How in hell can someone "support" Arizona's anti-immigrant law?

[Atticus]

This is not a "close" call. There is no real doubt as to the immorality and mean-spirited nature of this law. It is thinly-veiled racism propelled by fear that has been carefully stoked by right-wing extremists.

Any doubt as to the motivation behind this bill is quickly resolved when one realizes that the legislature sought to place the enforcement of Federal immigration law under the authority of ---each and every individual citizen of Arizona. If a law enforcement agency fails, in the opinion of any citizen of the state, to properly enforce this new law, i.e., an "obvious" Mexican was not asked to show his or her papers, they can be sued!

Can they sue if the police fail to enforce the speeding laws? The DUI statute? ANY other law besides this one that just happens to target those with brown skin, Hispanic names or that certain indicator of crimiality, an accent?

The Obama administration, on this issue, is on the side of the angels.

The polls which supposedly show over half the country supports the Arizona law are embarrassing, but consistent with the majorities that opposed women's suffrage, school desegregation and the entire civil rights movement. Right is right when no one does it. Wrong is wrong when everyone does it.

The Democrats in Arizona who "support" the law and oppose the Attorney General's recent lawsuit against their state, are either cowards or fools. They are clearly on the wrong side of history and will soon take their place alongside those who opposed black children attending school with white children and supported "whites only" signs in restaurants and stores.

We need to elect people who are NOT willing to do "anything" to be elected or re-elected. Are there any---dare I say it?---statesmen left among us? Are there none willing to draw an idelible line beyond which they will not proceed though that refusal may mean their defeat in the next election?

[bluestateguy]

1. As someone with conservative leanings on immigration, I find the AZ bill to be an abomination

It WILL cause massive racial profiling, paranoia and invasions of privacy.

[Skip Intro]

2. I think illegal immigration is a problem, and one that should be addressed.

It is completely unfair to the legal immigrants in this nation, or those waiting to arrive.

The federal gov. is failing in it's responsibilities to protect and secure our borders.

This law may not be the right law, but I don't blame people in border states for wanting to do something about a real problem. And I don't think the half or so of the national population that supports this law is automatically racist.

Calling it an "anti-immigration" law is purposely deceitful. Labeling those who recognize and want to do something about the problem as racist or longing for a "whites only" society is deceitful as well. And none of that does anything to achieve a fair and lawful solution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. The real problem are employers

where are all the fines that are supposed to be given to companies for hiring Illegal Aliens?

I live in a border town for god sakes, and in my limited experience the further people are FROM THE ACTUAL FUCKING BORDER, the more concerned they are...

Or if they are at the border, well if they happen to be white... and speak English. I hate to point this out.

[dkf]

14. I doubt those are completely legit companies that hire illegal immigrants.

They are probably individuals doing under the table arrangements. I bet most people who hire illegal immigrants are not paying taxes and are operating on a cash basis. It never occurred to me that hiring someone who asks for cash probably is conducting shady arrangements. Now I am suspicious of anyone who asks for cash payment. You can ask to see a contractors license but it is amazing how these businesses that look legit probably aren't doing everything by the book.

The question is when you hire these contractors are you allowed to make sure everyone working on the project is here legally or will you be called a bigot and a republican for even asking.

Certain elements have turned a desire to enforce our laws into a stigma. They create hate against people who wish to play by the rules.

[kimmylavin]

27. Ever read "Fast Food Nation"?

Plenty of info in there about "legit" companies that hire illegal immigrants.
The info about McDonald's and its various subcontractors is particularly illuminating.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. You mean like oh TYSON foods?

For god sakes they RAN adds in Mexico to attract people to their facilities. You think they paid for everybody to get a visa?

Now tell me if Tyson was fined for doing that... you think they'd be running adds to attract oh farmers displaced from their Fields by oh NAFTA?

It is not that simple.

[Mimosa]

70. Illegal immigration is exploitive

Nadinbrzezinski, I heard about that from my Mexican relatives.

[EFerrari]

10. As has been pointed out to you before, you're defending a law written by a hate group

that does nothing to stem illegal immigration.

This is a racist law that depends on racial profiling for enforcement. There is no getting around that.

It's not a solution.

[wiggle-room]

62. Self Delete

Wrong thread, sorry.

[mmonk]

31. The Arizona law fuels abuse and racism directed at the legal immigrants.

It is deceitful to blame immigrants for a bad system, employment exploitation, and bad laws. But every bad system has to have a scapegoat to survive.

[datasuspect]

49. the AZ law is profoundly racist and anyone who supports it is a racist.

it's all just a distraction.

unless you're in the ownership class, you have more in common with your illegal immigrant brothers and sisters in the global economy. this is what the economic wall street terrorist gangsters want for all of us: open fluid borders with maquiladoras and walmarts everywhere.

the constant harping and whining: "wahhh, but they're breaking the law, wahhhh" sounds horrifyingly similar to the all the Verbrecher talk during the post-Weimar and nazi-era Germany.

the connotation is like this: Verbrecher (lawbreaker) ==> dirty, impure "Other" (Untermenschen) ==> anything we do in retaliation is justified.

my father was mexican-american, i have a spanish surname, and i have dark hair, eyes, and skin.

the reasonable suspicion/probable cause in the AZ law means that i might possibly have to prove my citizenship in the country of my birth during a routine traffic stop (way too much discretion put in idiot cops hands), SOMETHING I OR MY FATHER OR HIS FATHER NEVER HAD TO DO. and we've been here since texas was mexico. do you get it now?

this is all about mexicans.

here's my litmus test, would you rather have Jose (mexican) or Jerzy (polish) fucking your white daughter?

because this is all it comes down to: white fear of ANY perceived loss of prestige to a nonwhite or a nonwhite fucking their daughter.

it's why they used to lynch black men in the south, north, east, and west of this good ol' USA.

