70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration

[FrankRep]

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration)


Rasmussen Reports
April 21, 2010


SOURCE:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

[speciallyblend]

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration)


Rasmussen Reports
April 21, 2010


SOURCE:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

does 70% favor going after employers?? just enforce the laws that had already existed!! slippery slope Real id coming to state near you. they just removed any wording mentioning real id whoopie!!

[MelissaWV]

I wonder if they realize what they're supporting. How many of them even know what "e-verify" is, and how many of them know what a "removable offense" is, that can be just cause to be detained if you're suspected of it?

That would have been the responsible follow-up series of questions, but I doubt the results would have been encouraging.

[angelatc]

does 70% favor going after employers?? just enforce the laws that had already existed!! slippery slope Real id coming to state near you. they just removed any wording mentioning real id whoopie!!



How would would you go after the employers, exactly, without examining the citizenship status of the employees first?

[angelatc]

I wonder if they realize what they're supporting. How many of them even know what "e-verify" is, and how many of them know what a "removable offense" is, that can be just cause to be detained if you're suspected of it?

That would have been the responsible follow-up series of questions, but I doubt the results would have been encouraging.

Exactly. I understand both of those concepts and I support the Arizona law.

[Imperial]

Im sure 70% of Southerners supported slavery pre-1865 too.

If we really believe the US is a constitutional republic (I know Frankrep has posted the video illustrating this many times!) then this appeal to the bandwagon effect should not be considered.

I am not saying that should be a reason to oppose it either. I personally do, but don't base your decision on this little detail.

[speciallyblend]

How would would you go after the employers, exactly, without examining the citizenship status of the employees first?

that is exactly what you would do and then you wouldn't be profiling or randomly stopping folks! you would verify thru employment! which is what the law is already if i am correct, so all they would have to do is follow existing laws and verify what all employers are suppose to do already!!! this is alot different then randomly stopping folks!! i believe it is called a i-9 form??? they would just be verifying your cititzenship there!!! there are other less intrusive legal ways to verify and deport illegals!!!

[orenbus]

65% of those polled on RPF do not support the new AZ law.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=241788

[speciallyblend]

i wish nafta would be debated this much??

[MelissaWV]

that is exactly what you would do and then you wouldn't be profiling or randomly stopping folks! you would verify thru employment! which is what the law is already if i am correct, so all they would have to do is follow existing laws and verify what all employers are suppose to do already!!! this is alot different then randomly stopping folks!! i believe it is called a i-9 form??? they would just be verifying your cititzenship there!!! there are other less intrusive legal ways to verify and deport illegals!!!

I-9 forms are terrible. They basically say "Are you authorized to work here?" and ask you to hand over identification/copies of your work visa. No one really checks to see if these are valid. That's where there's a problem.

Did you know that the agencies that issue professional licensures (they're usually contractors) can take a call from you with certain immigration, and let you know whether or not that licensure is valid? I can call up with my insurance agent's information and ask if their credentials are still valid. They cannot give me further information either way.

Is there some particular reason that you can't call the issuing agency for the documents you are provided and verify their veracity? ...without e-verify, which adds another layer of data entry and dumps you into a massive database, sacrificing both privacy and accuracy? The agency that issued the document should certainly be able to verify that they issued it. If not, problems are way bigger than any of us are willing to admit.

[AuH20]

I hear all this hub-bub and rancor about 4th amendment violations? But I have a question? Doesn't this law simply allow the authorities to check citizenship IN THE EVENT they run across an illegal randomly, thanks to an indication of probable cause or a law violation of some type? In our society, you can't even acquire a library card without some proof of identification, and now I hear comparisons to Nazi Germany just because illegals are supposed to provide some identification? We're really going there? For the record, I'm against a national ID card as well, but the hysteria going on with this bill is ridiculous.

[MelissaWV]

I hear all this hub-bub and rancor about 4th amendment violations? But I have a question? Doesn't this law simply allow the authorities to check citizenship IN THE EVENT they run across an illegal randomly, thanks to an indication of probable cause or a law violation of some type? In our society, you can't even acquire a library card without some proof of identification, and now I hear comparisons to Nazi Germany just because illegals are supposed to provide some identification? We're really going there? For the record, I'm against a national ID card as well, but the hysteria going on with this bill is ridiculous.

