New Life Games Tech Forums

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law the nation's toughest legislation against illegal immigration Friday, a sweeping measure that supporters said would take handcuffs off police but which President Barack Obama said could violate people's civil rights.

The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

It would also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen," and said the state must act because the federal government has failed.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law.
"But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

The bill takes effect in 90 days after the current legislative sessions in the next several weeks.

Obama said in Washington that he's instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona bill to see if it's legal, and said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level - or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.




Civil rights activists have said the bill would lead to racial profiling and deter Hispanics from reporting crimes.

Brewer said she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

Hundreds of protesters gathered at the State Capitol complex Friday calling on Brewer to veto the legislation.

Demonstrators have been camped outside the Capitol since the measure passed out of the Legislature on Monday.
Their numbers have grown steadily throughout the week, with buses bringing protesters from as far away as Los Angeles.

About a dozen supporters of the measure also gathered.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who opposes the measure, said he's closing his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs.

The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."

Pearce said the legislation would remove "political handcuffs" from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.

"Illegal is illegal," said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona.

"We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.

Other provisions of the bill allow lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

no offense to anyone but it's a very evident problem in AZ.

Not hard to spot at all.

Becareful Joey they might send you back to Nevada !  :25-

 :208- :208- :208-

Last time we actually got him to go over there and into a casino for a meal!!! I think that Brichter, Buzz and I are still in shock!!! :89- :89- :89-

You know that he will just swim back across the River Jay! :72- :72- :72-

CH :95-

Given his location I still think we should get him to trade the giant garfield topper for a jet ski .........

He could pull a Bertha behind him on a float ......

Mexico warns citizens may be "harassed" in Arizona   :97- :97- :97- :97- :97- :97- :97-

Mexico warned its citizens living in or traveling to Arizona that they could be "harassed" there after the state passed one of the toughest immigration laws in the United States last week.



Mexico's foreign ministry issued a statement saying
That Mexicans in Arizona should be aware of the new law and contact their consular representatives if they are unlawfully detained.

unlawfully detained ? unlawfully detained ?  I don't get it ................   


Sorry if I offend anyone but F*CK MEXICO...   :30- :30- :30- :30-  you got a lot of balls telling your Mexicans in AZ that if we unlawfully detained them to call their consular representatives...

unlawful or Illegal immigrants don't have any rights in this country so get over it.

 :125- :125-

:210- :210- :210- :210- :210- :210-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-mEMLp9DQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-mEMLp9DQ)
we welcome opposing views

I bet I wont offend anyone in this thread.... I live in Mesa, AZ and fully agree with SB1070....

Why are they coming here?
Man, I'd pick a nice offshore island somewhere
with white sandy beaches or something....LOL

freebies that we cant get.... plus they are seen as a HUGE voting block, in time.

John McCain Smacks Down Obama Over AZ Immigration Bill


Following Arizona’s passage of a tough new immigration law, Barack Obama described the law as “misguided” and implied that Arizona was being “irresponsible” by trying to protect its lawful citizens.

McCain responded:

    “If the president doesn’t like what the Arizona Legislature and governor may be doing, then I call on the president to immediately call for the dispatch of 3,000 National Guard troops to our border and mandate that 3,000 additional Border Patrol [officers] be sent to our border as well,” McCain said at a news conference Friday in downtown Phoenix, according to a report in the Arizona Republic.

    “And that way, then the state of Arizona will not have to enact legislation which they have to do because of the federal government’s failure to carry out its responsibilities, which is to secure the borders.”

GOD BLESS ARIZONA  :3-, I WISH TEXAS WOULD WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People should gain citizinship legaly! Like any immgrants in the past. I know many hispanics in Arizona that have taken the test and became citizians, GREAT! Cross thrugh our desert to be a leach on society and take American jobs, GET OUT!
I live in Peoria Arizona............ LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

I feel constrained to point out that the announcement by the Mexican government telling its citizens to contact the Mexican consulate should they be unlawfully detained is not aimed at illegal immigrants, but at Mexican citizens traveling in the U.S. What one chooses to read between the lines is another matter.

I sympathize with those in Arizona who feel that the Federal government has not done its part to secure their borders, but the problem with this law is that it, by definition, must lead to racial profiling by law enforcement. So now, you will have a segment of the population unfairly singled out and forced to produce their "papers" or be detained. This will inevitably include Hispanic Americans born here, or who are legal immigrants. I do not want to live in a country where its citizens have to carry papers to prove who they are or be arrested. That happened in another place not too long ago: Nazi Germany.

I am not saying that the illegals shouldn't be deported. I am saying that giving powers to the state that sacrifice the rights of its citizens -- in this case, those of Hispanic or Mexican descent who are not here illegally -- because of fear and hate mongering is the first step towards losing the liberties that we cherish in this country.

If you want to reduce illegal immigration, make it unpalatable. Severely fine and punish employers who hire illegals (papers ARE required to get a job). Stop handing out free state aid to illegals. Don't deny medical care, but don't pay for it, either. If there are no jobs or services here for those who have entered the country illegally, then the appeal to come here will drop considerably. These measures can make a difference without impugning the rights of our legal citizenry.

You need to make it less palatable for the Mexican government also, as they are benefiting from the money that is sent home by the illegals to their families.

That's true, but if the illegals are unable to obtain work here, they won't have much to send home.

We passed a law here against employers, and its working to a point.... but the feds interfere with the raids altho our sheiff Joe still does them. Private citizens keep picking up illegals at Home Depot to cut thier yards etc.... that has to stop also.

Check this out.... threats of violence.... dont they know many of us carry in AZ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlutO0KK7g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlutO0KK7g)

You may be able to decrease the number of employers willing to employ illegals, but there's no viable way to end it completely. Relying on our government only to secure a border that has 2 sides  is unworkable. This needs to be addressed on both sides of the border, but at this time there is tacit assistance from the Mexican govt to aid the illegals, such as the distribution of literature (handbooks and a DVD) giving the illegals tips and hints on how to more effectively cross the border, avoid detection once they have entered illegally, how to send money back across the border, and how to access US social services.

Of course, there is a disclaimer at the end of these publications stating that their government only condones legal emigration to the US...  :81-

I wonder how fast the Mexican govt would watch thier own border if we cut all financial aid to Mexico?

Use of green card as an identity card

The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times.

This means that the permanent resident must have a currently valid card on the person at all times and be able to show it to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, if requested.

Though aliens with permanent resident status are required to carry these identification cards, American citizens are not required to carry any citizenship identification.  :3-

San Francisco to Consider Boycott of Arizona  

(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/04/27/image6434102_370x278.jpg)

Lawmakers in San Francisco today will vote on a citywide boycott of the state of Arizona,
in protest of its new illegal immigrant law that has spurred a backlash across the country.

"We want to send a message," Supervisor David Campos reportedly said to a rally gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall. "There are consequences when you target a whole people."

Campos said it's still unclear how exactly a boycott would impact San Francisco, the Chronicle reports, but he added, "We do know that we won't be sending any city employees to conferences in Arizona."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera seconded the call for a boycott, pledging that his office will help identify contracts with Arizona companies and break them when possible.

Arizona Gov. Brewer said Monday at a town hall that she doesn't believe the law is "going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think it might," the Associated Press reports.

There has already been some impact, however. As of Sunday, about 70 drivers from California and Arizona had already agreed to stop moving loads into or out of Arizona in protest of the new law, according to the Arizona Republic.

Additionally, La Opinion, the nation's biggest Spanish-language newspaper, has endorsed the boycott, Politico reports.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also weighed in on the issue last week with a statement saying the new law "could have a chilling effect on international business travel, investment, and tourism in that state, as many people from around the world may think twice before visiting Arizona and subjecting themselves to potential run-ins with the police."

"We're happy to have those businesses and tourists come here," Bloomberg said. "But as a country, America will be badly hurt if more states follow Arizona's lead."

Other States Follow Arizona's Lead on Immigration

Politicians in at least five states are calling for their state legislatures to adopt immigration laws that mirror Arizona's controversial new measure.

State lawmakers and others in Texas, Utah, Georgia, Ohio and Maryland are seizing on Arizona's hard-line approach to illegal immigration, which has the approval of many conservatives who say it is necessary in the absence of adequate federal policies. The law, however, has outraged others across the country who say it violates Americans' Constitutional rights and/or encroaches on federal authority to regulate immigration.


Arizona's new law, signed by the governor on Friday, would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. It would also require police officers to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that person may be illegally in the country.

Both those in favor of and those opposed to the Arizona law say that Washington's lack of action on the issue of immigration prompted the Arizona legislature to act.

Immigration reform "has to be a priority" in Washington, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. The Arizona law, he added, "could naturally drive each state to creating its own immigration law."

In Georgia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal is saying just that.

