driver's license, and I know many other states, such as CA does not as well.

This means that if I go to AZ, I need to bring my passport.

That's a bit weird / scary.

Now one may argue that this is because MN (and CA) has it wrong, and AZ is doing things correctly. But it is, to me, an interesting side effect.

Yep, you got it. I have no problem them asking everyone and neither should be the state. If put to task, the state should not resist this notion. Your third option is narrowed down nicely. As it stands now though, it doesn't prevent state officials from asking everyone. Requirement of asking would "everyone" would perhaps make this iron clad politically correct.

Yes I also agree that most people in Arizona may feel that as well. But with 70% in support of the bill, that says a lot. What percentage of Arizona is Hispanic, Latino? I'm sure many would not resist the "everyone" amendment with the state of emergency they are in.

It is a matter of survival in Arizona and many places like Arizona.

It also says on point #4 for say any US state or local government issued ID.
That would include your MN DL or ID in Arizona.

To my surprise, I think we agree on this. If they ask everyone, always, to show ID, then I have no racial issues with this law. [How effective it will be, given how easy it is to forge state IDs, is another question.]

However, I seriously question whether the people in Arizona will really think it is worth it.

NO, you are wrong. Read it again, I even put it in bold for you, yet you "somehow" missed it. Point 4 starts "If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance". That is exactly my point, MN (and CA) does not require proof of legal presence in the US, hence does not meet their criteria. I don't see any other way of reading this statue.

"If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification. "

It clearly states in that sentence that if you don't have any of items 1-3, AZ state issued ID, <now the part you bolded:> or before the AZ state ID is issued, you should have any *state* or federal issued ID, which includes your state non-vehicle ID, or DL. Everyone in the US should have this in any state.

I'm not sure what picture you are painting here. You are in Arizona out of state and you don't have any state or government issued ID on you? Yeah, I guess you would have to have a passport or green card if that is all you got. No one travels out of state without simple ID. What is your point?

You are misreading it. Here, "the entity" refers to the government entity that issued the identification. For me, it would be the state of MN. So they are staying they will accept a different government ID, IF that government checks for legal presence when issuing that ID. If that (non AZ) government entity does NOT check for legal presence, then they won't accept it.

I never said the definition of LAWFUL CONTACT has changed. Why do I have to keep saying "I never said" in response to any of your arguments? Please, read what I said.

I said LAWFUL CONTACT is any police contact that doesn't involve the officer doing an illegal act. Basically ANY contact is legal.

Baloney, Clint. I did acknowledge it. Now will you acknowledge the fact that police officers can go up a group of LEGAL CITIZENS, let's say a bunch of teenagers standing in front of a Starbucks, and demand proof of citizenship?

But where is the REASONABLE SUSPICION? If it extends to everyone, then what is REASONABLE SUSPICION? Are you saying police officers should be reasonably suspicious of EVERYONE for being an illegal alien? If that is the case, how can you say this isn't a blow to civil liberties and freedoms? Do you support a law that forces the police to question EVERYONE'S legality?

To be honest I didn't even read them because you were not answering my questions. I wasn't interested in deflections.

Of course not, because you can count the number of non-Japanese who are citizens on two hands.

But I wouldn't say that doesn't make the Japanese laws not-race based. I guarantee if a Japanese cop asks a white guy on the street to show his ID, that is completely based on the fact he is white. Same if he was Irani, Thai, whatever. Cops in Japan don't ask Japanese citizens to show proof of legality. People would jump through the roof if they did. HOWEVER with the new Arizona law LEGAL CITIZENS can and will be asked to show proof of legality. THAT is the difference between Arizona and Japan.

Sure, I am asked at the airport or when I cross the borders. No problem because EVERYONE is asked. Now you are asking non-federal law officers to make judgement calls based on REASONABLE SUSPICION. Are you starting to see where the problem with this law is?

I don't know why you are making up countries now. I don't know country X and I don't know if their laws are racist or not.

The police are not the ones who enacted this law, it was Arizona's state government.

LAWFUL CONTACT doesn't only mean "stopping" someone. This isn't only about traffic violations...you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. This is ANY contact. It could be at a park, a concert, in front of a house, at a school...you name it.

What can Japanese cops do that Arizona cops can't?

It is a poorly written law of a single state.