What is probable cause of being an illegal? Per many on the board, it's standing in the wrong place, or standing with the wrong people. Around here, the illegals gather at the bus stop... right next to a lot of citizens, and youngsters (who would not have driver's licenses).

The bill also contains seven references to e-verify.

[angelatc]

that is exactly what you would do and then you wouldn't be profiling or randomly stopping folks! you would verify thru employment! which is what the law is already if i am correct, so all they would have to do is follow existing laws and verify what all employers are suppose to do already!!! this is alot different then randomly stopping folks!! i believe it is called a i-9 form??? they would just be verifying your cititzenship there!!! there are other less intrusive legal ways to verify and deport illegals!!!

I didn't object. I asked how you would do it? Hire IRS agents to perform warrantless searches on businesses?

Let's take a construction company for example. An agent of the state enters the office, asks to see the employment files. The person hands over a stack of folders. How do you ascertain that everybody working on the job is represented in that stack of folders?

How do you screen the subcontractors?

I have no problem with fining the employer who is caught using illegal labor, but I think it's pretty darned near impossible to catch them without actually visiting job sites.

[angelatc]

What is probable cause of being an illegal? Per many on the board, it's standing in the wrong place, or standing with the wrong people. Around here, the illegals gather at the bus stop... right next to a lot of citizens, and youngsters (who would not have driver's licenses).

The bill also contains seven references to e-verify.

Again, I believe (based on something I read on a legal blog) that established precedents indicate that the police can indeed assume that a presence in an area known for criminal activity is probable cause. That's nothing new, even if it is objectionable. They've only expanded the precedent to cover another crime.

[AuH20]

What is probable cause of being an illegal? Per many on the board, it's standing in the wrong place, or standing with the wrong people. Around here, the illegals gather at the bus stop... right next to a lot of citizens, and youngsters (who would not have driver's licenses).

The bill also contains seven references to e-verify.

You misunderstood me. I mean 'probable cause' for suspicious activity, based primarily off the officer's discretion. The type of random checks we encounter daily as citizens.

[orenbus]

What is probable cause of being an illegal? Per many on the board, it's standing in the wrong place, or standing with the wrong people. Around here, the illegals gather at the bus stop... right next to a lot of citizens, and youngsters (who would not have driver's licenses).

It's their fault for wanting to use a bus stop to go to school where day laborers congregate. Next time they should think about walking to school, back in my day we didn't have buses to take us to school so I don't want to hear them cry about getting arested when they knowingly hang around illegal immigrant locations. Send those stupid kids to mexico, that will learn them. :D

[paulitics]

I didn't object. I asked how you would do it? Hire IRS agents to perform warrantless searches on businesses?

Let's take a construction company for example. An agent of the state enters the office, asks to see the employment files. The person hands over a stack of folders. How do you ascertain that everybody working on the job is represented in that stack of folders?

How do you screen the subcontractors?

I have no problem with fining the employer who is caught using illegal labor, but I think it's pretty darned near impossible to catch them without actually visiting job sites.

This is no different than if you hired a bunch of low skilled workers off the street and payed him under the table at 4.00 an hour. It is illegal because the employer is avoiding paying the employment tax and falsifying their business and tax records. They are not playing the game fairly, and it hurts the businesses that do follow the law.

Some businesses have hundreds of illegals working, so figuring this out is beyond obvious. It is understood in the community usually that XYZ company hires illegals. It is no secret, everyone knows. I'm sure there are people inside the company, in the community, that report them all the time.

A couple of high profile cases, and some fines, or imprisonment of those who break the law in a big way, will have the effect of deterring those who would otherwise break the law. Most would then get the message that their gravy train of cheap labor, and zero taxes is over.

[tpreitzel]

One of the amusing aspects of this bill will likely be a boom in Arizona's economy. Even without access to cheap labor, the reduced drain on social services and reduction in crime will create an environment where tourists flock to the state. California and Texas will likely be forced to follow Arizona's lead.

[PeacePlan]

The real agenda here IMO is to erase borders and sovereignty. NAFTA and euro-zone are all part of the big plan - no borders.. I support what AZ has done for their state - states should have rights to protect their people. They want an America with no identity - IMF, NATO, CFR, Fed Reserve all part of the one new big world nation.

