Jewish groups slam Arizona immigration law

[Hot Mega]

There is no way that they find this law unconstitutional. Article VI of the same Constitution you're talking about should shed some light here...


http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi



Seeing as "Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC Title 8" (http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/index.html) and more specifically "8 USC Section 1304" (http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html) is federal law, and has been since 1940, it is "a law of the United States... made in pursuance [of the Constitution], under the authority of the United States, [and is] the supreme law of the land," so designated by the same Constitution that you bring up so frequently.

So, as seen in this case, the AZ law overlaps an already existing, longstnading federal law which is considered, by that same Constitution, the "supreme law of the land." Therefore, there is no basis for a challenge on the grounds of constitutionality, as any state law that overlaps a federal law is, by default, constitutionally sound.

You're refuting this based on a wrongheaded premise (not unlike most of those who don't see the problem).

The first thing you're wrong on is believing states have the right to pass laws which attempt to mirror federal law. They don't specifically with matters of state...which immigration is one. For example, even if the US has a treaty with Comoros or something..it would be unconstitutional for a state to enter into it's own treaty with Comoros.

The law provides that everyone in the country is presumed to be here legally. SB 1070 gives no guidance for what constitutes a reasonable suspicion or probable cause for compelling an individual to demonstrate their legal status.

Further, it makes permissible detention (unreasonable search and seizure) based on not performing a task you have the right against performing.

The supreme court has ruled that it is permissible for law enforcement to ask you for your identity (not produce it). In fact, law enforcement may ask you whatever they want. You don't have to answer anything beyond telling them your identity though. But when AZ makes the standard probable cause someone is here illegally...what is that and how is that determined without first violating someones right against an unreasonable search and seizure???

Every person here is to be presumed here legally.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Probable cause?
Loitering?
Jaywalking?
you fit the description of a wanted person.
You name it.
Hell, with at least a half million illegals in just one state, I would think just being Mexican is probable cause..........and who's fault is that?
If your out in public,not in your private domicile, probable cause is anything the police want.
That pertains to anybody.
the question is how far will the police take this?

Basically you need to have an ID on your person, if you don't then you must be able to produce one.... which I thought was already a law for adults everywhere.

And did I miss the word "deportation" in that law?

Basically. I'm as white as a ghost and if I get pulled over (and I've been pulled over for no reason at all before, as had my ex), and I don't have ID, it's a one way trip downtown. They also give you the business in my city if you so much as look wrong (loitering is case in point number 1), and no ID=trip to county annex. But all they will do is scream bloody murder (racism) if they are harassed. Nothing like pulling the race card out.

 

[Hot Mega]

Basically. I'm as white as a ghost and if I get pulled over (and I've been pulled over for no reason at all before, as had my ex), and I don't have ID, it's a one way trip downtown. They also give you the business in my city if you so much as look wrong (loitering is case in point number 1), and no ID=trip to county annex. But all they will do is scream bloody murder (racism) if they are harassed. Nothing like pulling the race card out.

You don't know your rights nor the law.:2 cents:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

You don't know your rights nor the law.:2 cents:

And you don't know my city. Where'd you grow up, Palos Verdes? :1orglaugh

 

[Philbert]

You're refuting this based on a wrongheaded premise (not unlike most of those who don't see the problem).

The first thing you're wrong on is believing states have the right to pass laws which attempt to mirror federal law. They don't specifically with matters of state...which immigration is one. For example, even if the US has a treaty with Comoros or something..it would be unconstitutional for a state to enter into it's own treaty with Comoros.

The law provides that everyone in the country is presumed to be here legally. SB 1070 gives no guidance for what constitutes a reasonable suspicion or probable cause for compelling an individual to demonstrate their legal status.

Further, it makes permissible detention (unreasonable search and seizure) based on not performing a task you have the right against performing.

The supreme court has ruled that it is permissible for law enforcement to ask you for your identity (not produce it). In fact, law enforcement may ask you whatever they want. You don't have to answer anything beyond telling them your identity though. But when AZ makes the standard probable cause someone is here illegally...what is that and how is that determined without first violating someones right against an unreasonable search and seizure???

Every person here is to be presumed here legally.