"I agree with the Arizona governor and Legislature that the federal government has failed miserably at protecting our borders and enacting sensible solutions that would protect our states, counties and cities from bearing the enormous costs associated with illegal immigration," Deal said in a statement yesterday. "As governor of Georgia, I'd work to pass and sign similar legislation."

Deal formerly served in the House of Representatives but resigned in March this year after the health care debate. He authored an amendment to the health care bill restricting access to health insurance for illegal immigrants. As a congressman, he also authored legislation that would end birthright citizenship to babies born in the United States to parents in the country illegally.

In Texas, both conservative Republican Gov. Rick Perry and his Democratic challenger Bill White are hesitant to take up the issue, which is not surprising given the significant role Latino voters will play in this year's gubernatorial race.


Nevertheless, one Republican state lawmaker is pushing for Texas to adopt legislation like Arizona's, the Houston Chronicle reports. State Rep. Debbie Riddle has introduced similar legislation in the past and will reportedly do so again when the legislature meets in its next regular session in January.

"The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established," she said. "If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas."

Republican State Rep. David Swinford previously decided not to advance Riddle's bill in his capacity as former State Affairs Committee chairman because he said he was advised they'd violate constitutional standards, the Chronicle reported.

"I'm real proud of Arizona," Swinford said. "A lot of this stuff we wanted to do, we just couldn't do, because I didn't want Texas going bankrupt trying to defend it in the courts... Arizona can take it to the courts."

In Ohio, Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones and Republican State Rep. Courtney Combs, sent a letter Tuesday to Gov. Ted Strickland and state legislative leaders asking for action, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The letter asked Strickland "to employ your leadership role as Governor to assure legislation is passed that will mirror that of the illegal immigration legislation" in Arizona and to press for the passage of other immigration-related bills. According to the paper, the letter was sent the same day Jones was preparing to lay off 10 members of his staff. While a law like Arizona's would place more responsibility on local law enforcement, Jones stood by his position. "The only alternative you have is that you don't do anything. This is a violation of the law," he said.

Some state lawmakers, including Republican State Rep. Stephen Sandstrom of Utah, say action is needed because Arizona's law could otherwise adversely impact their state.

"When Arizona, in the past, has cracked down on illegal immigration, Utah has been the destination of choice for illegal aliens that leave the state of Arizona," Sandstrom said, KSL-TV reports. Sandstrom said he is drafting legislation similar to Arizona's to introduce in the next legislative session.

State Delegate Pat McDonough, a Republican from Maryland, wants his state to pass a version of Arizona's law for the same reason, ABC2 News in Baltimore reports.

"When people come across that border, they're not going to go to Arizona anymore. They're coming here," McDonough said.

McDonough reportedly plans to send a survey to every candidate for the state's General Assembly, along with the candidates for governor, asking them whether they agree with Arizona's approach.

"We'll go on the record and this summer we're going to pretty much know who is in favor of the Arizona bill and who is not," he said.

How Arizona Became Center of Immigration Debate

The frustration had been building for years in Arizona with every drug-related kidnapping, every home invasion, every "safe house" discovered crammed with illegal immigrants from Mexico.

The tensions finally spilled over this month with passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, a measure that has put Arizona at the center of the heated debate over how to deal with the millions of people who sneak into the U.S. every year.

A number of factors combined to produce the law: a heavily conservative Legislature, the ascent of a Republican governor, anger over the federal government's failure to secure the border, and growing anxiety over crime that reached a fever pitch last month with the slaying of an Arizona rancher, apparently by an illegal immigrant.



"The public wants something done. They're tired of it," said state Sen. Russell Pearce, who sponsored the legislation. "They've seen the ineptness and the malfeasance on the part of the government, and they're frustrated."


Arizona is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants. The state is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants - a population larger than that of entire cities such as Cleveland, St. Louis and New Orleans.

The Republican-dominated Legislature has backed a series of tough immigration measures in the past decade, only to have the most aggressive efforts thwarted by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.


But the political stars aligned this year for the GOP. President Barack Obama appointed Napolitano to his Cabinet, clearing the way for Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer to take over as governor. The GOP made a headlong rush back into the immigration debate, and Brewer signed the bill last week.

The law reflects frustration with what many lawmakers see as inaction by the federal government.

"While the Bush administration dropped the ball on border security and illegal immigration, the Obama administration can't even find it," said GOP state Rep. John Kavanagh.

He said lawmakers also felt compelled to act because more immigrants will come to the U.S. as the economy improves and there is a "smell of amnesty in the air" under the Obama administration.    :137- :137- :137- :137-

This.  K+

I'm all for people being in the country legally (and people who are not legally in the country not being here), but the idea of having to produce your ID on demand to any agent of the state (police officer) who asks for it is against the whole idea of freedom that this country was built on.

Not to turn this more political than it is, but I find it ironic that the die-hard republicans are the ones who are in favor of this new law, while republicans are traditionally the party of wanting less big government/big brother.

for those that want to read the bill  :47- :149- :47- :149- :47- :149-

State of Arizona

Senate

Forty-ninth Legislature

Second Regular Session

2010

 

 

SENATE BILL 1070

 

 

 

AN ACT

 

Amending title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding article 8; amending title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 13‑1509; amending section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes; amending Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding sections 13-2928 and 13‑2929; amending sections 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 and 28-3511, Arizona revised statutes; amending title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 41-1724; relating to unlawfully present aliens.

 

 

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

 


Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1.  Intent

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona.  The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.  The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

Sec. 2.  Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

ARTICLE 8.  ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

START_STATUTE11-1051.  Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A.  No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B.  For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.  The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).

C.  If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection.

D.  Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency's custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.

E.  A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

F.  Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1.  Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2.  Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

3.  Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

4.  If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.

G.  A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.  If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following:

1.  That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

2.  That the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

H.  A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G and remit the civil penalty to the department of public safety for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724.

I.  A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer's agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

J.  This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens. END_STATUTE

Sec. 3.  Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509, to read:

START_STATUTE13-1509.  Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; classification

A.  In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:

1.  Present on any public or private land in this state.

2.  In violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

B.  In the enforcement of this section, the final determination of an alien's immigration status shall be determined by either:

1.  A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.

2.  A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

C.  A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.

D.  In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:

1.  At least five hundred dollars for a first violation.

2.  Twice the amount specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection if the person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.

E.  A court shall collect the assessments prescribed in subsection D of this section and remit the assessments to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation.  Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

F.  This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.

G.  A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that a violation of this section is:

1.  A class 3 felony if the person violates this section while in possession of any of the following:

(a)  A dangerous drug as defined in section 13-3401.

(b)  Precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of section 13-3404.01.

(c)  A deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, as defined in section 13-105.

(d)  Property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in section 13-2308.01.

2.  A class 4 felony if the person either:

(a)  Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section.

(b)  Within sixty months before the violation, has been removed from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229c. END_STATUTE

Sec. 4.  Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE13-2319.  Smuggling; classification; definitions

A.  It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.

B.  A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.

C.  Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this section:

1.  Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

2.  Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

D.  Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.

E.  Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and this section.

E.  F.  For the purposes of this section:

1.  "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.

2.  "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or facilitation of transportation and includes:

(a)  Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel arrangement services or money transmission services.

(b)  Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification, or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as defined in section 13-2322.

3.  "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law. END_STATUTE

Sec. 5.  Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:

START_STATUTE13-2928.  Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions

A.  It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

B.  It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

C.  It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.

D.  A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.

E.  For the purposes of this section:

1.  "Solicit" means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed.

2.  "Unauthorized alien" means an alien who does not have the legal right or authorization under federal law to work in the United States as described in 8 United States Code section 1324a(h)(3). END_STATUTE

START_STATUTE13-2929.  Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle impoundment; classification

A.  It is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to:

1.  Transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in this state in a means of transportation if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

2.  Conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

3.  Encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law.

B.  A means of transportation that is used in the commission of a violation of this section is subject to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment pursuant to section 28-3511.

C.  A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of at least one thousand dollars, except that a violation of this section that involves ten or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony and the person is subject to a fine of at least one thousand dollars for each alien who is involved. END_STATUTE

Sec. 6.  Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE23-212.  Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A.  An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.  If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

B.  The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section.  The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized.  On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.  If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.  This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form.  The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.  A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer.  The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint.  When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).  A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States.  An alien's immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).  A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

C.  If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

1.  The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

2.  The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

3.  The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

D.  An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer.  The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008.  A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23‑212.01, subsection A.

E.  For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

F.  On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

1.  For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court:

(a)  Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b)  Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.  During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23‑722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c)  Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued.  The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state.  The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued.  All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney.  Notwithstanding any other law, on filing of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by the appropriate agencies.  For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.  If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business.  On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order.  The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

(d)  May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for not to exceed ten business days.  The court shall base its decision to suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

(i)  The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

(ii)  Any prior misconduct by the employer.

(iii)  The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

(iv)  Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

(v)  The duration of the violation.

(vi)  The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

(vii)  Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

2.  For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.  If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business.  On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

3.  The violation shall be considered:

(a)  A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212.01, subsection F for that employer's business location.

