Over the 4th, we had a family BBQ. My family could generally be called "flaming Liberals" Not a single one of them was opposed to what Arizona is trying to do. All of them are sick and tired of "illegals" and government inaction on the issue.

Who cares - do both, continue to tick off the electorate. I would LOVE for both houses of congress to roll to the republicans. While I'm not thrilled with the republicans, the democrats have shown just how bad the government can really be. Get Pelosi out of there (or at least out of a position of power), get Reid into the unemployment line and slow down the crap that Obama is shoving down our throats.

We can be pretty certain the Ds won't revisit the death panels (they're having a hard enough time with their debt panels).

On the other hand, we've seen the the Ds have no problem going to war against Arizona in the hopes of permanently dragging Hispanic/Latino/whatever voters to their side of the aisle.

The real conversation about immigration in the US should be about the H1B visas. Illegal doing farm work and crap jobs that no "white" folks want to do is not really a big problem for middle class America. With so many IT and engineers out of work, giving those jobs within US borders to H1B visa holders is a huge issue for two reasons. One Americans should have more rights to employment than short term visitors. Two, we are teaching foreign nationals skills (because trust me most H1B visa holders are not at American skill levels) that will ultimately allow their nations to overtake this one. I have no problems with people who want to become US citizens working here. I have a huge issue with short termers.....

The Obama administration will have a better crack at defeating Arizona if they wait until they can prove racial discrimination and then suing in the name of the innocent victim. Maybe the reason they didn't wait was because they really, really don't expect there to be one.

Wow, for once I think I agree with LucsAdvo...about H1B visas and Americans having more rights to employment.

However, the "crap jobs" part bothers me...things like framing, painting, drywall, and roofing...are hardly jobs no "white folks" will do. In fact, they did. Until contractors figured out they could pay "other" folks 1/2 the wage, under the table.

And farm labor....lets get pre-teens and teenagers back doing that stuff like a lot of us did. It might actually teach them some responsibility and hopefully lose the sense of entitlement they seem to have now.

This AZ thing is going to do to Dems in November what Gavin Newsom did to Dems in November 4 years ago.

It sounds like the Republicans won't be voting for the Democrats again. As a traditional Democrat, the efforts of the Democrats as a party to appease Republicans destroys my enthusiasm for bothering to vote.

Full disclosure: I am so far to the left that I consider Nixon to have been a Republican, rather than a Communist as Republicans today would label him.

The GOP has effectively shaped the immigration debate so the real elephant in the room never gets addressed: holding businesses more accountable in their hiring and taxation practices would solve much of the problem.

Somehow, the media lets Republicans talk out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. They're fighting behind the scenes to maintain the status quo (access to cheap, illegal labor) while trying to appear vigilant and outraged to the Tea Baggers.

But hell, I'm sure Obama is to blame for it...

I just get tired of people who have never read the AZ law and don't understand it complaining about things not in the law.

The existing Federal law allows for people to be stopped by federal agents at any time for any or no reason and asked for "papers". It allows for race to be the reason for stopping and/or asking.

The AZ law, as amended, specifically prohibits racial profiling and specifically prohibits using race as a basis for stopping or asking for ID. It only allows the police to ask for ID after someone is already detained for a suspected non-immigration crime and to report a suspected immigration crime to the feds if they suspect one in the course of their other duties.

The whole thing is politicized beyond sanity.

The transparently fraudulent "death panel" meme is probably a liability for Republicans, just like the Tea Party and "birther" movements. The AZ lawsuit, on the other hand, may very well hurt the Democrats politically, especially in the (likely) absence of a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. But Obama simply must do this, all political considerations aside. There's no point in even having a federal government if local officials are allowed to set their own immigration policies. (That those officials are demonstrably racist and xenophobic only makes matters worse.) If the AZ law somehow withstands constitutional scrutiny, we might as well split into 50 separate countries and be done with it. I too have been very disappointed with Obama, but on this issue he is showing real political courage.