Basically. I'm as white as a ghost and if I get pulled over (and I've been pulled over for no reason at all before, as had my ex), and I don't have ID, it's a one way trip downtown. They also give you the business in my city if you so much as look wrong (loitering is case in point number 1), and no ID=trip to county annex. But all they will do is scream bloody murder (racism) if they are harassed. Nothing like pulling the race card out.

If anyone slogs through the rather jumbled prose of the post it seems that HM is saying states can't make treaties with soveriegn nations...so what? That is the purview of the National government...duh.
But Arizona isn't making deals with foreign nations, so that's a simpleminded example to compare Arizona's law with.
Now, if a state makes possession of Marijuana illegal just like the Federal Law, and the Feds decide not to enforce the no reefer law, a state can still arrest someone for possessing an illegal substance. A state can't nullify a Fed law, but it can certainly mirror one.
And I think HM is claiming if you are stopped, asked for an ID and say you don't wanna produce one other than tell them your name, etc, they can't legally take you in (detain you) just for failing to produce ID when legally asked to. What BloodshotScott says is what I have seen many places...no ID and you can and many times will be detained. And I've never heard of anyone suing and winning for false arrest or unlawful detention after refusing to produce ID when asked. Cop's option usually to press it...but an alien has the legal requirement to show ID and proof of legal status here. Not the same as a citizen, and no English is a good indicator...or bad English, or no ID, etc. that someone is not a native born.

 

[Hot Mega]

And you don't know my city. Where'd you grow up, Palos Verdes? :1orglaugh

Doesn't matter what city. If it's in the US it's still subject to USSC rulings. Again, you don't know the laws in which you live under. Familiarize yourself...:hatsoff:

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his name.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

Case closed?:dunno:

If anyone slogs through the rather jumbled prose of the post it seems that HM is saying states can't make treaties with soveriegn nations...so what? That is the purview of the National government...duh.
But Arizona isn't making deals with foreign nations, so that's a simpleminded example to compare Arizona's law with.
Now, if a state makes possession of Marijuana illegal just like the Federal Law, and the Feds decide not to enforce the no reefer law, a state can still arrest someone for possessing an illegal substance. A state can't nullify a Fed law, but it can certainly mirror one.

One major difference..a law on weed isn't a matter of state like immigration is. Immigration is the state's (federal g'ment) biz. Weed ain't. Got it?:2 cents:

And I think HM is claiming if you are stopped, asked for an ID and say you don't wanna produce one other than tell them your name, etc, they can't legally take you in (detain you) just for failing to produce ID when legally asked to. What BloodshotScott says is what I have seen many places...no ID and you can and many times will be detained. And I've never heard of anyone suing and winning for false arrest or unlawful detention after refusing to produce ID when asked. Cop's option usually to press it...but an alien has the legal requirement to show ID and proof of legal status here. Not the same as a citizen, and no English is a good indicator...or bad English, or no ID, etc. that someone is not a native born.

We don't have to guess what it is. The USSC has already made the law clear in multiple cases.

 

[Nester6]

Re: God forbid ...

God forbid if you commit a crime you have to prove you're a citizen. Do people even bother to read the law and the real statistics in Arizona that caused it?

Okay people, this is getting out-of-hand. Fuck anyone who is against the law, I'm 100% for it! I wish they'd pass it in Florida and Texas too.

I totally agree!

 

[CunningStunts]

I got my first ever negative rep for this thread... Some of you left wingers are pathetic... if you don't like free speech or the US Constitution, for God's sake, fuckin' move somewhere else. I'll buy a first class ticket for you!

 

[PlumpRump]

You're refuting this based on a wrongheaded premise (not unlike most of those who don't see the problem).

The first thing you're wrong on is believing states have the right to pass laws which attempt to mirror federal law. They don't specifically with matters of state...which immigration is one. For example, even if the US has a treaty with Comoros or something..it would be unconstitutional for a state to enter into it's own treaty with Comoros.

The law provides that everyone in the country is presumed to be here legally. SB 1070 gives no guidance for what constitutes a reasonable suspicion or probable cause for compelling an individual to demonstrate their legal status.

Further, it makes permissible detention (unreasonable search and seizure) based on not performing a task you have the right against performing.

The supreme court has ruled that it is permissible for law enforcement to ask you for your identity (not produce it). In fact, law enforcement may ask you whatever they want. You don't have to answer anything beyond telling them your identity though. But when AZ makes the standard probable cause someone is here illegally...what is that and how is that determined without first violating someones right against an unreasonable search and seizure???