(b)  A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212.01, subsection F for that employer's business location.

G.  The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general's website.

H.  On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status.  The court may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

I.  For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.

J.  For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.  An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

K.  It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection A of this section that the employer was entrapped.  To claim entrapment, the employer must admit by the employer's testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the violation.  An employer who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1.  The idea of committing the violation started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the employer.

2.  The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

3.  The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

L.  An employer does not establish entrapment if the employer was predisposed to violate subsection A of this section and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity.  The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if an employer has proven entrapment. END_STATUTE

Sec. 7.  Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE23-212.01.  Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A.  An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.  If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

B.  The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section.  The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized.  On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.  If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.  This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form.  The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.  A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer.  The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint.  When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).  A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States.  An alien's immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).  A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

C.  If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

1.  The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

2.  The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

3.  The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

D.  An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer.  The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23‑212, subsection A.

E.  For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

F.  On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

1.  For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:

(a)  Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b)  Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23‑722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c)  Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days.  The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

(i)  The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

(ii)  Any prior misconduct by the employer.

(iii)  The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

(iv)  Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

(v)  The duration of the violation.

(vi)  The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

(vii)  Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

(d)  Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney.  The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state.  The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued.  All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney.  For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.  If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business.  On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order.  The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

2.  For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.  If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business.  On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

3.  The violation shall be considered:

(a)  A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212, subsection F for that employer's business location.

(b)  A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212, subsection F for that employer's business location.

G.  The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general's website.

H.  On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).  The federal government's determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status.  The court may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

I.  For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

J.  For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.  An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

K.  It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection A of this section that the employer was entrapped.  To claim entrapment, the employer must admit by the employer's testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the violation.  An employer who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1.  The idea of committing the violation started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the employer.

2.  The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

3.  The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

L.  An employer does not establish entrapment if the employer was predisposed to violate subsection A of this section and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity.  The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if an employer has proven entrapment. END_STATUTE

Sec. 8.  Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE23-214.  Verification of employment eligibility; e‑verify program; economic development incentives; list of registered employers

A.  After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify program and shall keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee's employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.

B.  In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall register with and participate in the e-verify program.  Before receiving the economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating in the e-verify program.  If the government entity determines that the employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity's determination of noncompliance and the employer's right to appeal the determination.  On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the government entity within thirty days of the final determination.  For the purposes of this subsection:

1.  "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after September 30, 2008.  Economic development incentive does not include any tax provision under title 42 or 43.

2.  "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.

C.  Every three months the attorney general shall request from the United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this state that are registered with the e-verify program.  On receipt of the list of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the attorney general's website. END_STATUTE

Sec. 9.  Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE28-3511.  Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle

A.  A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:

1.  The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any reason.

2.  The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.  This paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.

3.  The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle without a functioning certified ignition interlock device.  This paragraph does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28‑1464.

4.  The person is in violation of a criminal offense and is transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to transport, move, conceal, harbor or shield an alien in this state in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

B.  A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle and if all of the following apply:

1.  The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.

2.  The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

3.  The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another person.

C.  Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4‑244, paragraph 34 or section 28‑1382 or 28‑1383.

D.  A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this section if all of the following apply:

1.  The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

2.  The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the arrest.

3.  The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse of the driver:

(a)  Has a valid driver license.

(b)  Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.

(c)  Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the spouse is under twenty‑one years of age.

4.  The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of safety.

5.  The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this subsection.

E.  Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days.  An insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or fees for immobilization or impoundment.

F.  The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28‑3514.END_STATUTE

Sec. 10.  Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:

START_STATUTE41-1724.  Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund

The gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund is established consisting of monies deposited pursuant to section 11‑1051 and monies appropriated by the legislature.  The department shall administer the fund.  Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation and shall be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration. END_STATUTE

Sec. 11.  Severability, implementation  and construction

A.  If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

B.  The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.

C.  This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

Sec. 12.  Short title

This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act".

True, but absolutely not practical if you are anywhere near any US border
during these times after 911 and with the new Homeland Security bullshit laws.
The new laws are making their heads a bit swollen.
It's too much power for 20 or 30-something year olds.
I seen several  US citizens detained for hours until the proper ID papers were brought forward.

I live about 15 miles from the Canadian border and people are suing the US Border Patrols left and right.
Last year they shot a 17 year old farmer's boy riding his ATV on a trail 7 miles
from the actual border going to his grandmother's house.
We've heard nothing in the news whatsoever as to whatever happened to the Border Patrol guys.
But they tried to pin drug smuggling and everything else you can think of on him.
From standing behind their truck doors, they blasted 2 holes into the kid's back and shoulder...from behind!
Needless to say, none of those officers were not from around here and
have long since been transferred back to the Texas border routes.

Is this what we want? There's 2 sides to every story...

This is so true can you find the news story on this I tried and no luck... sounds like a must read..

Incidents involving Officers like this get shoved under the carpet big time...
not good for the P.R. and funding.

Then the news isnt doing its "job" like they used to... got a name or town name?

The story of the kid on the 4-wheeler hit the news but you won't believe how
biased it was and how small of a section they used in the local papers.
The family is very well known around here in upstate new york and
the boy was always working on his uncle's farm doing chores.
The news reported that he "charged at them" but upon further looking into it...
the two officer's placed themselves at a corner of the trail in the bushes and the boy knew the trail by heart.
It was approaching nightfall but he knew his way on that trail because he rode it regularly.
He blasted around the corner like normal (curvy dirt trails in the woods up here)
and was continuing on towards his grandmother's house.
As he came out into the clearing past the woods, there was a couple more of
Border Patrol guys standing behind their doors waiting for anything to come out of the woods on that trail.
As he came out and sped by, yelled for him to stop but he couldn't hear them from the roar of his junky old 4-wheeler.
They open fired on him.
Everyone around here was extremely upset but only heard on the news that he was involved with drug smuggling.
Locals knew the boy very well and he's was just a young farmer's hand.
Classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This.  K+

I'm all for people being in the country legally (and people who are not legally in the country not being here), but the idea of having to produce your ID on demand to any agent of the state (police officer) who asks for it is against the whole idea of freedom that this country was built on.


[/quote]

kanagl  Are you saying you have never had to produce a ID of some kind to a Police Officer? It's actually works out pretty simple, Cop wants to see a ID and you refuse to produce one he takes you to jail.

On what grounds?  A police officer does NOT have the right to just walk up to anyone they choose and demand identification.  If an officer has cause to believe that I comitted a crime, that's a different story, but (save for this new law in Arizona) an officer of the law cannot just walk up to someone and ask for their ID and detain them if they refuse to produce one.

um.. that isnt how the new law works... they cant just come up to me or you and demand ID. They have to have come across you while doing thier duties... ie traffic stop... where yes you do have to produce ID as in a license, plus insurance and registration. I dont like that either, but thats how the current law is. If they just grab a mexican or mexican looking person and demand ID, they could get sued.

Personally, I am not as worried about those here for the past 10-20 years.... many have layed low and enjoyed it. My concerns are with those running the drugs in or people.... here in Phoenix, it is nitely news about drop houses, drug runners, hit-and-runs, gang related crime, and on and on... thats what I am hoping this law helps at least slow down if not stop.

by Alicia E. Barrón

Fox 11

Posted on April 27, 2010 at 7:17 PM

PHOENIX – Law enforcement took dozens of people into custody after busting an alleged drop house in Phoenix.

Agents responded to a house in the area of 26th Drive and Avalon on Tuesday after receiving reports of suspicious activity and a check welfare call just before 1 p.m.

When police arrived at the house, they found a group of illegal immigrants inside, many eating ham sandwiches and drinking beer. There were reportedly no weapons and no one acted in a violent manner.

Sgt. A.D. Davis, with the Phoenix Police Department, says "Officers got a call today at about 12:45 p.m. of a suspicious vehicle and just check welfare on the house. It all started last night.at around 11 o'clock they noticed a red van and a white pick-up...and they noticed that maybe 30-40 individuals got out and they noticed this type of behavior for the last three days."

Neighbors tell 3TV they had noticed something was up. Brent Farlin, a neighbor, says, “I’ve noticed some suspicious activity over the last week cars, these vehicles right here parked here 3:00, 3:30 in the morning and then they just suddenly leave.”

A total of 70 people including a small child were taken into custody and loaded onto an ICE bus to be processed and detained as neighbors stood by and watched.

www.fox11az.com/v/?i=92259979 (http://www.fox11az.com/v/?i=92259979)  video

Actually that's exactly how the new law works -- it grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect may be illegal.  It's not a secondary-offense thing like you suggested (where they'd be asking for ID after making a stop for a traffic violation).