We are so screwed!

[AuH20]

The real agenda here IMO is to erase borders and sovereignty. NAFTA and euro-zone are all part of the big plan - no borders.. I support what AZ has done for their state - states should have rights to protect their people. They want an America with no identity - IMF, NATO, CFR, Fed Reserve all part of the one new big world nation.

We are so screwed!

Exactly!!! They want to deconstruct & destabilize the United States like they did to Mexico and other Latin American countries. How some libertarians could be so blind to this fact is astounding. Destroy the educated middle class and bring in a new class of subservient citizen who is too busy trying to survive to object to the plans. We are essentially being replaced because we've become too much of a nuisance, both politically and socially.

[AuH20]

error

[dannno]

Exactly!!! They want to deconstruct & destabilize the United States like they did to Mexico and other Central American countries. How some libertarians could be so blind to this fact is astounding.

No, libertarians aren't falling for anything, we know immigration is a problem and we know how to fix it. Ask Ron Paul. Ron Paul does NOT favor violating the 4th amendment to round up illegals, he advocates other methods which would be more effective and not destroy the Constitution.

It is YOU who are blind to the fact that you are falling for what is known as a "false solution", in this case, allowing a state to throw the Constitution out the window. That is A MUCH BIGGER GOAL of the NWO than erasing borders, because that is the first step to doing so!! Great job.

Today, police can only stop you if they have probable cause of a CRIME. Being in a strawberry field or congregating with other individuals is NOT a crime. There are plenty of citizens who engage in this activity, police could and WOULD violate the rights of every day citizens, using this bullshit law as justification.

[John Taylor]

does 70% favor going after employers?? just enforce the laws that had already existed!! slippery slope Real id coming to state near you. they just removed any wording mentioning real id whoopie!!

THEY ARE!!!!!!

The only thing this law does is enable state law enforcement officials to enforce PRE-EXISTING laws. The law is taken verbatum from the federal immirgation law which has been on the books but hasn't been enforced...for 50 years!!!

[John Taylor]

No, libertarians aren't falling for anything, we know immigration is a problem and we know how to fix it. Ask Ron Paul. Ron Paul does NOT favor violating the 4th amendment to round up illegals, he advocates other methods which would be more effective and not destroy the Constitution.

It is YOU who are blind to the fact that you are falling for what is known as a "false solution", in this case, allowing a state to throw the Constitution out the window.

I don't really know many people except Rudy Guliani who don't mind violating the 4th Amendment.

This law does not violate the 4th Amendment. The state of Arizona is not throwing out the 4th Amendment, it is upholding 50 year old preexisting federal law.

[PeacePlan]

Exactly!!! They want to deconstruct & destabilize the United States like they did to Mexico and other Latin American countries. How some libertarians could be so blind to this fact is astounding. Destroy the educated middle class and bring in a new class of subservient citizen who is too busy trying to survive to object to the plans. We are essentially being replaced because we've become too much of a nuisance, both politically and socially.


YouTube - Nafta Superhighway Ron Paul's Imagination part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzjSX2kO07Y)


YouTube - Nafta Superhighway Ron Paul's Imagination part 2 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSe8_1U7ryk)

[ssforronpaul]

Here is the Arizona bill that was signed into law:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Here is an article discussing portions of the bill including whether a challenge will be successful:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

Some excerpts below:

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."


ssforronpaul

[John Taylor]

What is probable cause of being an illegal? Per many on the board, it's standing in the wrong place, or standing with the wrong people. Around here, the illegals gather at the bus stop... right next to a lot of citizens, and youngsters (who would not have driver's licenses).

The bill also contains seven references to e-verify.

This law is a verbatum copy of pre-existing federal law which has governed for 50 years (even if it has been unenforced due to the likes of you pro-open borders folks). Immigrants are REQUIRED BY LAW to carry proof of migration status with them and be able to demonstrate their legal status. All this law does is enable state law enforcement to ask to see this already legally mandated proof.

[John Taylor]

[ ggg]

+1776.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul does NOT favor violating the 4th amendment to round up illegals, he advocates other methods which would be more effective and not destroy the Constitution.

