We trust the gobment with our health care, our retirement, our mail(great job), but we don’t trust the cops not to be racist.
From:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf

Immigrant Rights and Responsiblities

“Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all
times.”

Glynnis:
Have you lost your mind? “Rachel Maddow debunks”? She says people can’t say “what will be the ground on which people are stopped by police”. Uhm, well, of course people can’t. Unless they have the ability to see in to the future. It could be a traffic violation, it could be a domestic assault, it could be drug trafficking, it could public urination, it could hitting a zebra with a cro bar. It could be any number of things.

Also, how is it “debunking” that some people who say this law won’t involve racial profiling are supporters of racial profiling? So, if you support an issue, and a law is passed that expressly prohibits the issue you support, you’re not allowed to point out that the issue you support is not prohibited by the recently passed law?

Were you sleep walking when you posted this?

>We trust the gobment with our health care, our retirement, our mail(great job), but we don’t trust the cops not to be racist.

Garbage in, garbage out.

How have you conservatives not understood this? You talk trash about government. No wonder your governing is trash.

Government mandated health care, Social Security and US Postal Service are all great and proud American institutions that are a part of the fabric of our country.

This law is a blatantly racist law that mimics the German Nazi era and is an absolute counter to the ideals of our Founders. It deserves to be declared unconstitutional as fast as possible.

Glynnis:
Have you lost your mind?

No, it’s just turned to mush from working at HUFFPO and Daily Kos.

She thinks people will accept blindly what she says, and let’s face it, the libs are all willing to do it.

This is laughable. I posed the same question on another left wing blog yesterday. Who do you call when you have an emergency? The police. They are relied upon and trusted in that instance. The same people who use the pd for emergencies have no faith in the pd to enforce the laws. Ignorance or ironic? Too damned funny!

Olby,
Haven’t you figured out by now that the police are the enemy, at least it appears they are, to the left. Remember, the whole beer summit thing BO came RIGHT out and chastized the police before he even had the facts. But when the Muslim Army Doc shot up the base, he said we can’t rush to judgement since we don’t have the facts. So according to Obamas own words, terrorists should be given the benefit of the doubt, but not the police. Oh the logic of the left.

Any law can be subject to Constitutional attack as drawn or as applied. I’m convinced that the law fails under either standard, but I am willing to agree that, as drawn, reasonable minds can differ. As applied, I think there is no reasonable mind that will be able to support this. This is somewhat like unto the Plessy standard set down by the SC in 1896 which said that separate facilities (for people of different races) can withstand Constitutional challenge, provided that the facilities are equal. The reasoning seems patently foolish today, and the SC recognized this as early as 1954, in Brown, which ushered in school desegregation, and held that separate facilities are inherently unequal. So, even if the law itself were to seem permissible, the application cannot be permissible.

To be sure, we have an angry, activist rightist Court, but with the exception of Thomas and Scalia, who have little regard for law but the highest regard for rightist ideology, it is very difficult to see the Court upholding this law.

Only one defendant, one citizen who was detained, perhaps even roughed up, perhaps even departed, will be necessary, and the Court will most likely say with only two (2) dissents, this law can’t stand.

By the way, if I were the police officers union and liability insurance carrier, I would be very, very nervous about acting under this law.

What’s funny about this whole thing is the police don’t have to “profile” anybody. All they have to do is look for autos with American flag bumber stickers on the back. 99% chance they’ll be illegals!

The far left loons have no concept of what “enforcing an existing law” even means. I’ve never seen so many “lawyers” come out of the woodwork…

Actually, I don’t have any particular problem with the police, but the notion that we are somehow safer because of them is more than a bit overblown. The vast majority of people never break laws, and they don’t do so out of respect for our laws and social compact and ethical and moral restraints. The main usefulness of the police is not in dealing with emergencies. Indeed, it is rare that they are ever at a crime scene until well after the fact. Rather, they assist the attorneys in prosecutions through investigation.

To be sure, if the police were to foster greater respect for the law, by beat presence and community involvement, their utility would be greatly enhanced.

Firefighters are far greater heroes to me. They respond while emergencies are on-going.

I hold prosecutors and defense attorneys and judges in very high regard, as well.

What’s a bumber sticker. Sounds hoboesque.

Why don’t you give us all your “ie/ei” speech again. LOL!

Try to debunk what Maddow is saying. You can’t can you? You saw with your own eyes and heard with your own ears that the droopy faced idiot couldn’t answer that question. Actually, she could have but, it would have revealed this law to be racist. Basically, they’ll look at people who look Mexican or Hispanic which is why the law violates civil rights.

Naughty Naughty Ms. Unsteady

You are the weakest link , Goodbye !

Can you cite the particular vehicle code, please rox?