[Skip Intro]

60. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but despite the over the top psuedo-namecalling, I stand

by my post. You'll pardon me if I decline entertain such labeling if it was indeed directed toward me. I'm not about to submit myself for your approval.

Every nation certainly has the right, and obligation, to regulate immigration. And yes, the federal government has thus far failed in it's obligation to do just that in regard to our southern border. In that absence, I can hardly fault a state for trying to address the problem. This is not a defense of the law, mind you, but a defense of a state making an effort to address a problem the federal government has failed to address.

The stamping as racist everyone who recognizes that illegal immigration is a problem is akin to tea partiers labeling supporters of Obama as socialists, marxists, and oh yes, nazis. That is the sideshow, that is the distraction.

If this is the wrong law, then we need the right law, but to allow unfettered a continuing influx of people into this nation whose first act is to break our laws is not only unfair to immigrants who legally enter and follow the naturalization process, but to full-fledged citizens who need jobs and pay taxes to support our social safety net and other systems.

You seem as if you are saying that Mexicans, in this case, have a right to enter the US at will, and that anyone who has a problem with that falls into one of the many categories of bigoted points of view you list. I strongly disagree. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.



edited to correct a grammatical error

[datasuspect]

71. nothing directed at you personally

and to answer your question, yes, it would be the same opportunity lots of european immigrants got when they basically just sauntered into the country through Ellis Island. or when the first europeans just up and claimed various parts of this continent for france, england, and spain at an early point in the north american continent's history.

what's good for the goose . . .

[Skip Intro]

90. Good to know.

Are you actually suggesting the US allow Mexico to lay claim to entire states, or portions of states?

[datasuspect]

104. no.

i'm not making that leap.

[Mimosa]

65. Exactly so, Skip Intro

Globalists and free trade capitalists desire the cheapest workforce.

Oligarchal governments, such as that of Mexico and other Central American countries, wish to offload their excess populations. They want their poorest people to flee instead of staying home and demanding better conditions there.

The Catholic Church was dying in America and needed a new customer base. They get that by importing people.

How is it that white middle class Americanos don't see these aspects?

[AtomicKitten]

3. It will most likely be ruled unconstitutional.

What it is is dipshit posturing from a bigmouth Arizona governor playing politics. The GOP's outrage began on 01/20/2009 and they still have to answer for not solving the problem when it languished for years under their purview.

[hfojvt]

4. Did I say, or did I not say

that lefties were zealous?

"People who disagree with me (on this issue) are either cowards or fools."

[Atticus]

8. "Zealous" is not a negative comment. I freely admit to being zealous. If you mean to call me a

"zealot", that would be an insult if used in the sense of "a fanatic".

As you are aware, despite your quotation marks, I did not say anything about "people who disagree with me".

Does intentionally misquoting someone in order to erect a strawman make you a zealot---or just zealous?

[disillusioned73]

16. Nice.. bravo

reading comprehension these days not a requirement;

"The Democrats in Arizona who "support" the law and oppose the Attorney General's recent lawsuit against their state, are either cowards or fools."

[hfojvt]

29. you implied that with your title

and also with this
"The Democrats in Arizona who "support" the law and oppose the Attorney General's recent lawsuit against their state, are either cowards or fools."

The alternative, that there are sincere and decent people who disagree with you, does not seem to be an option.

So I don't see that I either intentioanlly misquoted you, nor created a strawman. What I did was 'paraphrase' you. You can either agree or disagree with the paraphrase, which would mean that you are walking back your OP a little bit.

[Atticus]

50. When I get "paraphrased" like that, I usually get kissed. nt

[EFerrari]

13. Why are you generalizing to "lefties"?

And the OP is right. People have had plenty of time to assess this law. It is an obvious POS. You don't have to be "left" to recognize that. You do have to have pulsing glia matter, though. Even high ranking LEOs in AZ are against this thing and they are certainly not known for their wild radical left leaning.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

22. +1

[hfojvt]

32. actually I am paraphrasing but people like to pick nits

That is how I interpret the OP. That is supposed to be one of the techniques of communicating. As in "this is how I interpret what you said, is this what you meant?"

The OP starts of "How can anybody support this Arizona law" as in "how can anybody disagree with me on this issue" UNLESS they are bigots, fools, idiots, cowards, etc., etc., etc. and then later says "The Democrats in Arizona who "support" the law and oppose the Attorney General's recent lawsuit against their state, are either cowards or fools."

There are no such things as "paraphrase marks" so it seems to me a fair use of quotation marks to imply "this is essentially what you are saying".

Basically, "There are no decent or sincere people who disagree with me, only cowards, fools" and then also people who are intentionally lying.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Is your claim that a paraphrase can not be indicated

because there is no paraphrase punctuation mark? Because it seems to me that what you are saying is that without such a mark, there is no way to point out what you think is being inferred. It seems almost as if you are saying that you could not use words to make that comparison, and instead had to make an incorrect and editorial use of quotation marks, which always mean a quote.

[hfojvt]

40. How did this get to be the topic?

So I was lazy. If we are discussing something, I don't really think the discussion should veer off into what an awful person I am. Unless that was the original topic. But the side track sorta proves my point doesn't it?

OP: How in hell can anybody disagree with me about the Arizona law?
Me: So you do not tolerate opposing points of view
Swarm: You are a terrible, awful, no good lying person. You're a quotation marks misuser.


Doesn't that help to verify the thesis I was arguing against? This basic belief that "people who disagree with me have moral and/or intellectual defects".

