Not even slightly surprised.

You really can’t make this shit up.

I dunno, the Republicans seem plenty capable of making shit up all the time.

As for the question in your graphic, Arizona has had a lot in common with southern Italy since before Joe Arpaio got there. The Maricopa County’s sheriff’s “policing” methods are just an obvious example.

That this “law” could tie up his less rightwing competitors in litigation over the claimed non-enforcement of this or of federal immigration laws, brought by rabid supporters of Arpaio’s blunt methods, is a feature, not a bug. That it would sap already depleted public budgets is one, too.

Has “proof of legal status” been defined yet? I imagine that a driver’s license wouldn’t be accepted.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon DC…armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters–the black protesters–spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mhNwa3ubG4

Who says only little brown people will be stopped on the streets? Don a ponytail and rent a VW bus with out of state plates and see how long it takes the Maricopa County sheriff to ask, “Ihre Papiere, bitte”.

The people should be in streets. How can we allow our fellow human beings to be treated this way?

I think the article is wrong that it applies only to immigrants everyone in Arizona has to walk around with papers all the time. Everyone can be arrested for not having their papers they may not all be convicted but getting busted sure could put a damper on your day.

Ken Starr will again become the Republican Savior and Savant.

The CruX or NeXus is premised on the 287(g) program and which is the federal-local law enforcement schematic for the “partnership”. As such, Arizona feels that it can exempt itself from Federal Law, and Starr will, more than likely, be defending Arizona at the 9th Federal Court of Appeals and before the U.S Supreme Court.

And we as Native American/Indigenous/Chicano/Hispanic/Latinos are correct in our concern or trepidation for a violation of our civil rights and to include racial profiling since our Infamous Sheriff is facing five lawsuits for just this behavior.

Yet, I find the “backstory” interesting in that management in the name of the police chiefs, were opposed to this legislation. In contrast, the Union in the form of the law enforcement associations, were in favor of this legislation. And as to the “self-interest” among the police officers on the street, I can’t think of any, other than perhaps, access to “mordida” and which at present, has not existed or been made public, other than among the Border Patrol. Or perhaps, the accruing RICO confiscation monies, where, if you’re the victim, you have to prove your innocence since guilt is deemed irrelevant. Or for more “government overreach”?

Regardless, taxpayers a going to take a big hit, coming and going.

Jaango

I’m pretty happy the ‘let’s join with our anti-corporatist tea-loving brothers and sisters to stick it to the man’ thing didn’t catch on…

Hey, at least the sign at that rally is significantly more academically correct for a change. That’s progress.

Here’s what is also odd. I watched on CNN as they interviewed some immigration lawyer on the Arizona issue.

Basically, it boiled down to this: she objected to any method or effort to stop illegal immigration.

The bottom line on most who oppose the Arizona law or similar efforts even if having no profiling is this: they do not want illegal immigration stopped. They think it is fine. And for some, maybe even an obligation the US has.

Now, if you think that; OK, but don’t hide behind “that’s profiling,” or “immigration is a federal concern,” etc. Just say what you really mean.

If you believe it, stand up for it plainly. Don’t hide or cower behind technical arguments.

They say they won’t be doing “racial profiling” so does that mean that anyone they stop who doesn’t have “papers” will be arrested…deported…shot?

If you are a US born citizen, so far as I know you are not required to carry proof of citizenship with you. And my husband is a naturalized citizen, and he isn’t either. So WTF? We all need to carry our passports if we go to Arizona?

I do think a boycott is in order.

The shape of things to come? Sure looks like it. And this incident happened before Gov. Jan Brewer signed the SB1070 into law on Friday. Video and story from AzFamily.com.

PHOENIX – A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed.

He tells 3TV, “I don’t think it’s correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.”

3TV caught up with Abdon after he was released from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in central Phoenix. He and his wife, Jackie, are still upset about what happened to him.

Jackie tells 3TV, “It’s still something awful to be targeted. I can’t even imagine what he felt, people watching like he was some type of criminal.”

Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate.

Jackie explains, “I have his social security card as well and mine. He’s legit. It’s the first time it’s ever happened.”

Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/az-truck-driver-forced-show-birth-certifica

What makes anyone think that “only” brown-complexioned persons are affected by this? How many of us could “prove” our citizenship on the spur of the moment, particularly anyone born before 2002? I don’t even have a copy of my birth certificate. Social Security and drivers license have worked for employment thus far. But one of my daughters doesn’t drive and cannot provide enough ID to get a state ID card (a passport is not, apparently, enough in our state).

What’s more, not all illegals belong to the more highly pigmented ethnic groups. In the Northeast, when I was in college, Irish, Canadians, and Eastern Europeans of various kinds–all as pale a pink as any teabagger could desire–made up large segments of the illegal immigrant population.

And whatever happened to the burden of proof? If illegal immigration is a crime, isn’t it up to Arizona police to show probable cause for believing people to be illegal? and up to Arizona DAs to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Why should persons inside of our borders be presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent?

I would like to see a big enforcement push starting with teabuggers.

Book Salon a few flights upstairs with Campbell Craig and Fred Logevall’s America’s Cold War: The Politics of Insecurity hosted by Jeremi Suri

Oh, the teabaggers would wet themselves. They don’t like targets that fight back.

Here’s what is also odd. I watched on CNN as they interviewed some immigration lawyer on the Arizona issue.

Basically, it boiled down to this: she objected to any method or effort to stop illegal immigration.

Ah some lawyer on CNN – the officially approved spokesperson for people who oppose this law. You sure have us dead to rights – she speaks for all us – whoever she is.

The bottom line on most who oppose the Arizona law or similar efforts even if having no profiling is this: they do not want illegal immigration stopped. They think it is fine. And for some, maybe even an obligation the US has.

Now, if you think that; OK, but don’t hide behind “that’s profiling,” or “immigration is a federal concern,” etc. Just say what you really mean.

Interesting – instead of arguing whether this law is what people say it is, you want to discuss what you imagine our motives are. Which you do not have access to. Also, even if you are correct, the motive behind someone saying a particular thing has no bearing on the truth status of the claim. That is, even if you are right about our motives, it proves absolutely nothing relevant.

If you believe it, stand up for it plainly. Don’t hide or cower behind technical arguments.

Um, you are the one that seems to want to hide what they believe. This law is unconstitutional. It will target people on the basis of race illegally. That is reason alone to oppose it vigorously – it is our duty. Instead of standing up for it plainly, you want to talk about something else. You are the one who is cowering.

Whether we should have open immigration is a totally different issue. I think we should, but that isn’t the point. The point is:

Could YOU prove your citizenship? right this moment? if stopped on the road or sidewalk?

My ancestors came to the US in the 18th and 19th centuries. But I couldn’t easily prove my citizenship. It would take at least a couple of weeks, depending on what sort of “proof” ws demanded.

And why should anyone ever have to prove that they haven’t committed a crime (if immigration is actually criminal)? Should you have to prove that you aren’t hiding income from the IRS? that you aren’t sexually or racially harassing staff or coworkers? that your house and car are not the proceeds of drug trafficking? that your wife is not a prostitute? Would you reallly liek to spend the time, money, and effort to prove that you haven’t committed every conceivable crime on the books every time someone with a badge feels like asking? If not, why should anyone have to prove that they aren’t illegal immigrants?

At one time not too long ago (my boyhood), Americans prided themselves on NOT having to prove citizenship and on NEVER having to “show papers” to anyone, unless they were driving a car or transporting pigs. It used to be that the hard-core conservatives were most adamant on this–more so than about gun rights. Government and business use of Social Security cards and numbers used to be carefully restricted lest they turn into the dreaded, totalitarian “national identity card”.

People cry about “fascism” and “totalitarianism” these days as if they were empty words for anything political that they don’t like. But they are real phenomena. Giving police the power to demand national identity documents–”papers”–is the first step to the internal passports of the USSR or the passbooks of apartheid-era South Africa.

Despite being respectable, law-abiding, and as close to “white” as any non-albino can be, I’ve been subject both to arbitary demands for papers overseas and arbitrary police stops in the US. They are frightening, chilling, and oppressive. I sincerely hope that everyone that advocates or excuses laws like these has similar experiences sooner rather than later. It would open their eyes.