“people who look Mexican or Hispanic”

When you can cite this in the law I might take what you say serious.

But, was is a bumber sticker?

May I see your papers please?

I wonder if the Teabaggers will oppose this Facism? And, oh yes, this is clearly Facism.

TEXICAN says:
April 29, 2010 at 11:36 am
May I see your papers please?

I wonder if the Teabaggers will oppose this Facism? And, oh yes, this is clearly Facism.

Uh….for the last 70 years that is exactly what the FEDERAL LAW has required of ANYONE here on a work visa. Ever hear of a green card?

Jesus…..how can you people be so frickin blind?

I’d be willing to bet “texican” is an anchor baby…

Oh Olby,
Not sure if you’ve realized this, but ROX never sticks around to defend her comments. She just drops and runs. I just didn’t want you to waste your time waiting for a response!

I’d be willing to bet “texican” is an anchor baby…

with his mouth on the teet of America?

TEXICAN says:
April 29, 2010 at 11:36 am
May I see your papers please?

I wonder if the Teabaggers will oppose this Facism? And, oh yes, this is clearly Facism.

So just so I have your position correct, asking for proof of citizenship is considered facist?

All you victimization lefties should boycott Mexico. Their immigration laws are much stricter than those proposed by Arizona. I challenge any of you lefties to post something without using the race card, nazi card or a sexual pejorative .

The left is always saying conservatives offer only criticism, but no solutions. Okay Rachel, how do you propose finding Mexicans who are here illegally if you’re not allowed to question Mexicans?

writer, maddow thinks they’re entitled to be here as do her knuckle dragging followers.

writer says:
April 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The left is always saying conservatives offer only criticism, but no solutions. Okay Rachel, how do you propose finding Mexicans who are here illegally if you’re not allowed to question Mexicans?

In the liberal land of unicorns, the problem will just go away.

“Uh….for the last 70 years that is exactly what the FEDERAL LAW has required of ANYONE here on a work visa. Ever hear of a green card?”

Show me in the Federal Law where it says this please…

“he Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien.”

Of course people should carry their work visa, that’s not the problem, the issue arises when police wrongfully ask an AMERICAN CITIZEN for their parers because of the way they look. There will be mistakes made and those will result in lawsuits. The person filing the lawsuit will not be an illegal immigrant. They will have full constitutional rights. And proving that their constitutional rights don’t matter just because they are superficially similar to an illegal immigrant is not going to go over very well.

writer says:
April 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The left is always saying conservatives offer only criticism, but no solutions. Okay Rachel, how do you propose finding Mexicans who are here illegally if you’re not allowed to question Mexicans?

writer, they have not intention of finding them. They need them to stay here and vote.

Stopping legal citizens isn’t a good idea, and those stopped will rightfully be miffed. But that’s what it’s come to because the feds won’t properly watch the border. Maybe Bill O’Reilly had the right idea, of having the National Guard help out. As it is now, the Mexican drug cartels are running the border.

This is very funny. Our govenment REQUIRES that legal immigrants carry their papers at all times.
Libs say that is okay, BUT you can’t ask to see them, DUH?
Police are allowed to stop me for speeding and ask me for my papers, license and registration. BUT, don’t ask me if I am a citizen? LOL.
On election day I will be an inspector at the polls and I am required to ask to see a photo ID so you can vote, but I am not allowed to ask if you are a citizen? LOL.
We have laws against being in this country illegally, but we can’t use the tools to find the illegals, LOL.
I can’t go to any nightclub without having my ID checked.
The loons on the left think it is okay to check everyone except the people that break the law.

The problem is that simple ID doesn’t “prove” you’re a citizen, as every one of the good ol’ Birthers who post here will attest to.

A driver’s license isn’t enough. Most of the 9/11 hijackers had those.

How many of you walk around with your original birth certificate or passport? If you DON’T, then how are you going to PROVE that you’re an American citizen?

MichelleF writes:

“Okay Rachel, how do you propose finding Mexicans who are here illegally if you’re not allowed to question Mexicans?”

The fact that you’re even asking about “Mexicans”, as opposed to people from any of the other 192 nations on the planet, should tell you what’s insane about this law.

Officer: “You look Mexican. Papers please!”

–Cobra

“Okay Rachel, how do you propose finding Mexicans who are here illegally if you’re not allowed to question Mexicans?”

How exactly do you question a Mexican? Do they look different than Latino-Americans?

The problem is that simple ID doesn’t “prove” you’re a citizen, as every one of the good ol’ Birthers who post here will attest to.

——-

We will? An authentic state id card or driver license is plenty good for me. I’m asked for 2 id’s all the time when making simple purchases at the store. It doesn’t bother me a bit. Could your selective outrage be any more feigned?

How exactly do you question a Mexican?
——

In spanish, I presume.