Jon - To correct you... I have never once thought construction were crap jobs.... I think farm work and janitorial jobs and a lot of kitchen work (another pay off the books bonaza area), though I wish these were not considered like that, are crap jobs. I did farm labor as a kid but the reality is that most farms are no longer family farms and current labor law does not countenance minors around dangerous machinery or toxic chemicals unless they are family of farm owners.

I would love to see 12 yols and up doing real labor to teach them responsibility and to curb the entitlement crap.

Jon ... one more thing, if your real first name is Jon, I think we may have worked together at one time a few years back... and yeah it is scary for me too when our political viewpoints align...

I suspect the Democrat's global warming movement and carbon/energy taxes will be hurting them also.

Looking at this MSNBC online poll I'd say the AZ law is going to be a very bad thing for the Ds trying to obstruct it.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2010/05/12/4274124-do-you-support-arizonas-tough-new-law-on-illegal-immigration

Results
Total of 3,361,286 votes
96% Yes
3,225,883 votes

4% No
135,403 votes

If anyone was having trouble becoming anti-government this issue may have pushed them over the edge.

Government suing government. Great.
AZ government, by public vote, attempting to do what should have been done all along being sued by the Federal Government who has been thoroughly negligent and incompetent.

Making matters much worse for the Democrats are the flood of asinine statements coming from elected and appointed Democrats who are trying to stop AZ.
It's worse than just advocating another Bill they never read and it's infuriating the masses.

The "death panel" meme is getting closer to reality not further.
The Tea Party movement is mischaracterized by Ds as bad as the AZ law.

The so called "birther" movement is minuscule, fading and irrelevant.

PBJ wrote: This AZ thing is going to do to Dems in November what Gavin Newsom did to Dems in November 4 years ago.

You must mean six years ago—2004, the year Newsom authorized same-sex marriages in San Francisco, and the year Bush won reelection. Four years ago the Dems took the House.

As for 2004, study of the claim that same-sex marriage initiatives (SSMIs) were decisive suggests they in fact were not. San Francisco Chronicle, June 8, 2006:

Although it has become conventional political wisdom that the same-sex marriage issue helped send Bush to a second White House term and cemented the GOP House and Senate majorities in 2004, academic analysis has cast doubt on that idea.

Despite a clear backlash against the 2003 decisions by the Supreme Court to decriminalize homosexuality and by the Massachusetts high court to permit same-sex marriage, "little of the available evidence suggest gay marriage decided the 2004 election" either nationally or in hotly contested Ohio, political scientists Nathaniel Persily of the University of Pennsylvania and Patrick Egan and Kevin Wallsten, both at UC Berkeley, wrote in a research paper.

Persily said there is "persuasive evidence" from Stanford University political scientist Simon Jackman that same-sex marriage neither mobilized Republican voters nor convinced supporters of Democratic candidate John Kerry to vote for Bush.

It will be interesting to follow which laws the federal government allows the states to enforce. Eventually, maybe we won't be able to arrest, charge, and/or try illegal aliens for any of their crimes. Is a jury of citizens really a jury of an illegal alien's peers? Not really. Why not just give them a pass on other laws? Makes as much sense to me as giving them a pass for being here illegally.

The so called "birther" movement is minuscule, fading and irrelevant.

Tell that to Sen. Vitter.

I agree with Jon, there are many jobs across the spectrum that US citizen youth will do, even in construction. I have grand nieces and nephews begging to work.

TKrueg, maybe you don't realize that Arizona already holds employers accountable in their hiring. Many businesses in Arizona proudly display E verification of their employees-much more than Oregon. If you had those placards proudly displayed here, you'd be picketed as being racists. Which really doesn't make sense. Hispanic is not a race. And many republicans endorse, encourage citizenship verification. We need to put it to the test to help address the problem.