Here's the law by the way. ;)
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

[John Taylor]

Here is Arizona bill that was signed into law:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Here is an article discussing portions of the bill including whether a challenge will be successful:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

Some excerpts below:

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."


ssforronpaul

Precisely. All this howling is just the pro-50 million poor-uneducated leftist-immigrant-tidal-wave folks who see the writing on the wall for their new electoral coalition.

[AuH20]

No, libertarians aren't falling for anything, we know immigration is a problem and we know how to fix it. Ask Ron Paul. Ron Paul does NOT favor violating the 4th amendment to round up illegals, he advocates other methods which would be more effective and not destroy the Constitution.

It is YOU who are blind to the fact that you are falling for what is known as a "false solution", in this case, allowing a state to throw the Constitution out the window.

Today, police can only stop you if they have probable cause of a CRIME. Being in a strawberry field or congregating with other individuals is NOT a crime. There are plenty of citizens who engage in this activity, police would be violating the rights of every day citizens.

Does the law violate the 4th amendment? Are Arizona officers authorized to take a paddy wagon down to day labor sites and literally swallow up migrant workers arbitrarily without any probable cause for criminal activity? I suspect that's not the case. However, if a LEO does pick up a suspect who is an illegal alien, the apprehended immigrant should be processed and held accordingly. I think there needs to be an offense of some sort or probable cause before an officer can inquire about citizenship status. The Arizona DA can't be this boneheaded to endorse racial profiling and a endless outpouring of civil suits.

[angelatc]

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."
ssforronpaul

Good catch!

[dannno]

Does the law violate the 4th amendment? Are Arizona officers authorized to take a paddy wagon down to day labor sites and literally swallow up migrant workers arbitrarily without any probable cause for criminal activity? I suspect that's not the case. However, if a LEO does pick up a suspect who is an illegal alien, he should be processed and held accordingly. I think there needs to be an offense of some sort or probable cause before an officer can inquire about citizenship status. The Arizona DA can't be this boneheaded to endorse racial profiling and a endless outpouring of civil suits.

That's possible, but IF that's true it looks like traffic cops are going to start targeting Mexicans for bullshit fix-it tickets and random crap.

I still think there are far better solutions.

[John Taylor]

That's possible, but IF that's true it looks like traffic cops are going to start targeting Mexicans for bullshit fix-it tickets and random crap.

I still think there are far better solutions.

Better solutions for getting the 500,000 illegals separated from the 6.6 million legal residents of Arizona and back to Mexico?

In any event, it isn't a constitutionally unreasonable search or a seizure to ask that someone identify themselves. Police can do that all the time without running afoul of the 4th Amendment.

[PeacePlan]

No, libertarians aren't falling for anything, we know immigration is a problem and we know how to fix it. Ask Ron Paul. Ron Paul does NOT favor violating the 4th amendment to round up illegals, he advocates other methods which would be more effective and not destroy the Constitution.

It is YOU who are blind to the fact that you are falling for what is known as a "false solution", in this case, allowing a state to throw the Constitution out the window. That is A MUCH BIGGER GOAL of the NWO than erasing borders, because that is the first step to doing so!! Great job.

Today, police can only stop you if they have probable cause of a CRIME. Being in a strawberry field or congregating with other individuals is NOT a crime. There are plenty of citizens who engage in this activity, police could and WOULD violate the rights of every day citizens, using this bullshit law as justification.

To solve this problem at some point you have to ask for papers to prove you are a legal resident. Ron paul says stop the incentives such as health care - well how do you do that without asking for papers to prove that someone is living here illegally. Please explain how this would be done? You have to at some point see if they are legal?

The Feds do not want to enforce this because they do not want us to have borders at all.

[FrankRep]

SENATE BILL 1070
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf


A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:


1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. 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.


I don't see a problem here.

[AuH20]

Let's say the Feds invoke the supremacy clause and squash Arizona's bill? Given the leftover venom created from the healthcare bill, could this get real ugly?

[PeacePlan]

That's possible, but IF that's true it looks like traffic cops are going to start targeting Mexicans for bullshit fix-it tickets and random crap.

I still think there are far better solutions.

What solution - please explain as I don't see any other option other then asking for proof of being a US citizen.