Watch Out, Dem policies are not working for the American people…..SO HERE COMES THE RACE CARD – Just take note which party is always first to introduce RACE into the debate!!!

Dem-control has devastated minority communities (Nat’l. Guard called out in Chicago?), so the only thing they have is Fear itself! – i.e. calling everyone “Racist!”
———————————————-
Support Bush…RACIST!
Vote GOP…RACIST!
Watch FOX….RACIST!
Police…RACIST!
Gun Owners…RACIST!
Southerners…RACIST!
Christians…RACIST!
Want lower taxes…RACIST!
Enforce immigration laws…RACIST!
Elderly @ town halls…RACIST!
Support family values…RACIST!
Personal Responsibility…RACIST!
White & disagree with liberals…RACIST!
Black & disagree (Clarence Thomas)…UNCLE TOM!
—————————————————————
Now take a good look around at who the real RACISTS are! – THE INTOLERANT LEFT!
Just pay attention at who’s first to bring RACE into a debate – THE INTOLERANT LEFT!
Who promotes the primitive concept of “GROUP-IDENTITY” – THE INTOLERANT LEFT!
Who uses accusations of ‘RACISM’ to smear political opponents -THE INTOLERANT LEFT!
Who feigns outrage over Glenn Beck, yet lauds the likes of Olbermann, Sharpton, Shultz, and my personal favorite, the Rev. Wright – THE INTOLERANT LEFT!

So let me get this straight. You have admittedly a half of a million MEXICANS, people from MEXICO, that walked across an open border and are in Arizona. If by chance a cop pulls over a sedan with 10 people stuffed into it for speeding, half a mile from the border, everyone in the car speaks spanish, no english, no one has a drivers license, just what in the fuck do you suggest that cop do????????? Seriously?

It’s the same mentality as strip searching the 85 year old blue haired lady in a wheelchair at the airport so as not to offend muslims.

Burying your head in the sand so you can feel like you are a “fair” and “non-biased” human being is a really stupid thing to do. And can get ya killed.

And BFD, from http://www.immigrationdirect.com/greencard/index.jsp?gclid=CKDmm4K9rKECFVZY2god1WXFFA

In addition, under U.S. Immigration Law, Lawful Permanent Residents must carry their Green Card at all times.

read that twice if it doesn’t sink in the first time ya frickin’ moron.

I didn’t dispute that, jackass.

I was disputing about what the Arizona law additionally had to say about ‘reasonable suspicion’ in whether someone could be asked for their papers. That is the crux of the objections to this new law but you are obviously too stupid to understand that.

No biggie..

If the person in question has a valid driver license or id card no “papers” would be needed. Take your phony outrage to tp. Back to tp, I mean. Why do you hate the police that protect you?

HAHAHA…”WHY DO YOU HATE THE TROOPS!!!”

Just like old times..

My question was legit.

MichelleF writes:

“Okay Rachel, how do you propose finding Mexicans who are here illegally if you’re not allowed to question Mexicans?”

I didn’t write that Cobra, I was quoting another poster.

What is a bumber sticker, Jeff?

MADDOW IS OBVIOUSLY ON THE OBAMESSIAH’S DOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Why does she feel the need to sink her teeth into Palin???????/ She’s probably in LOVE with the woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

That ‘s Gold stiff / karl !!!!!!2 Gold !!!!!!!!! 2

Here’s the pattern.

phony queen
spammer
“karl”
“bania”

Same thing every day in that order.

Myths occur. A myth: what Ms. Maddow said was “trenchant journalism.” Her remark was neither trenchant nor journalism.

However, the law says that “[f]or any lawful contact” made by police officials or agencies, “”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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”

What is “lawful contact”? perhaps lawyers and people engaged in law enforcement know. This layperson does not. What constitutes “reasonable suspicion”? A leftist jurist will have a lot of fun with that. I would think that asking for papers and questioning all those lawfully contacted, presumably for some motor vehicle or other infraction of the law, would include some determination re: citizenship.

It does not help that much (one can never claim “all”) of the mass news media in this country are grossly corrupt, shockingly incompetent, highly partisan, usually propagandistic, and almost entirely worthless regarding issues concerning government, politics, and culture. An AP writer, in a story with a Phoenix dateline yesterday wrote, the law “makes it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally.” A crime? Who knew?

And as I write, the U.S. House has just passed a directive for Puerto Rico to hold a referendum asking Puerto Ricans to vote on whether they wanted statehood for Puerto Rico? Who knew about that? Why the referendum? Who’s behind this? Who knew?

They don’t want to be a state. Who knew? Glenn Beck did. ;)

BFD….some more enlightenment for you:

Kris Kobach
Why we drew the line in Arizona
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.