Which is why one Arizona sheriff said that he has no intention of complying with the new law:

- Pima County (AZ) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik  (source (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582))


Don't get me wrong, I'm not thrilled with the idea of people in the country illegally taking advantage of what the country has to offer and, in many cases, not paying taxes to the country.  However, I'm less thrilled with the idea of a police state where I have to provide "my papers" on demand to big brother to prove that I'm allowed to walk down the street.  We fight to keep our country free for a reason, and it's not to pass laws like this.

well, it may not see the light of day anyhow... papers filed today to get 1070 on the ballot, they need 70,000 signitures by July... and if they dont make that, they file to get it on the next election and the law sits on hold till 2012.....

it is nice that we can debate this topic in a civil manner....

some other sites are off the wall on  both sides ..  :25- :25- :25- :25-

well at least no one is throwing beer bottles at us so far//////////

  :140- :140- :140- :198- :198- :198- :152- :152- :152- :125- :125- :125-

I agree.... we all have our opinions and I respect them as much as someone respects mine. I assumed we are all adults, and was correct :)

Right.    So how do you tell the difference between a U.S. citizen who does not need identification, a resident alien who does, and an illegal alien? The color of their skin? Their accent? The type of job they have? ... their religious beliefs... the clothes they wear ... the church they go to ... where does it stop?

Tell me, will the police be making concerted efforts to seek out illegal British or Scandinavian immigrants? How about Korean? How about Canadian?  Or are we really talking about selective enforcement of the law, racial profiling, and pandering to the mob?

Will your life really be so much better if these measures are taken that you are willing to give up more of your civil rights to the state to accomplish them? It is worth the price?

Might it really be that we are angry and frustrated with our failing economy and that we feel powerless to do anything about the downturns in our lives? Could it be that these aliens are scapegoats for all of our frustration -- a way to feel united against something, anything, as long as we can point a finger and blame someone else for the problems in our lives? History has shown that people who feel this way are easily manipulated. When something is motivated by fear and anger, be careful. Be VERY careful.

Let's understand exactly when this law can be applied:

"Lawful contact" has a very broad meaning. A police officer is allowed to approach anyone and strike up a conversation, this is an example of one type of lawful contact. If there is something suspicious about the subject's behavior, it can be used as reasonable suspicion to detain a subject in order to ascertain if there is a crime being committed.  :79-

Stat, to address your point: Any officer can use this law to initiate a "stop for verification of citizenship" on any subject, with a little creative report writing. Indeed, the officer will be applauded if he uses it against people of all colors and ethnic backgrounds, as he won't be racially profiling. :89-

Of course, once he has reasonable suspicion to detain (not arrest) a subject, he is allowed to do a search "for weapons, to protect both himself and the detainee"... :71- and you can imagine how it will go from there.

This is tantamount to carte blanche authority to stop anyone at will.

Now, I'm not saying all cops are bad. Just like every other group you can divide people into, there are good and bad. This law is written badly enough that you could drive a Mack truck through the holes... :60-

But, maybe it will get the feds off their collective  :207- :124- and do something about the issue. I'm against illegal immigration, but I'm also against stupid legislation that can be easily misused.

well, no matter who is right or wrong on this.... it is getting national coverage and many of those in power are showing their true colors either way. Personally, I do not think the law will ever see the light of day with the court cases already going on... but it is waking up the people and causing them to discuss it... a good thing. For way too many years, people have ignored the problems.

We, as biker-types, go thru profiling all the time... any of you in the Kingman area remember the run into town a few months back? It was because of discrimination/profiling of bikers... the law does this because supposedly bikers are bad, so they only stopped the ones looking like bikers and not every vehicle on the roads there. Here in AZ, the vast majority of illegals are from Mexico... a known fact. So why the difference in profiling? I dont know.

I heard today that the boycott from San Fran against AZ might backfire and cost San Fran jobs.... haha, cracks me up. Now a movement has started nationally to support AZ businesses, which may be the best thing out of this since our economy is crap here. One lady somewhere outside of AZ started a boycott of "Arizona Iced Tea"... she didnt know it isnt made here, but in NY...

Good discussion, guys.

Welcome to my nightmare... :25- :25-

Well, I have people contacting me for Arizona companies they can use.... to counter any boycott.....

So if the race or ethnic background is a main characteristic of the problem, then because we are such a "We are the world" mentality, then PC dictates we can't profile by race? Thats a sad commentary. Arizona is not being overrun by illegal Bosnians, although I'm sure there are some there. JMHO

 Dan (tacman)

tacman.... we have a load of legal and illegal ones from the middle east also.... but notice how quiet they are staying. Those screaming foul are either mexicans or liberal citizens (for the most part).

I support the law and look forward to the court cases to fine tune it if needed. I and my friends will be watching if/when it goes into effect.

I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to come to the USA, who wouldn't? There are rules and regulations for doing it legally, though. I find it funny that now they are not ILLEGAL immigrants, they are undocumented workers. Strange how you can't call them illegal, which is a fact, but we now call them undocumented WORKERS which is unsubstantiated. If they are ALL workers, why are so many collecting government assistance. Oh, and as I stated before, I am really tired of immigrants, legal or illegal REFUSING to assimilate to the country they so DEARLY want to be in, even if it means breaking the law. That statement covers all ethic backgrounds and nationalities.

 Dan (tacman)

well, I feel we should also ignore the hookers and drug dealers that abound if we are going to avoid illegals. When they were pushing for shaded structures for the day workers, we pushed for the same for the hookers and dealers in Phoenix.... that didnt go over well, but we made our point. :)

My 2c on the issue is that the US spends a ton of money pushing out their borders that could be better spent elsewhere.
When I fly from Canada to the US I go though immigration in Canada, Same deal when I fly in to the US from Europe.
I go through immigration in Europe. Just the cost to house all those immigration officers in those foreign places alone not to mention over 2500 border points.

Would it not make much more sense to create 5 or 6 points of (air) entry into the US ?

And why guard the Canadian Border ??? is Canada a Terror threat (South Park does not count) It would be my conjecture that you eliminate the check points that don't matter and spend your money on the ones that do. Ie expand the points of entry from the US-5 to say 10 and ensure a consistent level of screaning.

Right now they don't have the money to scan even 1% of all Sea-containers -- gee if I was trying to smuggle something into the country would I try and bring in a bottle of discount liquor in my trunk or heaven forbid more than my duty free allowance or would I do it by the unchecked container full....

There is some internet jokes that pertain to the ability to track a cow and document its every meal - this relates back to the BSE(mad cow) scare of 2004, but our inability to track 2mm illegals.

I see no reason why a person could not be issued a US-PASS with a number on it. Thay way they could track how many visitors they have in the country at any given time. Right now no one has a clue.
Post 911 they fingerprint and retna scan evey european coming into the country but do they count when they leave or have them "check out" nope.... all they got is this huge database of useless information about people they don't even know if are still in the country.

When I was working in Japan I was issued a card that was inserted into my passport. It stated when I entered the county, where I was staying and when I was leaving. If for some reason I was over due they started to track me down.

The technoligy is there why not slip on a ankle bracelet to all visitors, after all Martha Stewart made these fashionable. I am sure there would not be anyone who wouldn't want to turn these in when they left....

Listen pal, we've all heard about you crazies up there with your Labatt's and Moosehead! You're damn right you're a terror threat, heck, a lot of you even speak French! :81- :81- :81-



 :200- :72- :97- :208- :72- :200- :96- :88-

Don't get me started on the French......

We had this whole Quebec separest movement. The province of Quebec who make up the majority of the french speakers in Canada wanted to suscide from Canada.
1. They wanted none of the national debt.
2. They wanted to continue Federal transfer payments (money transferred from the feds to the provincial goverments) but wanted to collect and keep their own Federal tax returns.
3. Wanted to continue to force French on the rest of the country (right now every package has to display both national languges, all goverment documents etc). I have even heard of a French speaker getting off of a failure-to stop ticket because the sign was not in both national languages).
4. Wanted to continue to use Canadian Currency.

I always mantained that it should be illegal for a member of a soverign nation to susceede, however that same nation should be allowed to sell off its territories unilaterly. My suggestion is that we trade Quebec to the US, for two NFL franchises and the US already knows what to do with the French.....

I seen this in an email today and after reading a few of the comments I thought I would see if it was posted on the internet ..

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/which-deserves-our-help-the-disabled-vet-or-illegal-alien/question-974661/?page=4 (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/which-deserves-our-help-the-disabled-vet-or-illegal-alien/question-974661/?page=4)

I hope this is not true ... if so it just isn't right.

Yep... this is also part of the complaints out there, esp here in AZ..... once you figure out how to work the system, its easy.

Ariz. Deputy Shot; Illegal Immigrants Suspected

(PHOENIX) — A veteran sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert — a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers in pursuit of the suspects after the deputy was shot with an AK-47 on Friday afternoon, and the search continued into the night. Deputy Louie Puroll, 53, had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney, but the wound was not serious. He was released Friday night from Casa Grande Regional Medical Center.