Every person here is to be presumed here legally.

Simply because you personally dislike the law, doesn't mean that any of your arguments against it are remotely relevant.

There are several instances where apellate and even Supreme Court decisions have set the precedent that states do indeed have the right to enforce federal legislation, including federal immigration legislation.

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which presides over a geographic region including Arizona) came to the conclusion that:

Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. Rather, when state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized. [The Court also held that] federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of federal immigration law. Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468

Very relevant precedent, adjudicated by the 9th Circuit, specifically in a case involving the state of Arizona.

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in similar fashion, finding that:

...this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law. United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294

of which SB 1070 is.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again:

that state law enforcement officers... have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws, and that federal law as currently written does nothing to displace state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws. On the contrary, federal law evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188

Pretty self-explanatory here.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that:

a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding. United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611

Again, this sounds pretty similar to the purview of SB 1070.

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit again held that:

a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving. United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185

Again, pretty self-explanatory.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that:

police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. [The Court explained,] [E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93

This is precedent set by the USSC, less than 5 years ago.

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again:

[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827

Again...

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded:

As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized. [And held accordingly that] a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws. Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974

Even in courts in places far removed from the issue at hand, this precedent is held.

These are citations of actual legal proceedings, not simply uneducated observations or emotionally motivated opinions. Here you have 8 examples (and several more exist) spanning more than the past 2 decades where Federal Courts, covering a diverse geographic region, including the 9th Circuit (which again, presides over Arizona), as well as the USSC have ruled that State and local authorities do indeed have the right to investigate possible immigration violations. If SB 1070 is found to be unconstitutional it will be an extreme reversal of precedence, which, as I'm sure you're well aware of, is not a typical occurrence within the American legal system, especially when this much specifically relevant precedent exists. As I said before, simply because you dislike and disagree with the law has no bearing on whether the law is just or not.

 

[pete rose]

if you don't like free speech or the US Constitution, for God's sake, fuckin' move somewhere else.

uhhhh...what? Interesting take.

Left and right wingers are both equally pathetic and detrimental to humanity. It drives an unnecessary wedge in society. Imagine a world where everyone understands we have absolutely no say, stops giving a shit, and realizes that politics work against us. Wouldn't that be an awesome world?

 

[Hot Mega]

Simply because you personally dislike the law, doesn't mean that any of your arguments against it are remotely relevant.

There are several instances where apellate and even Supreme Court decisions have set the precedent that states do indeed have the right to enforce federal legislation, including federal immigration legislation.

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which presides over a geographic region including Arizona) came to the conclusion that:

Very relevant precedent, adjudicated by the 9th Circuit, specifically in a case involving the state of Arizona.

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in similar fashion, finding that:
of which SB 1070 is.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again:

Pretty self-explanatory here.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that:

Again, this sounds pretty similar to the purview of SB 1070.

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit again held that:

Again, pretty self-explanatory.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that:

This is precedent set by the USSC, less than 5 years ago.

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again:

Again...

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded:

Even in courts in places far removed from the issue at hand, this precedent is held.

These are citations of actual legal proceedings, not simply uneducated observations or emotionally motivated opinions. Here you have 8 examples (and several more exist) spanning more than the past 2 decades where Federal Courts, covering a diverse geographic region, including the 9th Circuit (which again, presides over Arizona), as well as the USSC have ruled that State and local authorities do indeed have the right to investigate possible immigration violations. If SB 1070 is found to be unconstitutional it will be an extreme reversal of precedence, which, as I'm sure you're well aware of, is not a typical occurrence within the American legal system, especially when this much specifically relevant precedent exists. As I said before, simply because you dislike and disagree with the law has no bearing on whether the law is just or not.

Uh, think about what you're posting. OF FUCKING COURSE state and local law enforcement have concurrent jurisdiction of laws immigrants of any type may break.

Show me in federal law where it says the feds have the right to detain and search someone on prima facie appearance they're here illegally. You can't because the presumption is everyone here is here legally otherwise articulable evidence they're not.

 

[Bearded_Menace]

uhhhh...what? Interesting take.

Left and right wingers are both equally pathetic and detrimental to humanity. It drives an unnecessary wedge in society. Imagine a world where everyone understands we have absolutely no say, stops giving a shit, and realizes that politics work against us. Wouldn't that be an awesome world?