I agree with TKrueg - if you want to slow illegal immigration quickly, put some of the burden on the employer. It may not be popular, and surely there will be some employers who do as much checking as possible and still get unfairly punished, but it's the only way to truly solve the problem. At least the only way we can afford.

Of course, as companies move plants from China (where labor costs are increasing) to Mexico/Central America, the issue may ameliorate itself, to some extent.

"if you want to slow illegal immigration quickly, put some of the burden on the employer."

You already need to fill out a form stating your citizenship status which isn't really slowing anything. HOwever, if you forced employers to verify a valid SS number, you might have some more luck. I just don't see this admin/party doing anything that might be deemed anti-Hispanic for fear of losing that voting bloc.

Semi-Cynic
said,
"""The so called "birther" movement is minuscule, fading and irrelevant."
Tell that to Sen. Vitter."""

Why? What are you suggesting?
Why are you suggesting when you could just say what you mean?

If Senator Vitter is a "birther" that means Senator Vitter is part of the realtive minuscule and meaningless so called birther movement.

Neither of these two issues influences or changes anyone's thinking, or vote, of an intractable partisan 'plugged in' by politics. Not mousey-meek double-talking hypocritical Democrats, who are corrupted in power and moneylust only selfishly aiming to stay elected. Not belligerent bellowing liars Republicans, who are corrupted in power and moneylust only selfishly aiming to stay elected.

Ninety percent of the populace is 'plugged in' by NOTpolitics, none of the above. Only the shouters are shouting at each other.

Neither issue 'hurts' the Dems. The Dems hurt the Dems. The Reps hurt the Reps. The whole damn stinking cesspool has to be removed of self-concerned politicos twiddling and twaddling our lives away, our values and principles away, our public well-being away, hemming and hawing and wasting time and resources away, all the while a freight train of compounded natural and unnatural (evil-people) forces comes hurtling at humankind's future and fate. Damn the lot of them. Raise the mindfulness of us, together.

Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist, June 23, 2010, by Lin Edwards.

Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner

Immigration is NOT any issue. Faggetabodit. Fix the big things first and such little things will resolve by collateral gain.

'Death panel' Palin-puke idiocy is NOT any issue. Faggetabodit. Fix the big things first and such little things will resolve by collateral gain.

Teach the children, honor the venerable, comfort the afflicted, shelter the homeless, engage the outcasts and disenfranchised, help the sickened and lame, indulge the dreamers, establish Justice -- THOSE are the big things.

STFU rightwing wackos. STFU leftwing do-nothings.

Step up and Speak up, our best and brightest. And turn off the eff'ing TV insanity of intentional chaos.

Read a book. Hug a friend. Kiss a frog. Watch a sunrise. Labor a new day. Write a poem, make a musical joy. Secede and defund the 'federal government' abomination, stand on our own and local, share what you think.

P*ss on who sweats the petty stuff. Lord, stop that movie. Damnsure don't take the nattering-naysayer claptrap divisiveness seriously, not even so much as to repeat it, nevermind 'vote' for ruin-by-fraud or ruin-by-fools. Lose LIARS, cram the clowns;
share talk with friends.

Peace.

Tensky,
How do you end that string of angered wrongness with "Peace"?
Wrong on too many counts to go through it.
But where do you fit into all that ugly you created?

Aren't you a big admirer of Randy Leonard? That's telling.

Likewise is your avoidance of all the lousy policies our local politicians, like Leonard, produce.

Lousy policies which Jack and many on the left are in sink with myself and many on the right. Including LIARS.

That right there blows your hateful sermon.

The transparently fraudulent "death panel" meme is probably a liability for Republicans, just like the Tea Party and "birther" movements. The AZ lawsuit, on the other hand, may very well hurt the Democrats politically, especially in the (likely) absence of a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. But Obama simply must do this, all political considerations aside. There's no point in even having a federal government if local officials are allowed to set their own immigration policies. (That those officials are demonstrably racist and xenophobic only makes matters worse.) If the AZ law somehow withstands constitutional scrutiny, we might as well split into 50 separate countries and be done with it. I too have been very disappointed with Obama, but on this issue he is showing real political courage.