The shooting was likely to add fuel to an already fiery national debate sparked last week by the signing of an Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in the state.

Puroll was found in the desert after a frantic hourlong search, suffering from a gunshot wound, Pinal County sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. The 15-year department veteran had been performing smuggling interdiction work before finding the bales of marijuana and encountering the five suspected illegal immigrants, two armed with rifles.

"He was out on his routine daily patrol in the area when he encountered a load of marijuana out in the desert. He obviously confronted the individuals and took fire," Villar told The Associated Press. "I was speaking with him just a bit ago, and he's doing fantastic."

The deputy was alone about five miles from a rest stop along Interstate 8, about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

"Over the past 12 months we've seen an increase in the amount of drugs, and an increase in violence that has been going on in this particular corridor," Villar told KPNX.

"We've had increasing concerns in this area about being outmanned and outgunned, and unfortunately this evening, this is coming true," she added.

The shooting came as Arizona grapples with backlash over its enactment of a tough new law targeting illegal immigration. Civil rights activists, concerned the law will lead to racial profiling, have called for a boycott of the state.

The law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week is supported by many in the state, which has become a major gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.

Its passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers, drop houses and other problems caused by poor border security.

Villar said the search for the suspects involved numerous helicopters from state and federal law enforcement agencies and scores of officers near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84 about 50 miles south of Phoenix.

"The deputy is a search-and-rescue deputy, so its not uncommon for them to work those areas A) looking for drugs and B) looking for people who need assistance out there," Villar said. "Obviously its a high-traffic area for drug- and human-smuggling."
 

I was just gonna post about this.... not good, esp now. With all the rallies happening tomorow there aint no telling what the news will be tomorow.

A month ago, coming back from San Diego, we saw a van pull over and a few dozen men ran up from the desert and pile into the van, with backpacks.... I called 911 and gave my location but never heard of a big bust of anyone. If I were alone, I may have followed them... as it was, it spooked the wife. She asked 2 questions... were they illegals?..... and do you have your gun? I said yes and yes. That was in the same vicinity of todays shooting.

Wasn't going to join in this discussion, but felt like throwing in my two cents since everyone is being fair and balanced. I agree that the politicians are going to have to get off there collective butts and start doing something. Seems like this law is just the catalyst to do it. Other states are wanting to follow Arizona's' lead now, which tells me they are just as Fed (sorry had to do that) up with the way the government has just turned a blind eye to the border situation and illegal aliens. Sheriff Joe is continuing Drop House raids and showing that there is a MAJOR problem here. Today I heard a news report on my way home, that a Pima County Deputy was shot by suspected drug smugglers, along the border, with an AK47. Then right after that report, an opponent of this new law stated the law would be keeping law enforcement from doing their jobs and protecting the public' safety. I certainly hope the deputy wasn't profiling these fine upstanding (citizens?) when he made his stop because of suspicious activity, guess we don't need that new law after all. These folks should have been allowed to come into this country with their drugs and AK47s without being harassed/"profiled".                                 
   For those who do not read this new law, completely, they will more than likely spin what they hear secondhand, see or read in the media because that's what they want to believe. I would lay odds that most of the protesters have not read and understood what the law requires of law enforcement.  That's fine, because, thank God, we are allowed the freedom to express our opinions in this country. An officer has the right to stop you and ask for ID if you are VIOLATING A LAW or are SUSPECT in criminal behavior. This goes for ANYONE in this state or country. If you cannot provide that information, he will investigate further to ascertain if you may be a criminal with outstanding warrants or, in the case of a traffic stop, are driving ILLEGALLY (suspended/revoked drivers license, no current registration, no proof of insurance, etc.)under the influence or conducting illegal business(drug selling/buying, transporting illegals, etc.) This has always been done prior to this new law and it won't change. The only difference is that he MAY ask what country you were born in if you cannot provide any proof of who you are. If you are unable to provide enough truthful information to be run in an NCIC search to prove who you are and you don't speak English. And in an all too common traffic stop, you have no drivers license, no other proof of ID, no proof of insurance, no registration and you don't speak English. It doesn't matter if you're white, black, brown, Asian etc., if you can't provide this type of information or legitimate ID you are going to be detained. ANYONE can be arrested/detained until it can be determined you are who you say you are, either in the field or in the jail. It's basically up to you to provide truthful information, when asked by law enforcement, in order to avoid the worse case scenario. Trust me, I booked many a person with these same circumstances. I usually found out who they were quickly once they told the truth, most (99%) stayed in my jail until they went to court or INS picked them up. This has NOTHING to do with profiling, it has to do with the LAW. If you are breaking the law, you must suffer the consequences. The law is the Federal or State. Profiling is a word used by people that are in fear and if you are here legally, you have nothing to fear. Go to any other country and try to stay there for any length of time without THEIR documentation and see what happens. Most of the time it means deportation and or jail. If you're in Mexico for more that 180 days (illegally) without a Mexican visa,  you will be deported, do it again and it's 2 years in a Mexican prison. You must have a passport to be in their country, if you plan on working there, you have to apply for a work visa(that's kind of an oxymoron).
   In closing I just want to say, I am tired of paying for the ILLEGALS in this country. It's time to put a stop to this bleeding. The people trying to become citizens of this great country legally, I applaud you :3-  What gives the illegals the right to step into this country, cut in front of the ones trying to do right, taking their jobs and not having to pay their fair share? 

A driver's license is not proof of citizenship.

I have read and understand what the law requires. The law does not state that law enforcement can request proof of citizenship only if the subject is detained or arrested for another matter. It says law enforcement can demand this as part of any lawful contact.

Article 8 section B:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).



I agree with the intent of the law, I do not agree with the implementation. I'm less worried about a LEO who profiles than a LEO who does not, and, under the guise of not profiling uses this law as an excuse to engage in what is known in legal parlance as a "fishing expedition" against anyone he sees fit.

I've known many law enforcement personnel over my almost 5 decades on this planet, and most are honest, hardworking people who believe in what they do and the responsibility that comes with it. I've also known some that for whatever reason, abuse the power entrusted to them, some in very heinous and devious ways. The law enforcement community is like any other group in society, made up of both good and bad members.

This law was not written to prevent abuse, because of this it must be either rewritten or discarded.

Remember:"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Solutions? Any ideas, besides this new law, on how to solve the problem thats been going on for a generation or two? Might be interesting to see other ideas.

Well, the answer is MONEY and the solution is twofold, as Stat stated earlier, put the pressure on employers. State and Feds do NOT allow anyone illegal to get ANY benefits from the government, an instant SSN check for employers to see if a valid Social Security is presented and then HUGE fines for empoyers for hiring illegals, I mean fines that would actually close the business. No workee, no stayee. And as I've seen with terrorism, the people from the same ethnicity and culture seem to sympathize and hide these people. How do you address that?

 Dan (tacman)

Well here is my two cents. What make this so hard for us as legal slaves to out over bloated government run by absolute morons I could not trust to balance my checkbook. Is to separate the issue with illegal migration. There is a racial thing where we are in fear off entire cities being over run by ideas and culture different than ours. Yes this has happened all over California however there is always a new cities to move to. The biggest problem to me is the financial impact these converted cities pose on the city and state resources. Since removing these individuals will and has only resulted with even more coming we need to understand that tying to stop illegals is like tying to stop drug lords from selling drugs. Even if you get one them there 10000000000000 waiting to take that mans position. It's kind of like trying stop the all the waves from coming on shore with a single Styrofoam cup.

Now that we know this is happening and any attempts to stop it would be a further waist on our city and state resources. What can be done to turn this negative resource into a positive one. My thought on this would be to create a work visa where instead of the illegals paying a drug lord or coyotes huge amounts of money to get here we charge that same amount of money for a work 6 month work visa. This money would go right back into general fund for our criminal politicians to waist. Now since they are visiting they are not entitled the same benefits as a US citizen. They may receive a driver license if they pass the test and pay for it. The license could only be issued if a insurance policy was issued at same time for the entire length of the visa. If you fail to pay the insurance you may return your license or if you keep driving you risk having you visa revoked and escorted out of the country . However the license is only valid for the length of the work visa. When the visa runs out so does license. Durning the time you are legally here if you choose to nationalize your self you may start the process. Step in line pay more fees and wait your turn. Also since you are a visitor you are not entitled to vote. If you get arrested for a felony you are deported immediately with no chance of another work visa. If you are caught here again your fist time sentence would be 5 years imprisonment the second would be worse.

Back to what you as a visitor are not entitled you are not entitled free room and board. You are not entitled welfare since you are here with the sol intent of getting a job then either becoming a citizen or going home. If your kid is born here you may chose to pay the registration fee to apply for citizen ship. However the kid is not to be considered a full citizen until all the burden cost of having that kid on US soil are paid for in full without welfare. Special organization may donate money as long as they are not state run. Otherwise he is just you kid. if you default on any financial burdens your visa will not be renewed and any law regarding illegal residence will be followed remember you are a guest here.

most important in order to get a visa you must pass a test, swear a oath to our country and pay the fee before entering.