See, I used quotation marks, not because somebody said precisely that, but because that delineates the thesis and it is NOT something that I am saying. It is the idea of others, even if they expressed it using different words.

[Atticus]

52. I think you made a careless reply, maybe one that didn't convey what you intended,

and, when challenged, you refused to reconsider or restate your thoughts. You have now "explained" your original reply several times and there is no apparent end in sight.

This post, wherein you "interpret" my OP as you think I intended it, is pretty pathetic. It is the same type of presumptious parsing that Rush engages in daily: "Listen to me! I'll tell you what Obama(or Pelosi or Reid) REALLY meant!"

This has ceased being constructive or even respectful.

I'm done.

[LostinVA]

21. Your quotation marks are actually against the rules

You are saying the poster said that when they didn't say that. OPs have been locked for the same thing, with the DU Rules cited. Dishonest.

[hfojvt]

34. thanks for your concern and support

I was trying to say the the poster "meant" that even if it was not explicitly said. Lazy, perhaps, but no more so than many one line posts on this board which contain a lot more snark.

So I left off the phrase "As I see it, you are essentially saying this", and I guess that is a mortal sin to people who have already decided that they do not like me. But this also falls into the ideology that "there are no decent and sincere people who disagree with me". Nobody said that, but instead of discussing things with people who disagree, the first step is to instead attack their character.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_iSIv26S_o

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Well why don't you offer us the details of how your

State handles your international border issues? If you were to speak about your own views, what your locality does and that sort of personal knowledge, rather than speaking about what you think other people meant by what they said, then rewriting them to present your version of their views, you would do better.
If you speak your own views, you don't need frames and false quotation marks to guide you though your insinuation making routine. Just say what you think. It is very easy.

[hfojvt]

39. what I think is that people should be more tolerant

of those they disagree with. The OP apparently does not, and I do not think that is an insinuation. Also, I am fairly sure that Kansas does not have the same border issues as Arizona, although there is a Mexican parade this weekend in Topeka that I am missing.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. I was able to read the OP for myself, thanks.

Don't need rewrites and fixed quote marks to 'splain it to me. And just by the way, that which is apparent does not need to be framed for notice, it is apparent to all. If you have to explain that it is obvious, it is not obvious. Apparently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Primacy Clause

that is where it should fail... with the current USSC though... need I mention Citizens United?

After all cheap labor is cheap labor is cheap labor and corporations just love cheap labor. If these guys could do it, I fear they'd bring back indentured labor and slavery... there I said it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

7. anything is possible when you put hate first in your life

[OHdem10]

9. The framing has been the key . "ILLEGAL". is the emphasis.

Every nation has the right to set and enforce Immigration Laws.
ILLEGALS are breaking the law. Individualism brings a reaction
especially in hard times--Illegals are using up our services and
we can hardly pay, much less pay more taxes. For those out of
work it is easy to say they are bringing our salaries down.

I do not necessarily agree with them but we need to try to understand
their thinking.

It is too bad working for the common good and we are all in this
together were replaced with Individualism and Personal Responsibility.

Conservatives won out. Words matter.

[EFerrari]

11. "Illegals" pay taxes just like everyone else. They are funding Social Security right now.

And that has nothing to do with this law which in practice targets Latinos for harassment no matter what their status is.

[dkf]

92. You honestly think the majority of illegal immigrants pay into social security?

Evidence please.

[pinboy3niner]

93. NYT: How Immigrants Saved Social Security

(ETA 2nd reference.)

Editorial
How Immigrants Saved Social Security
Published: April 2, 2008


Immigration is good for the financial health of Social Security because more workers mean more tax revenue. Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration. In the fine print of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, released last week, the program’s trustees noted that growing numbers of “other than legal” workers are expected to bolster the program over the coming decades.

One reason is that many undocumented workers pay taxes during their work lives but don’t collect benefits later. Another is that undocumented workers are entering the United States at ever younger ages and are expected to have more children while they’re here than if they arrived at later ages. The result is a substantial increase in the number of working-age people paying taxes, but a relatively smaller increase in the number of retirees who receive benefits — a double boon to Social Security’s bottom line.

We’re not talking chump change. According to the report, the taxes paid by other-than-legal immigrants will close 15 percent of the system’s projected long-term deficit. That’s equivalent to raising the payroll tax by 0.3 percentage points, starting today.

That is not to suggest that illegal immigration is a legitimate fix to Social Security’s problems. It is another reminder, however, of the nation’s complex relationship with undocumented workers. Would the people who want to deport all undocumented workers be willing to make up the difference and pay the taxes that the undocumented are currently paying?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: April 5, 2005


STOCKTON, Calif. - Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

[EFerrari]

12. There is something completely irrational about the support for this law.

Because the facts have been posted here over and over and over, about how it was written by a lawyer for FAIR, a hate group. About how it puts AZ LEOs in jeopardy AND also, Latino citizens. And still, there seems to be a significant amount of support for this POS. It's depressing.

This is not immigration reform. This is a Republican ploy to rally their racist base and suppress the Democratic Latino vote in Arizona. It's going to hurt the AZ tax base, make law enforcement much harder and do nothing, nadita, about illegal immigration. And still, people support it.

That's irrational, imo.

[kelly1mm]

15. Since support for the AZ law is a sizable portion, if not a majority of the US

population, one could wonder how in the hell those who do not support it could not, at least, understand why many others do. While the motovation of the supporters may not be pretty or legitimate or even logical, those motavations are real and those people have a right to their opinions and to vote for those that share that opinion if they so choose.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Majorities have supported absurd policies and laws throughout history

Majorities supported slavery, majorities were against suffrage, majorities were good with segregation, separate but equal, and Jim Crow, majorities opposed integration, majorities swept Ronnie Rayguns into office, a majority will support about any war for any reason for at least a while, George W. Bush for a shining moment had like a 90% approval rating, majorities oppose gay marriage right now for no describable secular reason.