The Tea Party is a liability to the Reps? Seems recent elections show otherwise, what hole have you been living in?

And AZ is not setting it's own immigration policy. Rather it's mirroring the one set by the federal government, only with more restrictions. Honestly, what other recourse do the states have when congress passes a law that the executive branch refuses to enforce?

The AZ law, as amended, specifically prohibits racial profiling and specifically prohibits using race as a basis for stopping or asking for ID.

But it requires the police to ask for papers (after a pretextual stop) if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally. What is the basis for that suspicion if not race? Language, accent, weird customs? There are actual Americans who don't speak English, or speak it with a heavy accent, and I don't need to even start with the weird customs bit, since we all live in/near Portland. (Naked bike ride, anyone?)

If the authors of this bill wanted to avoid discrimination based on race or other criteria, they could just require Arizona police to check the immigration status of EVERYONE who is stopped by police. That solves the problem right there. But of course it also smacks of big brother, and these same people don't like heavy-handed government. At least, not when it's used against white Americans.

The authors of the bill were exceedingly thorough. The is no problem with the bill at all. Misrepresenting the bill is political smearing.

As with every other offense law enforcement addresses there are many legitimate and reason ways to suspect illegality.

Arizona also has a large Hispanic populous who are citizens, legal residents and in law enforcement.

A simple google of "reasonable suspicion of illegal status" brings up many sources for folks to get smart and honest on this issue.

Unless one's intent is to cloud the issue.


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_dc1b2fb2-854c-11df-bccf-001cc4c03286.html

Training video defines 'reasonable suspicion' of illegal status
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 1:13 pm | Updated: 7:54 pm, Fri Jul 2, 2010.
Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | 10 comments
Police officers got their first access Thursday to information about exactly what it takes for them to question people they stop about their immigration status.
A video lesson released by the Arizona Police Officers Standards and Training Board spells out what officers should look for in determining whether there is “reasonable suspicion” to believe someone is in this country illegally.

"What is the basis for that suspicion if not race? Language, accent, weird customs?"

You do realize there are illegal Chinese and Russian aliens here also? I'd guess if they run into someone who doesn't have job or means of support, no passport and no fixed address and can't speak English very well then I might be suspicious.

I'd say let them do the law, but watch and see what happens in terms of real actions. I'd like to think that police are like the general population and treat people equally.

Steve are you familiar with the acronym DWB?

"I'd like to think that police are like the general population and treat people equally."

Since many AZ cops are Hispanic I'd say they have a handle on it.

AZ is not setting it's own immigration policy. Rather it's mirroring the one set by the federal government, only with more restrictions. Honestly, what other recourse do the states have when congress passes a law that the executive branch refuses to enforce?

(1) National borders are not Arizona's to enforce. Even if the state law "mirrors" the federal law, it's still a blatantly unconstitutional usurpation of authority. We do not (yet) have 50 separate countries, each with the ability to set its own immigration policy. Sorry.

(2) If you don't like how the executive is enforcing a particular law, your "recourse" is to vote out that executive in favor of one more to your liking.

Unless one's trying to cloud the issue, it would have been nice to quote just a little bit more of the article:

But it remains to be seen whether the video and training materials do anything to alleviate concerns that the law will lead to racial profiling. Jon O’Neill, spokesman for the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out the training video is voluntary.

I also like how they go on to explain that wearing long-sleeved shirts may be an indication of illegal status.

Ben, would you object to just having the police request proof of immigration status in ALL stops/interactions? If not, why not?

"Ben, would you object to just having the police request proof of immigration status in ALL stops/interactions? If not, why not?"

Uh, because that's stupid?

Why subject everyone to a needless process? If there's not a shred of indication of illegal status why would you want people challenged?

Just because you libs can't read the AZ law?

There's nothing wrong with either the law or profiling suspects.