Just making this subtle change to our over burdened set of laws would make a lot of resources available for our corrupt politicians to steal at the same time handling the the huge cost of harboring illegals.

Any one what to here my thoughts on drugs?

Have a great day

Blake for office 2012  :89-

Solution?

Get the federal government to handle their domestic responsibilities instead if pissing away our tax money on special interests and misguided plans to further the corporate interests that got us to where we are in the first place.

If Arizona does manages to impact the influx of illegal aliens into this country, we are all painfully aware that the illegals will just change their infiltration points to neighboring states... who are similarly ill-equipped to guard their entire borders with Mexico. This is eminently the feds' bailiwick, as the responsibility for covering the national border which encompasses 4 of our states falls completely upon them.


 :214-
The federal government has become the quintessential micromanager, leaving their responsibilities languishing in the corner while it pokes it's nose into matters best handled at the individual state level, and at the same time gives the states very little return (as a whole) on the money paid in taxes. The amount of waste at the federal level is incredible, and the amount of money business has been able to suck out lately is sickening.

At the same time, out infrastructure is failing and citizens are in dire need of assistance, but the money that could be used for that assistance is being pumped overseas and into Wall Street instead of helping WE THE PEOPLE, who should be the recipients of these funds.

<added for bkoch's response while I was typing my "War And Peace"  :25- >

We have work visas, that's one of the most abused programs we have , both for H1B and L1 visas. As an engineer in the tech industry, I have many friends who are unemployed, while the corporations are screaming that they need massive amounts of work visas because there are no "qualified" workers currently in this country, while the unemployment rate here is ~12%, and that's pretty much all we do in this area.Their main qualification for these workers seems to be the reduced salaries they can pay to the H1B and L1 workers, because I've worked with plenty, and seen good citizen engineers shown the door while keeping the absolute bottom of the barrel visa workers.

You touch on a lot of points I agree with though.

<edit for tacman's response to Stat>

I agree the major pressure should be put on the employers, but how realistic is it to expect that, when those companies are the ones buying the politicians that would draft the laws to make it possible? that's the reason we haven't been able to accomplish this already.

good discussion.... too bad you guys dont live nearby, we could have a few beers and do this in person.

I am not as concerned with those here and comfy for years.... as I am with those breaking in now and wreeking havoc. Those ones I want to stop and boot outta here or lock up, legal or not. Period.

I think this new law has done part of its job.... it woke people up on both sides of the argument.... and many are showing thier true colors (present company excluded). The May Day rallies today may show more true colors, we will see.

On a brighter note, the deputy shot in the desert south of here is home and healing up. No word on the shooters yet, but they are still looking. I assume they are holed up in a drop house by now in West Phoenix.

I'm down to Joey's every year for the July 4th BBQ, and usually at least once more in the around New Year's for some epic desert riding in the winter. :89- Stop on by, we'll hoist a couple cold ones!  :151-

I'm concerned with every illegal here, whether they've been here for years or not. Surprisingly enough, so is almost every legal immigrant I know (and that's a lot, from just about every country on this planet).

As far as the shooters, it's more likely they're a couple hundred yards south of the border, thumbing their nose at our law enforcement agencies. :30-

Brichter... let me know anytime you guys are around AZ.... and if near Mesa, we can come here. Hell, who knows what I will have here over the next few months.... the beer is cold, pool will be warm, and wifey loves to cook.

And I will look into meeting you at Joeys...

Arizona governor signs bill revising new immigration law

Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a bill modifying Arizona's controversial new immigration law, saying it will "make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal."

The governor's signature on House Bill 2162 modifies a measure signed into law by Brewer last week that requires police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally. Barring a successful legal challenge, the law goes into effect July 29.

HB 2162 bars race from being considered when deciding whether to inquire about a person's status, "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

The bill also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they "stop, detain or arrest." The earlier bill simply said "contact." The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to, including crime victims and witnesses.

"These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling," Brewer said in a statement.

To date, three lawsuits have been filed against the new immigration law, arguing that it is unconstitutional and will encourage racial profiling.

The changes came a week after Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070, a measure that has polarized residents and reignited the national debate over immigration policy. The law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

HB 2162 also specifies that a law-enforcement officer would be required to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a municipal or county code violation. The change led to speculation that municipal code-enforcement officers might be required to inquire about residents' legal status, which the Governor's Office denied Friday.

"Police officers only," Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said in an e-mail.

Kris Kobach, a Kansas law professor who helped craft the language in HB 2162, said in an e-mail that only law-enforcement officers certified by the Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training Board would be subject to the requirements.

Cities were still reviewing the new language Friday, and officials largely avoided comment. Ken Strobeck, executive director of the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, said that, in his view, HB 2162 does not represent an expansion or toughening of SB 1070.

Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris blasted the immigration
measures at a news conference Friday, saying they are unenforceable and will result in lawsuits against police officers no matter what they do. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue municipalities and law-enforcement agencies if they "limit or restrict" the enforcement of immigration laws
.

Democrats in the state's House of Representatives criticized HB 2162 on Friday for what they called "an incredible broadening of the law," citing the language permitting immigration-status inquiries for city-code violations.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said she fears residents will be deported over barking dogs or overgrown lawns.

"These are not criminal acts - these are minor city issues," said Sinema, D-Phoenix.

Senseman told The Arizona Republic that changes to the law involving municipal ordinances do not represent a broadening of its powers, but merely clarify the original intent of the language.

"What we were always talking about and have always been talking about are things like discharging firearms, alcoholic beverages in the park or speeding in a school zone," he said.

During an interview with Channel 12 (KPNX) on Friday morning, Brewer again spoke out against those who are critical of the legislation.

"There's hysteria out there, and people need to take a breath and see what our laws actually say, read them and understand them," Brewer said. "Our law mirrors federal law. So, why is it bad for Arizona to mirror federal law? No one was crying out in the wilderness about the federal law being wrong or racial profiling. I don't get it. It's spin."

Mexico's immigration laws: :wtf1- :wtf1- :wtf1-

Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ...
are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

Talk about hypocrites...   :30- :30- :30- :30-

It is good that they addressed the exact issue I had a problem with, that being the "lawful contact" issue. I was actually pissed off about that, let me tell a little story about this type of encounter...

When I was down at Joeys almost a year and a half ago, some lowlife cut the chain securing my loading ramp, a gas can, and both my daughter's and my dirt bikes in the back of my truck, and stole the full 5 gallon gas can. They returned later with a van, but decided against stealing both our motorcycles, probably because it was still light out.

When I reported the crime, like any good citizen should, the first thing the officer did is take my license and run me for warrants through NCIC.  :3- :3- Here I am trying to help them clean up the community, and the only thing they're interested in is seeing if I have a warrant!  :81-

All I could say is WTF???  :132- :132-  I've been robbed, and the only action this idiot can think of is to see if he can arrest ME??  :125- :125- :125- No wonder people don't ever want to talk to the police after witnessing or being the victim of a crime, the first thing the cops do is treat the victim like a criminal! That is NOT how you gain the public's trust! If someone has been the victim of a crime, the last thing the police should be doing is making them feel like they better not report it or they could go to jail.

That's why most crimes go unreported, and most witnesses say they didn't see anything! Then the cops snivel about how hard it is to solve crimes when the witnesses aren't willing to come forward, and the victims won't report it.

That would piss me off too.... I would probly get in trouble argueing with the cop. We have trouble up there currently, mostly in Kingman.... gang task force messing with Harley riders wearing patches.... any patches, not just club patches. Word is that they are threatening the liquer licenses of the bars letting motorcycle clubs in. We are still monitoring this... and it is profiling.

Demonstrations in Phoenix were a bust yesterday.... 1000+ showed up.

Up here in San Francisco, 3 supporters of deterring illegal immigration were beaten by supporters of illegal immigration.

This does not surprise me. What will be telling is what liberal San Francisco will do when the case goes to court.

there is a movement here to offer illegals bus tickets to San Fran, since the mayor there wants them....

I am both a Californian and a moderate democrat and I strongly support the Arizona immigration legislation. The law is still the law, whether the lovers of illegal aliens like it or not. If illegals are afraid of being stopped and asked for identification then they should go back to Mexcio, simple as that.

Ya know, Joey had a good point ...........if you sneak into Mexico illegally, they arrest you, and possible give you an ass wooping. They have a problem with Salvadorians, Guatemalans, and other Central American types, just like we allegedly have a problem with Mexicans! So does Mexico have the right idea, maybe.

I gotta buy that bike mounted flagpole, to run a big USA flag when I ride..... that and a few more stickers should get me some attention.

back stickers

very good.. passing it on.