There is no acceptable way to vote to violate another's rights no way to understand support for abuse and the inevitable mistreatment of our own innocent citizens.

No, the number of people supporting wrong will never make it worthy of consideration for me. They are out of the realm of their "rights" when they clamor to attack those of others based on being born.

Fuck em and fuck those that support and excuse them.

[minavasht]

41. Uh, in DEMOCRACY the majority rules.

that is why it is called that.

BTW, if the supporters of the Arizona law are driven by hate, what "Fuck em and fuck those that support and excuse them" tells about those who oppose it?
Fair is fair, isn't it?

[EFerrari]

44. And that's why we have a constitution that guarantees certain rights

and protects the minority.

[minavasht]

59. Exactly

where in the Constitution individuals committing illegal acts are listed as protected minorities?

[Skip Intro]

61. *crickets*

[EFerrari]

81. Are you kidding? I'm still waiting for your response upthread from yesterday.

Some of you are so busy defending this thing that doesn't handle illegal immigration in any way, that you're willing to ignore that this racist law puts American citizens and legal immigrants at equal risk.

It's just amazing to me.

[Skip Intro]

88. Where you said I defended the law? But I didn't defend the law, in this thread or any other.

I pointed out that there is a problem that needs a solution, and that I could understand some states wanting to do something to address that problem in the absence of the federal government doing it's job in this area, and decried the broad-brush, knee-jerk namecalling of those who recognize there is a problem that needs a solution, but I never defended this particular law.

What I find amazing is that so many people are willing to talk over the issue rather than discuss it rationally.

[EFerrari]

98. And again with the" feds not doing their job" talking point.

The feds haven't been this active since before Reagan.

And you bet that people are going to call out obvious discrimination when they see it. That has nothing to do with the need for immigration reform. No one wants immigration reform more than immigrants who are exploited and then scapegoated for their trouble.

[EFerrari]

63. That doesn't even make sense. Racial profiling is illegal in this country.

Period.

[minavasht]

66. I ask again

Where in the Constitution individuals breaking the law are listed as protected minority?

It has nothing to do with skin color and a lot to do with breaking the law.

Period.

BTW, can you quote the part of the 1070 where you see racial profiling? Maybe I am not reading the same thing.

Thanks!

[Atticus]

69. I sure hope that, after reading your own post , you have enough sense to be embarrassed. nt

[minavasht]

74. As a matter of fact

I am.
For wasting my time thinking I was discussing a topic.
I guess you have all the answers.

[Atticus]

80. I absolutely don't have all the answers, but I can usually keep track of what a previous poster

actually said. I don't have to resort to posting simplistic "zingers" criticizing statements that were never made.

[EFerrari]

77. Strawman. This law profiles brown people

no matter what their status is. And if you cannot see why this POS written by a hate group is racial profiling, maybe the ACLU can help you out:

ACLU And Civil Rights Groups File Legal Challenge To Arizona Racial Profiling Law


May 17, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona challenging Arizona's new law requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. The extreme law, the coalition charged, invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law.

The coalition filing the lawsuit includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

"Arizona's law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a 'show me your papers' country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "This law violates the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect."

The lawsuit charges that the Arizona law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.

"This discriminatory law pushes Arizona into a spiral of fear, increased crime and costly litigation," said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF Senior National Counsel. "We expect that this misguided law will be enjoined before it takes effect."

One of the individuals the coalition is representing in the case, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. Shee asserts that he will be vulnerable to racial profiling under the law, and that, although the law has not yet gone into effect, he has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers."

Another plaintiff, Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa, is a resident of the state of New Mexico who is currently attending Arizona State University. The state of New Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to obtain a driver's license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not want to risk losing his birth certificate by carrying it with him. He worries about traveling in Arizona without a valid form of identification that would prove his citizenship to police if he is pulled over. If he cannot supply proof upon demand, Arizona law enforcement is required to arrest and detain him.

Several prominent law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, oppose the law because it diverts limited resources from law enforcement's primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting public safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.

"This ill-conceived law sends a clear message to communities of color that the authorities are not to be trusted, making them less likely to come forward as victims of or witnesses to crime," said Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC. "Arizona's authorities should not allow public safety to take a back seat to racial profiling."

"African-Americans know all too well the insidious effects of racial profiling," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP. "The government should be preventing police from investigating and detaining people based on color and accent, not mandating it. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country anywhere for anyone."

"This extreme law puts Arizona completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality," said Julie Su, Litigation Director of the APALC. "In a state where U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were interned during World War II, it is deeply troubling that a law that would mandate lower-class treatment of people of color, immigrants and others seen to be outsiders would pass in 2010."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of labor, domestic violence, day laborer, human services and social justice organizations, including Friendly House, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW), Arizona South Asians for Safe Families (ASAFSF), Southside Presbyterian Church, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Muslim American Society, Japanese American Citizens League, Valle del Sol, Inc., Coalicíon De Derechos Humanos, and individual named plaintiffs who will be subject to harassment or arrest under the law and a class of similarly situated persons.

"Day laborers have repeatedly defended their First Amendment rights in federal courts and successfully established their undeniable right to seek work in public areas," said Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of NDLON. "Arizona's effort to criminalize day laborers and migrants is an affront to the Constitution and threatens to disrupt national unity, and we are confident that federal courts will intervene to ensure the protection of our bedrock civil rights."