Wow. Reading this makes me wonder just how illiterate about the law the average American is. Seriously, There's the Bill of Rights and the 14th Ammendment (which the Supremes regularyly give short shrift to)... but then there are fairly well known concepts like oh probable cause.... and race, etc. does not constitute probably cause. And we are not yet living in Stalinist Russia so carrying ID at all times is not a requirement. What's ironically funny is the red haters have started advocating the same kinds of totalitarian behavior, only around their own private agenda.

Go by Bill of Rights....

Actually, L.A., I'm not advocating in favor of everyone having to carry papers. I'm using that example as a debating tactic to flush out the absurdity of the Ben et. al. position. Ben is totally fine with dark-skinned, poor-English speaking, long-sleeve shirt wearing (ha!) Americans having to carry papers. He is totally opposed to Americans like himself having to carry papers.

There's nothing wrong with either the law or profiling suspects.

Except when I want to crack down on German, English and Canadian illegal immigrants. Or illegal immigrants from whatever country your ancestors hail from. At that point, you have a problem with the lack of probable cause.

Incredible.

LA & Miles,

You're wandering around in circles making up laws and positions that don't even exist.

The AZ law is what it is. Not what you want it to be.

So try and talk about the actual law.

The law does not allow and no one has suggested abandoning probable cause.

The law prohibits the use of race as "probable cause" or as a basis of suspicion.

As for carrying ID at all times, it is required of legal immigrants and visitors.

Miles suggesting "everyone having to carry papers" is a weak stunt that doesn't address the law or Ben's position.

Ben is not "totally fine with dark-skinned, poor-English speaking, long-sleeve shirt wearing (ha!) Americans having to carry papers".

Only those required by federal law, regardless of color.

There is no need to have every American carry proof of citizenship. Also regardless of color.

There's nothing wrong with either the AZ law or profiling suspects.

Except what your imagination has fabricated.

Now behave.

So Ben, how does the law address dark-skinned, spanish-speaking American citizens who are not carrying proof that they are American citizens. If such an American is questioned for shoplifting, and can only produce a company ID badge as identification, what happens? Is it the same thing that happens to a white teenager who is questioned for shoplifting and can only produce a school ID?

How is this law going to work if American citizens who might be questioned by the police are not required to carry proof of their citizenship? Can everyone questioned simply say "I'm a US citizen, I don't have to show you anything?"

The reason I keep coming back to this is that the law will result in one of two things: either it will be effective in finding illegal immigrants, and in so doing violate the rights of a certain dark-skinned class of American citizens, or the protections in the law that you refer to will render it absolutely useless. And I don't believe the authors of the law intend for it to be useless.

So Miles have you read the law?

I think not. Your questions reveal that you have not. Furthermore you are not paying attention to news and discussions.

Bob Scheiffer has the same affliction. He pulled the same misrepresentations when he interviewed AG Holder.

Law enforcement in AZ and elsewhere have been interacting with Hispanic American citizens foreever. Just as they have with spanish speaking illegal aliens. Over decades they have noted many tell tale signs of illegal status.

The Arizona law was thoroughly crafted to address these obvious concerns and potetential problems with implementation.

Your misinformed unbending contention is that race alone is suspect enough to require proof of legal status and now all Hispanics will be required to carry proof of legal status.

It is not and is prohibited from being used as a basis for suspicion.

However , speaking no English along with other typical indicators of illegal status would certainly be enough to inquire about status.

But the emphasis is on the long track record of various illegal alien characteristics.

Your contrived what if scenario where a non-English speaking Hispanic American citizen is arrested for shoplifting and has no driver's license or other official ID is a silly what if.

Why don't you write a letter to an AZ newspaper and ask how often that what if combination arises? Is it your notion that there are a bunch of crime committing American citizens who don't speak English?

Those would be virtually always people here on green cards/visas and they are required by federal law to carry their papers. .

But as for arrested shoplifters and other criminals the bar is lowered by virtue of committing crime.