[John Taylor]

Let's say the Feds invoke the supremacy clause and squash Arizona's bill? Given the leftover venom created from the healthcare bill, could this get real ugly?

The federal government would have to alter the federal immigration law in order to preempt the field and supercede the AZ law.

[mconder]

So much for democracy, which Obama and his ilk are so fond of.

[John Taylor]

So much for democracy, which Obama and his ilk are so fond of.

Obama and some of the posters on here want as many illegals in this country as possible to dilute the votes and culture of people who wish to reclaim the republic.

[MelissaWV]

THEY ARE!!!!!!

The only thing this law does is enable state law enforcement officials to enforce PRE-EXISTING laws. The law is taken verbatum from the federal immirgation law which has been on the books but hasn't been enforced...for 50 years!!!

Wow! They knew about e-verify 50 years ago?!? That's incredible :eek:

[John Taylor]

Wow! They knew about e-verify 50 years ago?!? That's incredible :eek:

That's not what I'm refering to, you contrarian numbrod.

I'm refering to the federal law the state law enforcement will be enforcing, the federal law requiring ALL immigrants to carry their documentation with them.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Obama and some of the posters on here want as many illegals in this country as possible to dilute the votes and culture of people who wish to reclaim the republic.

Wow thats funny. I think you need to go back to Stormfront where you belong.

[John Taylor]

Wow thats funny. I think you need to go back to Stormfront where you belong.

Racism is one of the ugliest forms of collectivism, because it dehumanizes the individual and only judges him based on a preconceived notion of what it "means" to have a certain shade of pigmentation covering a milimeter of one's skin.

When I opposed Obama's health care take-over, it wasn't because he is half-black, it is because taking over the medical sector of the economy is akin to economic fascism.

When I support border controls and the repatriation of foreign nationals illegally here, it is not because I dislike eastern Europeans (a great many illegals are from eastern Europe), or our neighbors to the south in sunny Mexico, but instead because I wish to preserve what is left of individual freedom here, and expand it, as God and good effort enable.

You owe me an apology.

[klamath]

I am from California and remember when governor Wilson proposed Prop 187. That was the last election that the state was considered a Red state even thought the voters passed it. There were many hispanic Americans that voted republican until Republican Wilson pushed that prop. It didn't come across to the hispanics as anti illegal imigrant but anti hispanic. What the democrats tried for years to do, was handed to them by the republicans themselves. Convince the hispanics that republicans are racist. Looks like AZ may be following CA mistake.
For the record I fought hard against prop 187 but I am still considered a racist because I am a republican..

[MelissaWV]

That's not what I'm refering to, you contrarian numbrod.

I'm refering to the federal law the state law enforcement will be enforcing, the federal law requiring ALL immigrants to carry their documentation with them.

Then you probably shouldn't have said...


THEY ARE!!!!!!

The only thing this law does is enable state law enforcement officials to enforce PRE-EXISTING laws. The law is taken verbatum from the federal immirgation law which has been on the books but hasn't been enforced...for 50 years!!!

"The only thing this law does..."
and
"...verbatum" [sic]


Main Entry: ver·ba·tim
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)vər-ˈbā-təm\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, from Latin verbum word
Date: 15th century
: in the exact words : word for word

[John Taylor]

Then you probably shouldn't have said...



"The only thing this law does..."
and
"...verbatum" [sic]

You are a fool.

This AZ law only allows for the state enforcement of preexisting federal laws requiring immigrants to carry proof of their status in the country with them. That's it. Now, go slam your head against your computer screen until that gets through to you by osmosis.

[MelissaWV]

You are a fool.

This AZ law only allows for the state enforcement of preexisting federal laws requiring immigrants to carry proof of their status in the country with them. That's it. Now, go slam your head against your computer screen until that gets through to you by osmosis.

If it ONLY does that, then why's it mention e-verify? I thought it was 50 years old? I could slam my head against the computer screen all day and it wouldn't make sense :) You wrote something you didn't mean, that's fine. I accept your "whoops."

[dannno]

federal law requiring ALL immigrants to carry their documentation with them.

So where is the Federal Law that requires citizens to carry documentation with them?

Again, you are so hyperfocused on illegals that you are not considering how this is going to affect the rights of American citizens.

That's the third or fourth time I've said that. I'll go 100 more if you want.