I'm an immigrant, a citizen now, and I've even assimilated (learned to spell "color" right). I understand people are frustrated with hispanic illegals and the crime that results, so I know something needs to be done, but the political opportunists are seriously misrepresenting the facts to stir things up. I have a problem understanding why people think illegals get a free lunch off the taxpayer, because I can tell you from personal experience that there was no help available for me when I got in difficulties. If it wasn't for the kindness of friends, I wouldn't have made it. The one time I fell sick and had to get help at the ER, it landed me with a $7000 bill (for what? How could I use that much service in one short visit? I have no idea) that pursued me for years until I eventually paid it off - so much for free healthcare. There was (for a short time, until it was overturned by the courts) a Federal law that if any non-citizen accepted any Federal benefit for any reason they were to be deported at once, which seemed a bit unreasonable to a guy who was handing over a huge part of his (legal) pay in taxes.

Also, FWIW, it took me over 12 taxpaying years and thousands of dollars in fees to get my citizenship legally, and there were 101 pitfalls along the way that could have got me deported and locked out for trivial reasons like being late with some form or other, or being present on premises where a joint was smoked. The bloody INS even lost all my records at one point, so that when I showed up at the office to renew my green card I was threatened with arrest and deportation. Jeez, if I'd had the option of walking here from the next country, and deportation meant no more than that I'd have to walk here again, I may not have bothered with the legal route either. So don't be so quick to criticize the illegals unless you also have tried going through the application process with a dysfunctional, schizophrenic Federal agency whose twin missions are to give you a permit to be here, and also to keep you out.

But leaving that aside, I have to ask myself, do I need to carry my passport when I drive through Arizona? Because if I get pulled over and the cop hears my accent, even though I'm the whitest man in the state, the law says he can't discriminate, he has to verify my residency status. A SS card or a driver's license won't do, I can buy those on the east side of Vegas for $100. If he was determined to have me - I've met a few of those kind - and I didn't have someone at home to fetch my papers, I could be locked up for weeks. Probably safer for me if I don't go there.

You read the law? It mimics the already active federal law...... so do you carry your "papers" now?

I agree the actual system needs fixed.... but I dont think that justifies anyone coming here illegally, esp if they are killing, raping, robbing etc. That is my bigger concern. I do not like having to carry a gun most of my waking hours, as I do.

It will be interesting once the courts start fighting over this bill.... and there is lots of posturing going on now for the next election... so 2010 and 2012 will be pretty wild.

I don't need to. Under Federal law I'm only required to present them to an INS officer, not a traffic cop, and then only if I'm not a citizen. Do you carry yours?

Thought not.

I show my id so many places it isnt funny.... doctors visits.... Blockbusters if I rent a movie.....anytime I go into the bank....everytime I am admitted into the hospital.... and more. Most States make you proved who you are before giving you a license, which I know can be faked, but your record is on all the computers. A fake one would raise a flag, whether it was me or you. So yes, I carry my papers.

We have kept this civil, hopefully you will too?

I didn't mean to give offense, though immigration matters are something of a hot button for me.

It's a serious question, though. A driver's license and SS card will not be acceptable proof of citizenship under the AZ law, quite rightly so. I had both when I still lived in England. I was doing business here, and I had to have them before I could open a bank account. Naturally that gave me quite a good history - shoot, I even had a credit score and owned a home in Florida, yet all I had was a visitor's visa. Actual proof of citizenship requires a piece of Government paper - a birth certificate, a passport, or an INS certificate - and on the occasions when I've needed to produce mine, only the original will do, they don't allow photocopies. I keep the originals in a safe, I'm not going to drive around with something so valuable and hard to get.

Now you live in Arizona, clearly you're in favor of the law, and you don't believe it could ever put legal English-speaking Americans, especially locals, in jeopardy. But humor me, and try to imagine this law being applied not by Sheriff Joe, but by the TSA at airport security, and they had been tipped off that someone who looked like you had been living in the US illegally for several years. Does that look a bit more like a nightmare? I'm certain you don't walk around with your birth certificate in your wallet. If they wouldn't accept your drivers license and SS card, where would you turn, who would you call, to prove you were a citizen? If there was nobody at home who could produce your official papers, what government department would you call to verify your citizenship at, say, 5pm on the evening before Thanksgiving? No, I don't know either, I would have to call an attorney.

People that look like me are profiled everyday.... we have gang task forces picking us out of crowds anytime we gather, assuming that we "look" like biker gang members. So, the profiling issue is moot to me.

When I fly, TSA takes my license as proof as they would you as a legal... they have no way to disprove it as yours at the security desk. As an alien in the USA, you are supposed to carry proof, federally, that you are here legally. Having never been an alien here, I am out of that look as for the details. When I went to canada for a contract, I was snagged at the airport and made to buy a work visa for $200+ dollars. I had to keep that paper on me at all times while in Canada and coming and going. It only took an hour or two to get it done.... maybe thats one direction to go for others coming here to work.

As to the hypothetical questions, I try to deal with reality of things happening first. Things are bad here, mostly caused by illegals intent on crime.

I think you're blowing these identification check scenarios all out of proportion to reality. Due to the publicity there will be plenty of caution exercised on the part of police before they detain someone without proper "papers". Besides one would have to be stopped for some sort of a violation of the law before the ID check could be insititued.

If a person has the proper ID there should be no concern. It would only be of concern to those who have no "papers" and are illegal.

Am I? I hope so. But the fact is, as rickh pointed out, non-citizens are required to carry papers but citizens are not. So natural citizens have no convenient way to prove their status on demand. Right now that doesn't matter, because law enforcement doesn't have the right to ask for it - except in Arizona. I'm not so much concerned with Arizona's illegal Mexican problem as I am with them starting a wedge into a crack that some government, some day, is going to drive all the way in, to the great detriment of the civil liberties this country used to believe in.

I know what's going on in Arizona - a frustrated Republican legislature has been handed the accidental gift of an (unelected) Republican governor, and they may only have a few months to take advantage of it, so they've gone into hyperactive lawmaking mode. Well go for it guys, you're not my state. I didn't want to breed minotaurs and mermaids anyway (new animal-human hybrids law), and kudos on the concealed carry law. But be careful with things that are actually national, not just state, responsibilities, that you don't inadvertently start something we'll all regret later.

I see your slant now... so I will bail and enjoy our new law, and see if it works. One last question tho...

If our federal immigration law is to be ignored by millions, what other laws will they break? Where does it exactly end?

 :208- :208- :208-

 Dan (tacman)

Immigrants Leaving Arizona in record numbers
In The Wake Of The Enactment Of The Controversial Arizonian Immigration Law

 :5- :5- :5- :5-

Arizona, The new immigration law in Arizona is creating waves in the state and outside it as well.

It has been reported that a huge number of illegal immigrants have started shifting from Arizona to others states.
They are flocking to adjacent states like California, Texas and New Mexico for seeking employment opportunities.

As per the new law staying in the state without legal provision is a state crime and national crime simultaneously.
It is yet to be implemented but the chances are there that it will face severe opposition from some Democrat leaders and a number of celebrities.

The new state law basically reiterates what the federal law has implemented for decades earlier.

What may give rise to more controversies on immigration laws is the fact a number of US states are planning to implement similar laws in near future.

If that happens, the illegal immigrants will have to opt for Mexico to avoid deportation.  :47- :47-

Here is why California is broke!

 :wtf1- :wtf1- :wtf1- :wtf1- :155- :155- :155- :155-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMzsUo2aM4U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMzsUo2aM4U)

Ya, its still the top news here in Phoenix.... big rally for the new law coming up June 5th.... at the capital. Lemme know if anyone is going, I am.

I should drive from Calif to support the state law.

I made a gift for the Gov.... a pic from when Palin was here a week or so ago. Mailing it to her this week. The picture is washed out, the mouse pad came out great.

FYI...... from one of our Senators in AZ

I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states . We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany . Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America . Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic . Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.

K+ to you RICKH for sharing that statement   :3-  :137-

thank you.... call me Rick

If any of you are interested in deeper political chitter chatter, feel free to add yourself to a small message board I am involved with. We have a few liberals that make it interesting. Tell them Animal (me) sent you:

http://sandiegoscene.proboards.com/ (http://sandiegoscene.proboards.com/)

Attorney General Eric Holder 

READ THE FU@KING BILL  YOU A*S HOLE !!!!!!   :200- :200- :200- :200-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U4tI_qzyH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U4tI_qzyH0)

Ya.. interesting stuff, eh? Its more humor straight from the comedy team running the govt currently.... too bad it isnt funny!

Thanks for posting that Joey !  :244- :137-

Only 10 pages, and he has not read it! But he plans on spending a good evening to read it.... Just how slow is he?

CH :95-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnUOokUdwD0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnUOokUdwD0)&

Was this today? I missed it if it was.....