Even prior to the passage of the statute, local enforcement of federal immigration law has already caused rampant racial profiling of Latinos in Arizona, most notably in Maricopa County. The ACLU, MALDEF and other members of the coalition have several pending lawsuits against government officials in Arizona because of civil rights abuses of U.S. citizens and immigrants.

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:

* ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
* MALDEF: Viramontes, Tom Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Nina Perales, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Gladys Limón and Nicholás Espiritu;
* NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
* ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
* APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;
* NDLON: Chris Newman and Lisa Kung;
* NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
* Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Elizabeth J. Neubauer,Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd and Yuval Miller; and
* Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.


The complaint can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-whiting-complaint

More information about the Arizona law, including an ACLU video and slide show, can be found at: www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona

[minavasht]

87. Would you have a problem

with the law if it required all people to be checked for their immigration status?

[COLGATE4]

83. The Constitution grants rights to persons in the United States

it does not distinguish between citizens, non-citizens and so-called illegal immigrants. They, as does every other person present in the United States have a Constititional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The right is not conditioned upon their 'legal' or 'illegal' status. This is what is being violated by the Arizona law.

[minavasht]

86. Hm,

Case 1. Person A is driving a vehicle in AZ. The speed limit is 45mph, the vehicle is doing 57mph. The vehicle gets pulled over. The driver is asked to show DL. If person A does not have a DL with him, he is asked for his name and date of birth. The name and DOB are run trough the police department teletype. Teletype confirms person A has a valid DL. Person A is given a ticket.

Case 2. Person B is driving a vehicle in AZ. The speed limit is 45mph, the vehicle is doing 57mph. The vehicle gets pulled over. The driver is asked to show DL. He does not have one. He gives a name and DOB and teletype confirms person B does not have DL and there is no record found. Now person B is checked for immigration status. Teletype advises person B is illegal.

Was person B racially profiled?

And now the big question - would you have a problem with the law if it required immigration status check on ALL persons that police get in contact with?

Everybody gets treated the same way, right? Sounds fair to me.

[Atticus]

67. And where in any of the posts in this thread has anyone said that? Hmmm?

I'll wait.

[datasuspect]

76. because the constitution of the united states doesn't deal with the civil or criminal administration

of justice.

the constitution forms the basis in law for the formation of roles and responsibilities among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. it covers the administration of the federal government, the rights reserved by the people, the rights reserved by the states, and the federal government's relationship with state governments, among other things.

you would do well to study it.

[Atticus]

55. Your post would be relevant if we lived in a functioning democracy. nt.

[TheKentuckian]

95. The majority is not a tyranny and might does not make right

Hating cruelty, hating the disregarding of civil rights and liberties, hating disdain for the concept of equality under the law should be righteous and society wide.

Hating our fellow citizens and human beings for the way they were created by God and were born ain't in the same ballpark.

You argue that ending slavery was a violation of democracy? I argue that their can be no actual democracy in a society where there are people who are less equal and have no seat at the table.

My hate is the shitty content of some people's character not the color of their skin, their dialect, their place of ancestral origin, who they love or have sex with, or who they pray to or if they pray at all.

[Atticus]

53. Lots of "real" motivations suck really badly.

Racism is a real motivation.

Greed and fear and ignorance can be real motivations.

If this nation enforced the notion that "The majority should be respected simply because they are the majority", women would not be voting, black people would still be slaves and only men who owned real estate would be permitted to take part in government or vote.

I do understand why people support this law. They are wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves.

[datasuspect]

75. i wonder why blacks could never understand this:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

when many other people did support it.

slaveowners and their supporters had a right to their opinions and to vote for those that shared that opinion if they so chose at one time.

[old mark]

17. Because there are a large number of fucking stupid angry bigots in the US

who are catered to by the politicians and media, even unto the White House.

mark

[limit18]

18. Wake Up America...

America doesn't need immigration reform; America needs LEADERSHIP REFORM!

[disillusioned73]

20. I agree with you whole heartily..

playing politics with peoples fear has become an art form for the cons. Hell, even well reasoned educated and thoughtful liberal/dems have bought this hook, line & sinker it seems.

What I don't get about these folks is that they don't see how they have been played by a freakin wedge issue... a f'ing wedge issue!!.. one of the easiest thing to detect once you begin to just slightly pay attention, oh well...

This article was posted here on DU when this whole debacle began and I thought some may not have seen it - so here it is..

<http://www.alternet.org/story/146657/the_real_reason_why_arizona_passed_such_harsh_immigration_laws?page=entire>

note; makes you wonder if Prez Obama regrets naming J. Napolitano as Homeland Security Secretary

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sentath]

30. Hand me a link? Cause friends say the revised version

isn't all that bad.

What I'm hearing is that it allows the state level forces to do what the feds are too understaffed to do. Is this impression wrong?

[EFerrari]

47. Yes, it's right wing bullshit. The Fed program "Secure Communities"

that ICE is running coordinates with state and local and it is expanding and not shorthanded in any way.

[EFerrari]

45. They tried to rewrite it, remember? The "actual law" still depends upon

racial profiling for enforcement.

Good grief.

[blondeatlast]

48. Good; then I predict they will ask me if I can prove I'm not Canadian.

After all, I'm white, speak with a Midwestern accent, can speak more than passable French, and say "eh" a lot. I don't walk around with my passport or birth certificate any more than any other US citizen.

Suuuuure they will.

BTW, I'm a near lifetime Arizonan. Look up the Chandler roundup on the web and tell me how it isn't racist.

Don't let me hear crickets, either...