“If illegal immigration is a crime, isn’t it up to Arizona police to show probable cause ….”

It should be. If the Arizona law is a criminal statute, then all constitution rules and protections apply.

INS operates under “administrative law” as opposed to “criminal law“. Administrative law does not require the same burdon of proof as criminal law but I am not sure that option is open to state and local lawmaking and enforcement agencies since Congress has sole responsibility for defining citizenship. There is a federal statute that criminalizes illegal entry but it is not usually used in cases where the intent is simply deportation because then criminal protections would apply. If every undocumented immigrant were charged under criminal law, the burden on the courts and the taxpayer would be unsustainable.

isn’t it up to Arizona police to show probable cause for believing people to be illegal?

The Bill does say that probably cause is required for making an arrest. All the news sources I’ve seen quoted here omit that part and some even misstate it. Like the boston.com article linked to in this diary.

Well, it seems you proved my point.

You, as well as the other person who addressed this point, would object to ANY law that effectively resulted in illegal immigration being stopped because you don’t want it to stop.

Is there anything wrong with that? Maybe not. But, don’t hide behind objecting to one particular law or another. Make your position known: Anything which prevents people immigrating whenever they want is something you object to, no matter HOW it is enforced.

Matters not what the law is, you feel anything preventing someone from coming here is wrong.

Now, it is possible that if some group of well off people were trying to come here in large numbers over time you would oppose that. But, I really don’t know, you might not object to that.

You may legitimately object to the AZ law, but in the big scheme, it is a smoke screen because there is not law you would support if it actually resulted in the end of illegal immigration. You would, of course, support all kinds of laws that are ineffective. The basic principle being: if it results in no illegal immigration, bad; if it keeps the flow going, good.

Oh, the CNN lawyer was just one of many such people I’ve seen lately.

I imagine it is the same with you. I could ask you, well if you object to the AZ law, what law that would stop illegal immigration would you support?

Your answer very well might be “None.” Or, proposals for laws that anyone can obviously see would never result in any reduction of illegal immigration.

So, I just say, quite hiding behind the objection to this law or that. Just come out and state your general principle.

THEN, a real discussion could be had. Otherwise, there is the kabuki dance of discussing this law or that which will always result in you objecting because you don’t want any law, no matter how enforced, if it meant illegal immigration would stop.

It cuts to the chase and wastes less time.

Same for the demonstrators. They don’t want any law which can reasonably be expected to stop illegal immigration.

It is near certainty that if you asked them, “Well, what law would you support to stop illegal immigration,” you would find, just like the lawyer, there is no law.

Like you object to what I say and then finally admit what I am saying is true for you, it would be true for them.

Well, it seems you proved my point.

This is hilarious.

You still refuse to defend this law. This law is what is being criticized here. Either you have some argument in favor or it or you do not. Since you refuse to offer any argument in its favor, it would appear that its the latter.

Either the law is unconstitutional or its not. There is no exception to the Constitution based on the motives of people on this thread.

I consistently oppose unreasonable searches and seizures. I oppose racial caste. That is what is consistent. Do you support violations of the equal protection clause and fourth amendment? Make your position know.

The honest truth is that:

No one was calling for an alliance with the renamed Limbaugh audience (read “Teabaggers”); only with libertarians (read Ron Paul).

Courting the libertarians would prevent their coalition with the Limbaugh right, and thus work to prevent the Limbaugh right from getting back into power.

Thus: if the GOP are to win in 2010 etc., the post-mortem would be that left arrogance was the cause of their electoral demise.

Fortunately, Keynesian economics will save the day, though in the long run…

Well, I’m staunchly opposed to illegal immigration, in favor of immigration reform, am in favor of bringing our troops home and garrisoning them along the southern border, against asking people in the country for their papers;

so I’m not sure if your bromide covers folk like myself.

The real solution to illegal immigration is for the government to seize any business that employs people with no legal right to work here. It may take one, two, or even three high profile seizures; but after that, all businessmen would comply.

All other “solutions” are just ways to delay / avoid the naked war we need to wage against American “capital”.