READ THE ARIZONA LAW MORONS….

@ cobra and the other howler monkeys

You DO NOT have to have carry your birth certicate . The police aren’t going to knock the Slurpee out of your hand and demand papers. Open a new tab and spend 14 second son google .

What type of documentation is needed to travel to and throughout Arizona?
According to the bill, the following items are acceptable forms of identification:

1.Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
2.A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
3.A valid passport.
4.A valid Arizona driver license.
5.A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
For more information about this issue, or to provide feedback, please visit http://azgovernor.gov/. For detailed information on the bill, visit the Arizona Legislature’s SB1070 page.

@Penguin60 and timzank – What you’re citing applies to LEGAL RESIDENTS, not US CITIZENS. There’s a difference. @tws258 – Being a US Citizen didn’t help a commercial truck driver from Fresno who was detained and questioned EVEN THOUGH THE LAW HASN’T EVEN TAKEN EFFECT YET! He was told his commercial truck drivers license and social security card weren’t solid enough identification and was held until his wife showed up with a birth certificate.

This is a CITIZEN we’re talking about here! Not an “alien” or a “resident’ a bonifide US Citizen!

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7409929

I know the concept of all this newfangled computer stuff can be very scary but perhaps the “racist rubes” in AZ actually will make themselves use official databases for preliminary checks of citizenship. You know, like verifying insurance or a valid drivers license, Maybe that might work. Ya think the Feds might have a few helpful databases to move the process along. Ya think?

BTW, if a legal citizen is questioned and then brought in for a further check after all the requirements of the law are met why would that one, or several, good faith errors bring down our entire constitutional system.

Good faith errors happen everyday in every aspect of life. That does not mean that no one can do anything if it can not be done without error ever.

Get a grip.

So, Jordan, this guy was inconvenienced and POed. So he was inconvenienced and ticked off but what substantial or significant harm did he suffer assuming his story is totally true. Your source, ABClocal, finished their short and very short on any specifics (full name, which authority, where,doing what) with this closing statement:

“An immigrations official says it is not unusual to ask someone for their birth certificate. They also said Abdon being detained had nothing to do with Arizona’s new immigration law. ”

I’ll reserve judgment until we get a few pertinent details over and above a guy whose first name is all we have for any of it.

@ Jordan

As someone who lives in Nw Tucson I am aware of the story . In The Tucson area last year 241,000 illegals were arrested . That is 50% of the population of the city where you live . Since most estimates are that for every arrest, 4-5 get through. That means that on average 1 -1.5 million pass through this area or 2 to 3 times the population of your city . So while yes , ONE arrest is regretable , you know what , the police , border patrol, and I.C.E. do one hell of a job here !
So maybe you can take you anger and direct it to where it will do some good , closing our border here !

tws258 says:
April 29, 2010 at 10:12 pm

What are the details, then?

The link from Jordan had virtually no info other that a guy by the name of, was it Aldon, complained that his rights were violated (by who?0 because of the new AZ law (which is not even in effect yet).

He was pulled on a traffic stop by the police . It was really a non-story . The police thought that there was a problem with his ID so he was detatined. There were no lawsuits filed , the police were not investigated, nothing happened.
I’ll say it again 241,000 arrests last year . Thats 660 arrests per day, every day, for immigration alone .

I’ll say this again too , the police , border patrol and I.C.E. do one hell of a job here !

Post script ,
That “story” took place in the Phoenix area , a sanctuary city, not Tucson.

tws258 says:
April 29, 2010 at 10:47 pm

Thanks for all the info.

One last question, when did this happen? Was it just since the new law was signed or before?

Last week , before the law was signed.

Here’s the problem with your argument tws258. This isn’t REALLY about “pulling brown folks over.”

It’s about supressing the vote of legal Brown folks who have registered to vote in record numbers in Arizona, and who vote for Democrats more than 2-1.

Now, how would their votes be suppressed? Look at the law that went down there already:

“The 2004 Arizona law requires would-be voters to show a passport, birth certificate, naturalization documents, a tribal enrollment number or a driver’s license issued after Oct. 1, 1996, when residents were required to prove citizenship before getting a license. “

You can be charged with a FELONY in Arizona for trying to even REGISTER to vote.

So zoom to 2010 and this NEW law.

From SB 1070:

““[f]or any lawful contact” made by police officials or agencies, “”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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”

Which means, that “Election Officials”, (Republicans, most likely) now have the ultimate voter registration and election day supression power since the Jim Crow south. You have to show PROOF of Citizenship to vote in Arizona (not just residency) and since it’s a CRIME, with this new law, officials are now COMPELLED to act on it.