[Atticus]

54. Gee, I wonder what forum you dropped in from? nt.

[Odin2005]

25. I am shocked by the fact that most Americans, apparently, support this POS law!

:grr:

[MyNameGoesHere]

26. Why do we have borders?

Seriously is there a good argument for slicing up the world and keeping people in their own nations? Personally I would love the ability to go wherever the fuck I want to without some silly ass border blocking me.

[Monique1]

28. One of things people do not know

if a driver is pulled over for a violation under this law and you have someone in your car that the officer suspects is an illegal and they do not have their papers - the driver is fined because the person(s) did not have their papers. It doesn't matter if the driver is a US citizen, they are guilty of driving with an illegal in the car.

[UTUSN]

33. K&R #4 n/t

[pampango]

35. Comprehensive immigration reform increases all workers’ wages.

The study was released by the Center for American Progress (The Center for American Progress was created in 2003 as a left-leaning alternative to think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress)

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/economic-benefits-immigration-reform

"The real wages of less-skilled newly legalized workers would increase by roughly $4,405 per year, while higher-skilled workers would see their income increase $6,185 per year. The wages of native-born high skill and low skill U.S. workers also increase modestly under comprehensive immigration reform because the “wage floor” rises for all workers."

* The higher earning power of newly legalized workers would mean increased tax revenues of $4.5-$5.4 billion in the first three years.

* Higher personal income would also generate increased consumer spending—enough to support 750,000–900,000 jobs in the United States.

* Experience shows that legalized workers open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses, further stimulating the U.S. economy.

[pinboy3niner]

91. factcheck.org: Economists say immigration, legal or illegal, doesn't hurt American workers.

Thanks for the link, pampango. Here's another review of economic studies that arrives at the same conclusions:

Does Immigration Cost Jobs?
Economists say immigration, legal or illegal, doesn't hurt American workers.
May 13, 2010

Summary

Do immigrants take American jobs? It’s a common refrain among those who want to tighten limits on legal immigration and deny a "path to citizenship" — which they call "amnesty" — to the millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. There’s even a new Reclaim American Jobs Caucus in the House, with at least 41 members.

But most economists and other experts say there’s little to support the claim. Study after study has shown that immigrants grow the economy, expanding demand for goods and services that the foreign-born workers and their families consume, and thereby creating jobs. There is even broad agreement among economists that while immigrants may push down wages for some, the overall effect is to increase average wages for American-born workers.


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Fun DU activity!

I've been noting the posters who support the AZ law, and their profiles are consistently stating resident states hundreds of miles from any border. Just interesting. They are not from AZ, that is for sure. And that is most interesting.

[blondeatlast]

43. Indeed, because this longtime Arizonan still doesn't see a threat from the south.

Now, all those snowbirds from that OTHER border-- (kidding).

[Jefferson23]

51. Surprises me when I see any support for it too. From the ACLU on the subject,

for anyone interested.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Arizona Racial Profiling Law


What is wrong with Arizona SB 1070?

This bill, signed into law on April 23, 2010 by Arizona governor Jan Brewer, requires police officers in Arizona to demand papers proving citizenship or immigration status from people whom they stop, based only on some undefined "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country unlawfully. But in America, everyone is supposed to be presumed innocent. This turns the presumption of innocence on its head.

Because in most cases it is hard to conceive of any legitimate way law enforcement could develop a suspicion that someone is here unlawfully, the law clearly invites racial profiling by officers who are likely to rely on the way people look in forming any “suspicion” that they are not in this country legally. The law invites discrimination.

Under this law, people who look “foreign” are more likely to be stopped for minor infractions – having a broken taillight, jaywalking or having an overgrown lawn – and then asked for their papers if police believe, just by looking at them, that they could be in the country unlawfully. That means that U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike will be required to carry papers on them at all times. These tactics are the hallmarks of a “police state,” more often associated with totalitarian regimes.

What is the ACLU doing about the law?

The ACLU, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), along with other civil rights groups, have filed a legal challenge to the law in federal court to stop the law from taking effect. The lawsuit charges that the law violates numerous provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Notably, it violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law because it unlawfully invites the racial profiling of Latinos and other people who look or sound foreign-born. By interfering with the federal government’s authority to regulate and enforce immigration, it also violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

How does the law cause racial profiling?

By requiring that all law enforcement officials question people they stop about their citizenship or immigration status if they have an undefined “reasonable suspicion” the person is in this country illegally, SB 1070 is inviting police to rely on appearance and characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and language. How else would a police officer form a suspicion that someone is in this country unlawfully? We have not heard a single example of a legitimate basis for forming such suspicion from any of the law’s supporters. Relying on a person’s appearance is not “reasonable” and is not constitutional.

This law actually invites racial profiling at two junctures. First, law enforcement might find a reason to stop people on a very minor infraction based on the way they look, and then demand their papers. Or they can stop them for an unbiased reason and then, based on appearance and nothing else, demand their papers. Americans come in every shape and size, from every background and every corner of the earth. When you consider the long history, even before this law was passed, of racial profiling against people suspected of being in this country illegally, it is pretty easy to see how a law requiring police officers to demand papers based solely on their suspicions will be abused.

Finally, using local police officers who are untrained in the complexities and proper enforcement of federal immigration law is a recipe for racial profiling, particularly in Arizona. Just ask Julio and Julian Mora – a lawful permanent resident and his U.S. citizen son – who were stopped by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office as they drove on a public street, arrested and forcibly transported to the site of an immigration raid.

For three years, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has deployed hundreds of deputies and volunteer posses to target Latino neighborhoods, rounding up people on the streets, questioning and detaining people driving through traffic stops and the like, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents, based on presumptions that they may be unlawfully present in the United States. Despite civil rights lawsuits and a United States Justice Department investigation into these practices, Arpaio remains unfazed. Two-thirds of Arizonans already live in Maricopa County, and this law will simply require all police officers in the state to act like Arpaio’s deputies.