Why would anyone have a problem with processing every arresting criminal? Our own jails here figure out early and easily if those arrested are here illegal.

Some law enforcement agencies now ICE process all of them, just like AZ will soon do statewide. Great, they should. But our agencies that already do get the same nonsensical grief about it being racist etc.

Law enforcement can also figure out if any teenager questioned for shoplifting with a school ID is legal or not? If they are arrested for shoplifting additional scrutiny occurs during that process.

There already are people claiming they are legal and don't have to show you anything. If they are not arrested for criminal behavior they are let go.

Your entire premise hangs on your lack of realization that the AZ law simply requires action on the obvious where it was not required before.

Simply processing, with adequate guidelines, those who are already engaged by law enforcement will of course result in exactly the same outcome as anywhere else where it occurs.

Not so much as "finding illegal immigrants" but processing those who are recognized through other interactions.

Your two alternatives are narrowly contrived and do not fit the realities that law enforcement face.

Will the AZ law be fool proof? Of course not. There will be many minor offending illegals who slip through the cracks of the cautious system. That's OK. However, very few who are taken into custody for more serious offences will escape the ICE process. That's a big improvement.

The best part of the AZ law is when it is implemented it will end most of the obfuscating speculation about how unfair it is.

If you are an illegal alien don't get arrested in Clackamas County. Unlike Sanctuary Portland the CC Sheriff's office has ICE take all illegal aliens.

If all Oregon did was adopt the CC approach statewide that would be a big improvement.

Ben -
You do understand that just because a legislature passes legislation that does not make it an enforceable law, right?

You do understand that laws must pass constitutional muster, right?

You do know the difference between the rational basis test and equal protection scrutiny and the highest level of scrutiny (see Korematsu v. United States) don't you?

Because with the crud you write, I kind of doubt it. One of us has had two full years of constitutional (one in a very fine undergrad institution and the second in a nationally known law school), the other has not.

So if you think you are in a position to lecture me on the law Ben, I'd kindly suggest you actually get an education and then maybe I will take you seriously. Until then, enjoy your Faux News bias and your big attitude.

Lucas,

Get a hold of your imagination and stop wandering all over the place.

You do understand that just because yo imagine something that does not make it in the AZ law, right?

You do understand that the AZ law has not been shown to conflict with the constitution, right?

Because with the crud you imagine, I kind of doubt it.

One of us has the ability to read for comprehension, the other has not.

So if you think you are in a position to lecture me on what the AZ law says or will do, Lucas, I'd kindly suggest you actually read a copy of the law and quote where you imagine all of the AZ lawyers who wrote it screwed up.

Until then, enjoy your imaginary world and obfuscation.

Or you could even ponder how Clackamas County is violating the constitution by ICE processing all arrested illegals and share your legal wisdom on it.

Then chill out, dude.

quote where you imagine all of the AZ lawyers who wrote it screwed up.

The hilarious thing about this thread is that Ben, of all people, is arguing that the government, through the infinite wisdom of its infinite bureaucrats, has crafted a well thought out policy that will be implemented flawlessly.

Go by (government) streetcar!

You don't understand Miles.

First they didn't have to write much because federal law already covered it.
Second the enforcement part is easy and also widely established. Nothing new at all.
Thid all the law does is mandate enforcement by all law enfoircment agencies with some guidelines and precautionary protections.

You have created an inaccurate caricature of the law that fits your critisism.

It's not even an unknown experiment as many jurisdictions around the country already do much of what this AZ will do for their entire State.

As for government all bad? Not hardly and law enforcement is at least a legitimate core function of government.

As you gin up problems for this common sense law the real problem is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcwIy_fQuU&feature=player_embedded

Ben - Your reading comprehension is laughable. You've deduced that LucsAdvo is Lucas??? Really? Try to keep up. It's short for Lucifer's Advocate (aka the devil's advocate which is also probably lost on you). Now I am done with your dumbmess.