Why? Because the way the law reads, a person in line at the voting booth, or at voter registration drives can SUE the poll worker if he or she thinks that they’re not checking the citizenship status of people they have “reasonable suspicion” about. (Brown folks)

I know…some of the conservatives will say…”GOOD, illegals shouldn’t have the right to vote.”
But this isn’t about stopping “illegals from voting”. This is about making the registration and voting process for LEGAL Hispanic Americans in Arizona an absolute nightmare. Imagine the polling place, where a “citizenship” challenge is made. The citizen even has an “ID”. Who determines if it’s “valid” or not? The election official? Is there going to be a computer database at every poll linked to the Arizona DMV for searches? How long is the search going to take for validation? If they don’t have a database, what’s the procedure? Are they going to pull a “Ken-Blackwell-Ohio-2004-provisional-ballot-that-doesn’t-count-as-a-real-vote” trick? Or are they going to use the “Katherine-Harris-Florida-2000-false-felon-list-purge-that-takes-6-months-for-an-election-board-to-review-your-case” trick?

Or are they just going to do the simple trick of making the lines at the polls in Hispanic areas of Arizona, including urban Pheonix, so LONG, with challenges left and right, that it will take working Latino-Americans HOURS to vote, depressing turnout, and causing people to give up on the process?

Which method of voter suppression do conservatives in HERE endorse?

–Cobra

Ummmmm………. You’re kidding right .

Jim Crowe ,Katerine Harris, Secret voter registration conspiracy . I don’t even know where to begin .

@ cobra

You really need to turn off the computer and go for a walk , get a little fresh air . It’ll be good for you .

I mean even for here you have set a new conspiracy theory standard.

tws258 and Bowenisland,

Why don’t you start be REFUTING anything I wrote with facts.

I mean, you don’t HONESTLY think that this law was written so that local police would start checking papers for every Brown person “loitering”, “jaywalking” or engaged in a traffic violation, flooding an already strapped legal system, and overflowing local jails…all at the Arizona taxpayer’s expense, right?

You DO know what the unique voting laws are in Arizona regarding proof of citizenship, as opposed to proof of residency?

You DO know that Gov. Jan Brewer (who wasn’t elected, but assumed the role after Janet Napolitano was named head of Homeland Security) in 2004, when she was Secretary of State, stood watch as THOUSANDS of legal Arizona citizens had their voter registration applications rejected?

“In Arizona, about 21,000 voter registration applications were rejected because of inadequate proof of citizenship, required under a 2004 law. Most who were affected lacked up-to-date driver’s licenses, birth certificates or passports.

A federal appellate court blocked enforcement of the law — which also requires voters to show ID at the polls — last week, four days before the registration deadline. “We’re looking at an enormous disparate impact on people of color,” says Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network.”

USA TODAY 10/10/2006, Richard Wolf

Upon further review, it was discovered that the situation was worse:

“In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters … directed by one Jan Brewer.

No, not one.”

http://www.gregpalast.com/behind-the-arizona-immigration-lawgop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election/

Again, you have a perfect caper. A non-elected Republican Governor, with a dubious history on voting rights, facing a tough campaing against a Democrat with strong Latino support, signs a law that would make “Voting while Brown” in Arizona even more difficult, which would improve her odds of staying in office.

My “conspiracy theory” is a lot less far fetched than the one where you folks believe that this was written for citizens to SUE their local police force for not demanding papers from Brown folks in their line of sight.

–Cobra

Cobra, I mentioned Mexicans because that’s where the majority of our illegals come from. I guess now it’s racist to call a Mexican a Mexican.

To think Glynnis devotes half of life to “finding and exposing Glen Beck’s conspiracy theories and she has Cobra right here under her nose!

Glynnis, this guy could be a whole new Pulitzer grade gold mine of wild conspiracies.

Glynnis and Cobra, a match made in heaven. Two people couldn’t deserve each other more.

BTW, Cobra, you have heard of provisional ballots, haven’t you?

Without researching this law, it would appear that Cobra is on to something—at least he has some reporting to back up his claim. It wouldn’t be the 1st time that state officials messed with voters. In any event, the AZ law is suspect as today I heard on MSNBC that an AZ law enforcement person is suing to block the law. He cited (as one example) that the trust he has built with the Latino community could all be for naught if he is seen as going after people who might “look” like they’re illegal aliens.
While I can understand the frustration of the people of AZ due to the lack of federal enforcement, it’s really up to congress and the feds. to take care of this and we all know how difficult that is.
We need common sense immigration reform, not more xenophobia.
Having local law enforcement do this job is placing an extra burden on them.

Havana Rick says:
April 30, 2010 at 1:07 pm

Your tone is thoughtful and as such is worthy of a respone:

“Without researching this law, it would appear that Cobra is on to something—at least he has some reporting to back up his claim.”