Why won’t the amendments to the law prevent racial profiling?

The last-minute language inserted in the bill to answer outrage over racial profiling is a fig leaf, designed to cover the plain fact that apart from appearance, it’s hard to imagine any way a police officer could suspect that someone was not in the country legally. What other factors would they use? Accent? Language? That they’re near another person who admits that he’s undocumented? That they “dress foreign?”

We’ve already seen this in Maricopa County – home to 2/3 of all Arizonans – where the Sheriff’s Office and volunteer posses have conducted mass sweeps of Latino neighborhoods, rounding up people on the street and pulling people out of their cars for alleged violations of minor traffic laws and the like. U.S. citizens and lawful residents have been profiled in this manner just because they look like they could be unlawfully present. In fact, the ACLU is already representing a number of people in this country legally who have been profiled, including Julio and Julian Mora mentioned above.

Stopping drivers because of how they look and then coming up with some reason for the stop other than race is nothing new. We’ve seen it in other contexts before. African Americans have long been targeted for “driving while black.” In the early studies we’ve seen on the impact of local police engaging in enforcement of immigration laws, there have been clear spikes in the targeting of Latinos for minor, misdemeanor offenses, often with no follow-up prosecution under those minor offenses.

For additional information, see www.acluaz.org/DrivingWhileBlackorBrown.pdf, an ACLU report, “Driving While Black or Brown,” that analyses data of highway stops in Arizona showing minorities are much more likely to be searched and stopped for longer periods of time.

What’s wrong with having Arizona police enforce immigration?

As many top law enforcement officials, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, have already acknowledged, this law will significantly harm the public trust that law enforcement officials need in order to protect the people of Arizona and will alienate police officers from the communities they serve. The law will force police officers to devote scarce resources to investigating false threats rather than solving serious crimes. The criminal justice system is compromised because crime victims are more vulnerable and will be unwilling to report crimes and witnesses will be afraid to cooperate out of fear that they will be targeted. Local cops will be put into the difficult position of relying on biased presumptions – and racial profiling – when asking anyone who looks or sounds foreign to confirm their citizenship or immigration status.

Additionally, the few instances where the federal government has deputized local law enforcement in Arizona to enforce immigration laws under the federal 287(g) program has proved to be disastrous, resulting in racial profiling and other civil rights and civil liberties abuses. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is already under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and the ACLU has brought two lawsuits specifically challenging the targeting of Latino motorists, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents, for harassment and violations of civil liberties.

What is “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country unlawfully?

No one, including the Governor who signed this bill into law, has come up with a good explanation for what that means in the context of this law. How is a cop on the street supposed to tell that someone is unauthorized to be in the United States just by looking at them? Generally, “reasonable suspicion” is a legal term describing the circumstances under which an officer can prevent someone from walking or driving away. It’s more than just a hunch and requires an officer to rely on objective facts that lead him or her to believe a crime has been or is being committed. The rampant racial profiling we’ve seen in Maricopa County even before SB 1070 was passed and the fact that no legitimate grounds have been presented for forming such suspicion in this context give us no confidence that this is a workable standard in Arizona for this kind of law.

What is the difference between this law and the federal law?

The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law. This law reverses the presumption of innocence, forcing police officers on the street to demand that people prove they are U.S. citizens or otherwise in the country legally. The racial profiling this law invites with its undefined standard for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country unlawfully would violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and federal civil rights protections.

There are a number of ways in which the Arizona law directly conflicts with federal law regarding the regulation and enforcement of immigration. As a threshold matter, SB 1070 presumes that the citizenship or immigration status of individuals can be determined simply, outside the complex administrative procedures set up under our nation’s immigration laws. It cannot. Moreover, the Arizona law would also impose different state penalties against people for conduct, such as authorization to work in the United States that is directly regulated under federal law. Not only is this unconstitutional under the supremacy cause, but it is also bad policy as the United States cannot have a patchwork of conflicting immigration laws depending on what state you happen to find yourself in.

The proponents of the law claim that this isn’t preempted by federal law because it is “concurrent enforcement,” which is legal. In other words, they say that this is just enforcing federal law. What do you say to that?
This is not about enforcing federal law, it is about creating new state laws and a new state system that requires local police and sheriffs to ask people they stop for their papers in a way that promotes racial profiling of Latinos and other presumed immigrants. Additionally, SB1070 criminalizes conduct that is not criminal under federal law, like working without employment authorization.

The proponents of this law have trotted out their so-called doctrine of “concurrent enforcement” in defense of anti-immigrant housing laws in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Missouri, and Texas, and in every one of those cases the housing restrictions have been struck down. The even more-extreme SB 1070 should meet a similar fate.

Isn’t it already a crime not to carry papers?

While there are federal laws requiring certain non-citizens to carry papers issued to them by the federal government, the federal provisions cited in this bill do not require what Arizona is compelling in its law. Trained federal immigration officials review immigration documents in specific circumstances when they encounter individuals who they know are not citizens. They don’t just approach people who look like they could be immigrants and ask them to produce their papers. Similarly, for many good reasons, federal law does not require cops on the street who are not even adequately trained on the complexities of federal immigration law to ask people they stop to show their papers.

Wouldn’t you agree that being in this country illegally is a crime? Don’t we expect police officers to stop crime?