:yesyes: Spot on.

 

[CunningStunts]

uhhhh...what? Interesting take.

Left and right wingers are both equally pathetic and detrimental to humanity. It drives an unnecessary wedge in society. Imagine a world where everyone understands we have absolutely no say, stops giving a shit, and realizes that politics work against us. Wouldn't that be an awesome world?

I agree there are also anti-freedom nuts on the right, but right now I am EXTREMELY concerned with people brainwashed by leftist propaganda that want to destroy the freedoms some Americans still hold dear in the name of "feelings" and "equality." We are only supposed to be equal in they eyes of the law, nothing else. And being here illegally means they are criminals and "feelings" must be completely taken out of the equation lest in come to dominate reason and logic as the basis for our society. Call me a cold hearted bastard if you will, but "feelings" have no place in this debate, nor in governance. The greatest threat to our freedom currently is this insidious notion of "forced charity", and from that poverty and tyranny will follow... :2 cents:

 

[pete rose]

Everybody is brainwashed, man. I just think the driving force behind of all our problems are based on what political affiliation you identify with. That, to me, is really ridiculous.

 

[Hot Mega]

And being here illegally means they are criminals

There is the presumption everyone here in our country is here legally. That's how the law operates.

So, how does law enforcement determine where probable cause exists "someone is here illegally" to compel someone (possibly an American) to demonstrate their citizenship? Bearing in mind, compelling (not merely asking) someone to prove their citizenship or even basic identity represents a detention.

 

[PlumpRump]

Uh, think about what you're posting. OF FUCKING COURSE state and local law enforcement have concurrent jurisdiction of laws immigrants of any type may break.

Show me in federal law where it says the feds have the right to detain and search someone on prima facie appearance they're here illegally. You can't because the presumption is everyone here is here legally otherwise articulable evidence they're not.

You're regressing here. Now you're, in essence, arguing that this law has something to do with federal authorities detaining and searching individuals based on first appearance? As I'm quite sure you understand, this law has nothing to do with the "Feds." It authorizes "A law enforcement official or Agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state (no mention of federal authorities here) where reasonable suspicion exists, a reasonable attempt shal be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." SB 1070, Sec. 2, 11-1051, Subsection B.

I would posit to you, that you can't show me, in SB 1070, where it refers to federal authorities adjudicating this law, because you can't. The statement you're making has no relevance to the issue at hand.

If you would like to discuss something relevant, I would further poist to you that you that prima facie detention is a duty of LEOs as "Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted."(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm) So, even if the law did specifically provide for the right of LEOs to prima facie detention, which it doesn't as you so seem to be claiming, unless you've read some part of the bill that has since been added, they are well within their legal rights to do so until that prima facie dentention can ultimately be rebutted with evidence, as the burden of proof thus shifts to the accused.

Furhter, to address the reasonable suspicion clause included in SB 1070: Reasonable suspicion [can be defined as] the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer's level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime. http://flexyourrights.org/faq/what_is_reasonable_suspicion

In a state - as of 2000 based on a study conducted by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (the DHS has reports estimating more than 500,000 as of 2008) - that ranked 2nd out of all 50 states in illegal immigrants per capita, where an estimated 283,000 individulas reside illegally (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants#source), I would, as would many other individuals, consider several factors, including appearance, to be "circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime." As immigration status violations are indeed crimes, regardless of your thoughts on the subject.

As I have no doubt you will have some short winded rebuttal to these facts, why don't you at least try to discuss something of note, perhaps with some citations from reputable sources, instead of simply arguing as an exercise based solely on your obligation to biased emotion and political orientation.

 

[Hot Mega]

You're regressing here. Now you're, in essence, arguing that this law has something to do with federal authorities detaining and searching individuals based on first appearance? As I'm quite sure you understand, this law has nothing to do with the "Feds." It authorizes "A law enforcement official or Agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state (no mention of federal authorities here) where reasonable suspicion exists, a reasonable attempt shal be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." SB 1070, Sec. 2, 11-1051, Subsection B.

I would posit to you, that you can't show me, in SB 1070, where it refers to federal authorities adjudicating this law, because you can't. The statement you're making has no relevance to the issue at hand.