As I said, your tone is thoughtful but your admission that you don’t know actually what the law says coupled with praise for Cobra “at least” providing links goes to the substance your comment. If Cobra had included a link to the actual law that would have been far more probative than links to Richard Wolf and Greg Palast (just look at the string of “filed under” he has) who are equivalent to a link by someone else to Glen Beck or Free Republic.

“In any event, the AZ law is suspect as today I heard on MSNBC that an AZ law enforcement person is suing to block the law. He cited (as one example) that the trust he has built with the Latino community could all be for naught if he is seen as going after people who might “look” like they’re illegal aliens.”

I don’t agree that any law is de facto suspect just b/c someone sued to block the law based entirely on his anecdotal expectations. The law he is referencing, which is not in effect yet, virtually mirrors Federal law and has language in it designed to address the fears expressed by this single officer. BTW, there are numerous links in the comments here to both the law itself and many quotations of the actual language. In any event the new law< I am convinced, will be on skids on a fast track to SCOTUS. Once they decide that should be the end of it. However, don't be surprised if they knock it down completely as opposed to narrower rulings that would give AZ an opportunity to adjust the law if then Federal law is led to the same block.

"While I can understand the frustration of the people of AZ due to the lack of federal enforcement, it’s really up to congress and the feds. to take care of this and we all know how difficult that is." Since the new AZ law mirrors Fed law are you suggesting that any state and local laws regarding immigration should be nullified. Does that include "Sanctuary City" laws b/c they attempt to contravene Federal law. Are you saying that once the Feds write laws about anything the States and local governments should remove any laws they already have and not pass any new ones? How does your thought play out here in other areas?

"We need common sense immigration reform, not more xenophobia." That is a broad sweeping, though admittedly subtle, indictment of a large majority of the American public. I am "xenophobic" b/c I don't want my vote to be negated or diluted by illegals casting illegal ballots. I am "xenophobic" b/c I firmly believe that the Feds should enforce existing laws (including that fence authorized by law but ignored) before passing more laws that they will then continue to ignore. I am "xenophobic" b/c I think the the first and foremost obligation of the Feds is to provide for the common defense of our country and that includes securing our borders. Am I "xenophobic" b/c the vast majority of illegal immigrants in the US are Mexican and from other Latin American companies so inexorably that is a legitimate part of law enforcement basing a reasonable suspicion on? *

"Having local law enforcement do this job is placing an extra burden on them."

What other laws do you feel are too onerous to expect our law enforcement agencies to enforce? We could really give them a break and by just taking half (there is something to be said for that idea but that is not the approach you meant to take I suspect) of our laws off the books.

*http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/10/national/main543313.shtml

"n the latest count, based on the 2000 Census and INS statistics, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reported that roughly 7 million immigrants, mostly Mexicans, were living illegally in the United States as of January 2000.
….
Mexicans made up 69 percent, or 4.8 million, of the illegal immigrant population in 2000, compared with 58 percent in 1990, the INS said.

The new estimates are based on the foreign-born population counted in the 2000 Census, combined with INS statistics on immigrants admitted to the country, deportations and numbers of nonimmigrant residents admitted, such as temporary workers.

Aside from Mexico, other countries that each was the source of more than 100,000 citizens illegally in the United States include El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, China and Ecuador."

Grammie,

“Provisional ballots” in most cases, aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Check Ohio 2004. But if your argument is that White people with anglicized names get to use the real ballots, while Brown people, especially those with Hispanic surnames must use provisional ballots until they “clear paperwork”, then you understand EXACTLY what I’m talking about here. If you understand it, and STILL endorse this policy, that tells us all a great deal about YOUR mindset.

Besides, Grammie, let me hear YOUR logic on how this law is supposed to work for the Tea Party-shrink the size of government/get the government out of our lives/types.

Theoretically, this law is asking Arizona to INCREASE the amount of Big Government in their personal lives in a DIRECT assault on the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. I thought you right wingers wanted Big Government out of your lives?
Municipal, City and State Budgets for law enforcement will explode if this law takes effect and is enforced, as countless man hours would be diverted to creating, in effect, a separate immigration policy outside of the federal government.

Who’s going to pick up the tab for that Budget? Why…the TAX PAYERS of Arizona, that’s who.
If you were to round up EVERYONE of the half million proported illegal immigrants in Arizona, if you could even do such a thing, the state economy would COLLAPSE, because the real motivation for illegal immigration is that ARIZONA BUSINESSES and RICH PEOPLE HIRE THEM with impunity. Many have designed business plans around cheap illegal immigrant labor. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Go to a random construction site. Walk into the kitchen at your local resturant. Say Hi to the “nanny” in the park pushing Junior in his stroller.
These are all RICH, powerful, leaders of Arizona industry. Do you think they want the cheap labor spigot shut off? Hell no. They VOTE Republican for the most part, and this is a way to surpress the Latino vote without hurting their gravy train.