Explain how I am part of the problem. You know and I know that the problem is the many industries in places like Arizona that DEPEND on cheap and illegal labor...that BUDGET for illegal labor.

Why not save 10s of millions of dollars in law enforcement training (that Arizona is requesting from the federal government) and go after THE REAL PROBLEM? Go after those that hire illegal immigrants! It's easy! Everyone knows who they are. They are not mobile. Start slapping on fines, and then start shutting down businesses. Then all those poor legal citizens who are looking for work would soon find an influx of job openings.

But unfortunately those industries are the one's that line the pockets of the politicians, and so it won't be so likely they are going to feel one iota of heartache from this.

I'm simply not reading that way.
It wouldn't make any sense for them AZ not to accept another state ID.
But it would make for good headlines if it was read like the way you are describing.

I agree to disagree on that.

But that is EXACTLY what it says. My state (OR) does not check for legal status when issuing an ID. So now AZ will not accept my OR license if I am pulled over.

Yes, it is the fed's and now AZ law enforcement's ability to question our legality. Deal with it.



That the problem MMM. You are not reading the posts before responding.
I answered, but not to your satisfaction of me not agreeing with you.

That is the point MMM. The Japanese can profile on Race. Here is the bigger point That doesn't make them racists either. They are no different now that AZ or the Federal government asking citizens of a difference race for legality in the country.

False. They can and do Japanese citizens to show proof of legality.
Strange, I thought there were non-Japanese citizens or legal entities in Japan. There are. Japanese can askif they don't think they are Japanese. What if they appear, Chinese, Korean, Filipino? They may end up being Japanese? Still the police can and **do** ask; from up close experience.

Nope. Just doing what other countries are doing now. See Japan reference.

X is a variable. You can insert in country of your liking. They will all end in the same result: They can ask whomever they please of the legality of being in the country x legally.

Imagine what you want. The problem is finally being handled.

Ask about being in the country legally without crazy libs calling them racist racial profilers. A.K.A. Profile on race. Clear?

You don't want me to really answer that.

As I said I agree it is part of the problem. It alone isn't going to fix the problem. Read the NY POST article by Ralph Peters.

10s of million dollars for training? I don't think it is just for training. But government based budgets are not of the finest accounting.

That is a drop in the bucket for most states.
We don't disagree that businesses should be punished for hiring illegals.
Drug cartels and crime bred from poverty, desperation, and gangs is what has brought AZ to act.

Again... whatever you want to imagine... like I previously posted, that would make good headlines.

Right now it just makes good talking point for "The View" or anything on MSNbc.

This the part you aren't acknowledging.

It is a reduction of freedom and civil liberties.

How can you so nonchalantly take that?

The same way I do when asked by a federal law enforcement officer.
The same way I do when asked by a law enforcement officer in Japan and every any other country I can think of.

I'm taking it quite well thank you because nothing has changed. My ID is proof I'm in any country legally.

Having to show simple ID to law enforcement is not racists.
It is the WORLD we live in.
There is no loss of freedom or civil liberties. You exaggerate. Show your ID, as you always have, and you can get back is to whatever you do.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.


Just because you have your "papers in order" doesn't mean there isn't an injustice happening here. Wow, what a selfish argument.

Your argument that "that is how they do it in Japan" holds no water to me for a couple reasons.

There are certain freedoms we enjoy in the US that are not law in Japan. Are you willing to give up all those freedoms so we can live under the same laws as Japan?

No, of course not. Japan is an island country that is practically homogeneous. In practical terms, citizenship is based on race in Japan. That is changing little by little, but it has to do with the race of one's father or mother and where one is born.

Simply put, that isn't how we do it in US. If that's how you think we should do it, then that is fine, but I am shocked you would be willing to give up so many of the freedoms we are guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Last time I checked, When you had 12 million cross an border illegally, it was an invadeing army. So yes, you would generally "profile" for that.

Now I'm sure many come here to make a better life for themselves, and that's fine. However, it has to be documented. I can also understand the problems with how immigration is handled nowadays. It's dreadfully slow, perhaps they should set up another "Ellis Island" type thing, in any event they must controle the border, and that means arresting and deporting illegals.

It will be messy at first, but it has to be done. When it's cleared, then we can figure how we want to allow further immigration.

It's immpossible to play the game as it is now, because players are all over the place and nobody knows what team any of them belongs to.