If you would like to discuss something relevant, I would further poist to you that you that prima facie detention is a duty of LEOs as "Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted."(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm) So, even if the law did specifically provide for the right of LEOs to prima facie detention, which it doesn't as you so seem to be claiming, unless you've read some part of the bill that has since been added, they are well within their legal rights to do so until that prima facie dentention can ultimately be rebutted with evidence, as the burden of proof thus shifts to the accused.

Furhter, to address the reasonable suspicion clause included in SB 1070: Reasonable suspicion [can be defined as] the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer's level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime. http://flexyourrights.org/faq/what_is_reasonable_suspicion

In a state - as of 2000 based on a study conducted by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (the DHS has reports estimating more than 500,000 as of 2008) - that ranked 2nd out of all 50 states in illegal immigrants per capita, where an estimated 283,000 individulas reside illegally (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants#source), I would, as would many other individuals, consider several factors, including appearance, to be "circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime." As immigration status violations are indeed crimes, regardless of your thoughts on the subject.

As I have no doubt you will have some short winded rebuttal to these facts, why don't you at least try to discuss something of note, perhaps with some citations from reputable sources, instead of simply arguing as an exercise based solely on your obligation to biased emotion and political orientation.

Sighhhhhhhh....reread.

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4497789&postcount=41

 

[PlumpRump]

Sighhhhhhhh....reread.

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4497789&postcount=41

Indeed, I have.

You're refuting this based on a wrongheaded premise (not unlike most of those who don't see the problem).

The first thing you're wrong on is believing states have the right to pass laws which attempt to mirror federal law. They don't specifically with matters of state...which immigration is one. For example, even if the US has a treaty with Comoros or something..it would be unconstitutional for a state to enter into it's own treaty with Comoros.

The law provides that everyone in the country is presumed to be here legally. SB 1070 gives no guidance for what constitutes a reasonable suspicion or probable cause for compelling an individual to demonstrate their legal status.

Further, it makes permissible detention (unreasonable search and seizure) based on not performing a task you have the right against performing.

The supreme court has ruled that it is permissible for law enforcement to ask you for your identity (not produce it). In fact, law enforcement may ask you whatever they want. You don't have to answer anything beyond telling them your identity though. But when AZ makes the standard probable cause someone is here illegally...what is that and how is that determined without first violating someones right against an unreasonable search and seizure???

Every person here is to be presumed here legally.

AZ makes the standard probable cause someone is here illegally...what is that and how is that determined without first violating someones right against an unreasonable search and seizure???

"That" is your opinion, and your own clouded interpretation of the law. And "that is determined without first violating someones right against an unreasonable search and seizure" by providing for "lawful contact" coupled with "reasonable suspicion" before questioning and detaining. Nothing in SB 1070 provides for random questioning of anyone, contrary to what you seem to believe. Your basic argument is that this law is unconstitutional simply because the possibility exists for misuse. Should we now deny people driver's licenses and the right to purchase alcohol because the possibility exists that people may drink and drive? In function, they are the same argument.

The law provides that everyone in the country is presumed to be here legally... states [don't] have the right to pass laws which attempt to mirror federal law... which immigration is one... Further, it makes permissible detention (unreasonable search and seizure) based on not performing a task you have the right against performing... law enforcement may ask you whatever they want. You don't have to answer anything beyond telling them your identity... AZ makes the standard probable cause someone is here illegally... Every person here is to be presumed here legally

If you could back up any of these claims with proper citation, actual excerpts from exisiting law, legal finding, or precedent, I might be inclined to believe that your argument has even a hint of validity. Prove to me, or to yourself rather, with instruments other than your own biased opinion, that any of these claims are true, and I will leave it alone...

 

[Red Spyder]

Straight from the horse's mouth. Has anyone even bothered to read this? It's only 17 pages unlike the 2,000 plus page monstruosity that was Obamacare. Can anyone here tell me where it says "if your skin is slightly brown but not too dark, you have to show us your papers"?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Straight from the horse's mouth. Has anyone even bothered to read this? It's only 17 pages unlike the 2,000 plus page monstruosity that was Obamacare. Can anyone here tell me where it says "if your skin is slightly brown but not too dark, you have to show us your papers"?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Well our "leaders" *cough Holder, Napolitano, cough* didn't read it, sooooo. Seriously, they went before US Governmental body's and didn't do their homework. They should be fired. What have they been doing, posting on Freeones?