Why ELSE would they support a law like this? Use your heads.

–Cobra

Cobra, I won’t continue this discussion with you until and unless you stop this stating YOUR OPINION of what I believe and am as fact. I laid out my reasons in a measured way.

You respond with more almost hysterical hyperbole and snide accusations ending with your apparent belief (this part is snark) that I have two heads.

Lay out an argument for your views, quit manufacturing straw men named Grammie and we can start over.

Might I point out to you that those who disagree with you don’t necessarily do it out of your near religious belief that they can only do so from the most heinous and base motives. Work on the assumption that just as you have arrived at your views in a legitimate way so have those who hold contrary views.

Rachel Maddow is an IDIOT for thinking she debunked anything, and I must say Glynnis MacNicol is being an equally dim bulb by reporting on this story.

Maddow stated: “But they can’t say what will be the ground on which people are stopped by police.”

Uh…yeah…actually THEY CAN since on the very FIRST PAGE of the law it SPECIFICALLY STATES that police MUST be engaged in stopping/questioning a person of interest for legally sound reasons — such as a traffic stop, where they have the full legal right to ask you for your license and registration ANYWAY.

Seriously, was it a slow news day for this to get covered?
Or is someone like MacNicol THAT interested in covering Maddow’s butt?

Grammie writes:

“Cobra, I won’t continue this discussion with you until and unless you stop this stating YOUR OPINION of what I believe and am as fact. I laid out my reasons in a measured way.

You respond with more almost hysterical hyperbole and snide accusations ending with your apparent belief (this part is snark) that I have two heads.”

After Grammie wrote BEFORE:

“To think Glynnis devotes half of life to “finding and exposing Glen Beck’s conspiracy theories and she has Cobra right here under her nose!

Glynnis and Cobra, a match made in heaven. Two people couldn’t deserve each other more.”

Umm…I can take your open accusation that I’m a “Pulitzer grade gold mine of wild conspiracies”. It’s actually quite witty. Nice job.

The fact is that I laid out my argument. I believe this is a game to suppress the Hispanic vote and steal elections. I provided sources to support my argument. You may not LIKE the sources, but I did provide them.

I would reply to your comment about motivations by saying that those who disagree with YOU aren’t necessarily tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts. Work on the assumption that there is research out there they you may not be aware of, and conclusions drawn that aren’t common political wisdom or talking points regurgitated by the corporate media.

Fair enough?

–Cobra

Gramie

Trust me this is truly not worth your time . I read his response this morning and even went so far as to read the provided link .

Richard Wolf , Truth .org , Greg who ?

And of course to believe his whole argument, you have to accept that Jan Brewer has been conspiring behind the scenes since 2004 to pull this off .

Cobra, it is this type of statement from you and the tone it sets that I object to:

“But if your argument is that White people with anglicized names get to use the real ballots, while Brown people, especially those with Hispanic surnames must use provisional ballots until they “clear paperwork”, then you understand EXACTLY what I’m talking about here. If you understand it, and STILL endorse this policy, that tells us all a great deal about YOUR mindset.

How nice of you to put the “but if” at the beginning but by ending with “If you understand it, and STILL endorse this policy, that tells us all a great deal about YOUR mindset.”. In other words you had me pegged in your mind and just knew what that meant.

It just goes to show how little you know about me, The only person that I knew who was ever bullied to use a provisional ballot was my 99 year old registered Republican mother by the Democratic poll watcher after several hours at the polling place.. The issue was resolved when she FINALLY made that concession after the hundred or so people in line began getting very vocal and my brother pulled out his cell phone to call the TV and radio stations.

Her vote was not counted, although if the election had been close it would have been b/c she was properly registered, b/c the vote was a landslide. You are correct about me in one respect, though. I do NOT think or want anyone to vote illegally for any reason. You see a racist conservative conspiracy to stop people from legally voting and I fear a liberal effort to weaken our voter laws to the point that

Voting irregularities cut thru party lines and take many different forms from the Democratic machine in Chicago that produces more votes than registered voters to lost ballots to improperly marked and advertised voting places and on and on and on. I oppose them ALL yet to you that makes me a xenophobic racist.

You’re damned right that I don’t want illegals voting: or people bussed from polling place to polling place; or bus loads of residents of homes for the mentally disabled voting in day of voting registration states. I assume you don’t want any of that either.