This law would transform Arizona into a police state where all Latino residents, and others who look or sound foreign, are treated like potential criminal suspects. Federal immigration policy is very complicated, carrying both civil and criminal penalties. Congress has chosen not to make it a crime simply to be in the United States without authorization. That’s what the marches of millions of people across the country in 2005 were all about. Nothing prevents police from investigating real criminal conduct and activity within the limits of our Constitution. This Arizona law is un-American because it goes beyond that and undermines our values of fairness and equality for all people.

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/fr...

[L0oniX]

56. Again ...mixing it up so as to confuse the issue.

Is it illegal to enter this country with out a visa or passport? Is it illegal to stay in this country after your visa expires? What happens if you do this in other countries ...like for example the UK? It has nothing to do with racism but I agree that officials will abuse the law ...like they always do when given the chance. I personally don't care who you are or where you come from but if you break the law then you should suffer the penalty for it ...or get rid of the law. A friend of mine from the UK took 6 years to become a US citizen the legal way. If that's not good enough then change the law and immigration procedures. I don't believe the Arizona law is about racism. I don't agree with the "intentional" clouding up of the issue by placing the racism tag on it. IMO the racism tag is nothing but a means to circumvent the law for those who are here illegally. I would also bet that much of this has a corporate agenda attached to it ...after all they are the ones who really benefit from using illegal immigrant workers.

The Arizona law may or may not be politically or racially correct. I admit I do not know the details of it. My position is sheerly one of law enforcement and nothing else. If the Arizona law falls at the hands of the supreme court then that is great.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. They don't understand the concept of jurisdiction.

Enforcement of immigration law is NOT to be grabbed and enforced by state, county or local police.

The Supremacy Clause, to be exact.

They think they can pass any law they want to and don't care about the powers enumerated in the Constitution that they don't like and don't understand.

[Balbus]

58. Here's the actual law...

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Now you can read it and have your own opinion instead of the opinion the mouth-breathers on TV told you to use.

[ismnotwasm]

64. Dunno

I asked a on again off again 'supporter' of the law if one of my Filipino friends who has expressed concern over this law,(this is a nurse I work with, he's brown and he has an accent) could get shot down there. It was actually his question. She said "maybe". You get enough angry people, give them a racist law, give them a target, it's only a matter of time before something bad happens.

Supporters cite drug-related gang violence as before they talk about undocumented workers when I ask. Horrible situation all around with classic 'us against them' mentality.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

72. it's factually incorrect because filipinos aren't mexicans

and everything you said assumes that racism does not exist in this country.

everything you said assumes that the police are fair, even-handed in their dealings, and use their discretion in the most helpful way possible.

but we know that racism exists in this country. we know that ANYONE with a spanish surname becomes a suspect, we know that cops are some of the most racist pricks out there.

what you said holds no water.

police abuse tons of laws everyday, everywhere on this planet. it's part of their job. it's how they advance through the ranks. corruption ensures convictions.

[blondeatlast]

85. The Chandler Roundup of 1997 proves every point you made, too.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/06/nation/la-na-chandler-20100606

[Atticus]

73. That was just---remarkable. Say "hi" to RimJob, ok?

[EFerrari]

82. Wrong. The law depends upon racial profiling

no matter what kind of drag it comes in. And just search racial profiling Arizona. It happens NOW, without this POS.

It's asinine to believe this clearly unconstitutional POS won't make that situation worse.

[blondeatlast]

84. Are you familiar with the Chandler Roundup? Methinks not, so here:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/06/nation/la-na-chandler-20100606

It's not what the law SAYS--it what it implies. I'm guessing the DOJ lawyers are pretty informed and competent regarding interpreting the law.

[Jefferson23]

102. It is? The ACLU is all wrong, how so? I don't see anything in

your post to suggest they are wrong.



snip* Declares that the above provisions shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
immigration laws and civil rights protections.

It is unclear what this provision could mean in practice, since several of the provisions of the bill are
facially inconsistent with federal statutes, regulations, and the constitutions of the United States and
Arizona.

http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20By%20Section%20An...

On edit to add, my post was not #64, perhaps you meant to refer to someone else.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. Because...

...of this.

[political_Dem]

79. It's easy when one is a racist and a nativist who is full of fear about "the other".

After all, there were folks from the dominant culture back in the day who brought picnic lunches to lynching. And for some of those folks who claim their families "didn't own slaves", don't ever mention that they might have had a relative who sat on a jury voting to let a lyncher go free by deeming him "not gulity".

When people demonize and treat a person of color as "nonhuman", it's a piece of cake to support legislation that calls for incarceration, racial profiling or eventual elimination. :(

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

96. In Maricopa County, the sheriff is under Federal investigation for corruption.

That's how we dare. :hi:

[blondeatlast]

97. It's tragic your fear has gotten the best of you--but there's no reason for it. I pity you, actually

Bigoted against Arizona? I've lived here my entire life. I have no fear, nor do I feel at all "plighted."

I've lived virtually on the border, in rural Pinal County, now in Maricopa County. I consider the scaredy-cat citizens of Arizona to be just that--scared, by pandering, wedge-issue and nothing else, politicians. BTW, I work often near 24th Street and McDowell Road.

I'm as white as a sheet, carry no weapon, not even spray and walk to my favorite taco stand, sometimes in the evening, always in heels.

[blondeatlast]

99. In what part of our otherwise* beautiful state do you reside?

*Aside from outr stupid, pandering, hate-fille dlegislature and Maricopa County sheriff...

[EFerrari]

100. I see we've had a pizza delivery.

Thanks, mods!

[blondeatlast]

101. Gosh darn.

:bounce:

[pinboy3niner]

103. +2!

It couldn't happen to a more deserving disruptor...

:woohoo:

[SargeUNN]

89. Here is yet more proof of how stupid this law is

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100707%2FREVIEWS%2F100709985