So, you tell me how to prevent it other than moving away from the lax rules that don’t protect us from that back to rules that require a standard of proof that whoever votes is legally eligible to vote. What do you accept for safeguards and what do you reject and why?

tws258 says:
April 30, 2010 at 8:34 pm

Too late! :)

Gramie

He started with a conclusion, and found 1/2 truths and suposition by an obscure Truth.org stringer to support it.
I’ll only address his one fact. 21,000 people turned away for not filling out their voter registratiion properly .
“Most who were affected lacked up-to-date driver’s licenses, birth certificates or passports.” What isn’t said is that 3.1 million people who DID fill out the applications with the PROPER information voted that year .
It’s a number that is statisically insignificant. And he would have you believe that because some one who has an expired drivers license wasn’t allowed to vote (expired DOES NOT prove residency, it only suggests that in the past you did live somewhere)that the system is somehow skewed or rigged to disinfrancise that person.
Also his “facts”do not give a statistical breakdown by race of those tuned away they only hint or suppose that they must have been Hispanic..
Finally anyone who begins and ends dicussions or debates by throwing around insults isn’t really interested in anything anyone else has to say.
So we’ve learned that in the future any post by Cobra can just be skipped over.

tws writes:

“I’ll only address his one fact. 21,000 people turned away for not filling out their voter registratiion properly .
“Most who were affected lacked up-to-date driver’s licenses, birth certificates or passports.” What isn’t said is that 3.1 million people who DID fill out the applications with the PROPER information voted that year .
It’s a number that is statisically insignificant. “

You’re not a good student of current elections to make that statement. George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 (after they stopped the count) by a margin of 537 votes. Al Franken won the 2008 Minnesota Senate Race by 312 votes. To say that 21,000 votes is “statistically irrelevant” in any statewide election is NOT supported by the facts.

Grammie writes:

“How nice of you to put the “but if” at the beginning but by ending with “If you understand it, and STILL endorse this policy, that tells us all a great deal about YOUR mindset.”. In other words you had me pegged in your mind and just knew what that meant.”

No. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in both of those instances. I didn’t LABEL you anything.

Grammie writes:

” The only person that I knew who was ever bullied to use a provisional ballot was my 99 year old registered Republican mother by the Democratic poll watcher after several hours at the polling place.. The issue was resolved when she FINALLY made that concession after the hundred or so people in line began getting very vocal and my brother pulled out his cell phone to call the TV and radio stations.

Her vote was not counted, although if the election had been close it would have been b/c she was properly registered, b/c the vote was a landslide.”

It was terrible what happened to your Mother, no matter WHAT party she’s registered with. That’s what you don’t understand about ME. I want everybody elligible to vote, who actually votes to have their vote counted. I would ask if you are EQUALLY upset when other Americans who try to legally cast a vote get shafted. Take Ohio 2004 as I mentioned:

“Officials in Ohio will be able to reject some of the approximately 155,000 provisional ballots cast there, offered to potential voters whose names could not be located on local election rolls, because of the ambiguity of the standards.

NY Times By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: November 7, 2004

Grammie writes:

“You’re damned right that I don’t want illegals voting: or people bussed from polling place to polling place; or bus loads of residents of homes for the mentally disabled voting in day of voting registration states. I assume you don’t want any of that either.”

I don’t care if mentally disabled American Citizens legally cast votes. That’s their right, and it shouldn’t be abridged.

Grammie writes:

“So, you tell me how to prevent it other than moving away from the lax rules that don’t protect us from that back to rules that require a standard of proof that whoever votes is legally eligible to vote. What do you accept for safeguards and what do you reject and why?”

Can I safely assume, based upon the age of your Mother, that you’re a bit older than I am? If that’s true, then you were around when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, which cleared away Jim Crow style voter disenfranchisement practices such as literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses…etc. Those methods were unconstitutional.

I’m all for people showing proof of RESIDENCY when they register to vote. I’m also not wickedly against having to show some form of identification, to prevent double voting to match your name on the voting rolls, but even that can be abused, as what KIND of identification, and what procedures are needed to acquire that ID can be used as a disenfranchisement tool.

But I’m simply telling you to read the tea-leaves, Grammie. The facts:

“Arizona 2008
Arizona’s Hispanic population is the sixth-largest in the nation. Nearly 1.8 million Hispanics reside in Arizona, 4% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 673,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Arizona, 4% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters.”

John McCain, the Senator from Arizona, lost the Hispanic vote in Arizona to Obama 56-41.

Again…use logic. What makes the most sense to you? That Governor Brewer and the folks who crafted this law wanted local police to check the papers of every Brown person at a construction site, resturant or farm (because hiring an illegal immigrant is a crime in Arizona) and haul them away to detention at tax payers expense if they don’t have the right papers?

Or that Governor Brewer wants to get elected, along with as many Republicans she can carry through with her by using this law to suppress Hispanic turnout?

–Cobra

Mr Cobra

You are the weakest link , Goodbye !

Anne 1,

Cute. Now, Tell us your opinion on this law.

–Cobra