Idiot. :125- :125- :125-

I'll bet he's spent way more time "gathering" the information on "What I've been able to glean from newspaper accounts, television, and what I've heard about talking to people on the review panel and the review team" than it would have taken him to
READ THE FU@KING BILL YOU A*S HOLE !!!!!!  :30- :30- :30-

Good call, Joey, and just what is it about this guy that, being the Attorney General of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that he couldn't be bothered to read this law? Just who are We the People putting in charge of the country? If anyone ever deserved to be locked in prison for dereliction of duty, it's this clown. :89- :79- :52- :25-

K+ dude

Good analogy.  Despite all the complaining and screaming from Mexico, it really comes down to this.  NO ONE is above the law.
 



 
If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or on an airplane, and when you got to your assigned seat, and someone else was in that seat, what would you do?  You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed.  You would be properly asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat.  The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, and they would not be able to produce one.  They would be called “gate crashers” and they would be properly removed.

 

Now in this huge stadium, called the USA, we have had millions of gate crashers.  We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers.  We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door.  We have asked security to lock the back doors.  Security has failed us.  They are still looking the other way.  They are afraid to ask to see the tickets.  Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not,  no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!


 

In section AZ, of Stadium USA, we have had enough of the failures of Security.  We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets.  Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 sections, and even many in our own section do not want tickets checked, or even be asked to show their ticket!  Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.


 

My own ticket has been bought and paid for so I am going to proudly show it when asked to do so.  I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too.  The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it.  Such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation.  Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama?  If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would proudly do, then you must be condoning those illegal activities. 
 

Tom Moody 

United States citizen 

Globe Arizona

It turns out California already has a law very similar to Arizonas new law.....

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/PENALCODE/834b-CA_PC.html (http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/PENALCODE/834b-CA_PC.html)

And you should also be aware ofthe fact that this law is seldom enforced in much of California...

Thanks for the edit joeylc......

Brichter, this just shows one of two things... boycotters in California do not know their own laws OR they are hipocrits and missleading. Either way, it was big news here, people are still laffing.

It's selective enforcement, plain and simple.

:az-  :az-  :az-  :az-

FOXNews.com

 - May 17, 2010
San Diego Faces Own Medicine as Arizona Residents Cancel Travel Following Boycott of State



Arizona tourists are biting back against San Diego for its city council's decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State over its immigration law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last month.

Would-be tourists have notified the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their scheduled travel to the coastal vacation destination, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

According to the newspaper, the convention bureau has received about 25-30 emails from Arizona residents, with some saying they are canceling their reservations and taking their money elsewhere.

That has tourism officials urging Arizonans to consider the resolutions as merely symbolic and local politics at work.

"We're in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don't need another negative impact to our industry," ConVis President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. "This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don't do something that hurts their livelihoods."

"I've been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancelations from Arizona guests," Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association, told the newspaper.

Roughly 2 million Arizonans visit San Diego each year but the recession has taken a toll on the hotel industry that was hoping for a comeback this year. Hotels are offering deep discounts to fill up their undersold rooms while the tourism board spends $7 million this spring and summer season to promote travel to the area.

Several councils in large cities like Los Angeles, Austin, Boston and San Francisco have approved boycotts on employee travel or future contracts with Arizona businesses as a result of the law that goes into effect on July 1.  The state tourism bureau has said the losses so far have reached nearly $10 million as a result of 23 canceled meetings.

But others are cautious, noting unintended consequences. Milwaukee’s city council delayed a vote on a boycott and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said he opposes such action.

On Saturday, former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin appeared with Brewer in Phoenix to criticize President Obama for not passing an immigration law and putting Arizona in the situation where it had to act on its own.

“It’s time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say ‘we’re all Arizonans now, and in clear unity, we say, Mr. President, do your job, secure our borders,’” Palin said.

Palin also has denounced a decision by Highland Park, Ill., officials who canceled the high school girls’ basketball team’s travel to the state in December. Both Highland Park Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson and the Austin City Council suggested that their decisions were less based on politics than concern their players and employees could be in harm’s way if they want to Arizona. Hebson, however, told the Chicago Tribune that she did not know if any student players were themselves illegal immigrants.

Palin, a former basketball player, said she would raise money or find other ways to get the players to the tournament.  

Meanwhile, in San Diego, school board President Shelia Jackson said she is sorry people don’t want to come to her city, but she still supports her vote to boycott Arizona.

“It’s sad that people would cancel their plans to come here in reaction to that, but I still think we did the right thing,” Jackson told the Union-Tribune. “Certainly, we know how important tourism is to San Diego, and it wasn’t my intent to impact the tourism trade.”

yep, lots of people changing plans to stay on the Yuma side of the river this year... SD may have made an error.

Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

A member of Arizona's top government utilities agency threw down the gauntlet in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, threatening to cut off the city's power supply as retribution for the city's boycott of Arizona.

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

That's the message from a member of Arizona's top government utilities agency, who threw down the gauntlet Tuesday in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by threatening to cut off the city's power supply as retribution.

Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote the letter in response to the Los Angeles City Council's decision last week to boycott the Grand Canyon State -- in protest of its immigration law -- by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles' electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider. He also ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share.

"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona -- a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.

Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.

Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands.

The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.

Here is the actual letter....

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051810_arizonapdf.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051810_arizonapdf.pdf)

 :wtf1- :wtf1- :wtf1-

FYI... I am understanding this picture MAY be doctored....

Amazing what people will do to rile up the masses with photoshopping skills>>>

If not, then that protester is a little mis-informed I'd say...  :72-

She must of mis-understood the writing on the bottom of the Statue Of Liberty ??? :5-

The writing on the Statue of Liberty is an excerpt and comes from a poem written in 1883 by Emma Lazarus:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/liberty/lazaruspoem.html (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/liberty/lazaruspoem.html)

Basically it says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It really doesn't say anything about getting stuff for "free" ... :208-

From my point of view, I find it really ridiculous with all these people on
both sides screaming for something the United States doesn't have - a legal title to the land.
All these Mexicans wanna get in for free...that happened a couple of hundred yrs ago too!
Remember, the US is only a couple of hundred yrs old...a drop in the bucket in mankind yrs.
the Indians shouldn't have given the lost boaters explorers any food at Cape Cod for Thanksgiving. LOL
They were so far off,  that they thought they were in India?...my goodness! :25-

Well, I better run...people don't like to hear the real facts... :138-

I enjoy it dude... if nothing else, it helps inform people.

well the photo mite be doctored.... but this video is not  :81- :81- :81- OMFG  :107- :107- :wtf1- :wtf1-

L.A. Teacher Calls for Mexican Revolt in the U.S.

"Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico"


http://www.youtube.com/v/yGqPo5ofk0s&hl=en_US&fs=1 (http://www.youtube.com/v/yGqPo5ofk0s&hl=en_US&fs=1)


Anti-American High School Teacher Ron Gochez Says The Police Will Never Be Our Friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqPukQsLv-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqPukQsLv-o)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dq0Cfnp_MI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dq0Cfnp_MI)

Whew! That teacher's gonna get in trouble with the principals... :5-

nope.... school sent out a statement that what he does on his own time is ok..... this happened a few years back they said, and is perfectly ok to them.

Good stuff from a great guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE)

I don't understand what his problem is.

Any time Mexico wants the land back, all they have to do is come take it... :137- :125- :125- :190- :97- :97- :97- :97- :97-

I predict another war on Mexico, only this time we will be a finishing what we started in 1848...............

Of the many imperative reasons to secure the Mexican border, one of the most pressing is so as to keep out the arrogant pipsqueak Felipe Calderon.

But you have to hand it to him: he knows how to get applause out of our Democrat rulers. just look at the video.  :25- :25- :25-

Dem Congresscritters gave him a standing ovation when he denounced Arizona for enforcing federal immigration law:

Democrat's Gives Calderon Standing Ovation for Bashing AZ..........    :81- :81- :81- :81-

 :wtf1- :wtf1- :wtf1- Hay Dem's you can kiss my :18- :18- you ass holes.  :30- :30-
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLt3GgDQgVY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLt3GgDQgVY)

:157- usa_flag az_flag

Sorry all but this shit is pissing me off to no end ........ Obama SUCKS..!!!!!


(http://www.patriotdepot.com/images/products/detail/Keep_My_Guns_Large.jpg)

Agreed Joeylc... its hard to watch this crap going on. They will self destruct tho, give it time.... we can just keep informing people of whats going on.

Weak-ass Republicans in Congress.   :52-

Why did none of them have the spine to stand up and ask Calderon why he denounces Arizona's immigration policy, while standing by Mexico's which is much stricter than ours? :79-

85%!!!!! :125- :125- :125-

I am beginning to think that ARIZONA is the only real part of the Unites States left !...   :137-

Thanks again for the post Joey  :131-

HMMMMMMMMM  TRUE NONE OF THEM SPOKE UP !!!!Throw the bums out!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ALL OF THEM //////

I enjoy listening to the morons on TV who talk about the bill without even reading it first.
 :99-

Mexican illegal immigration policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOXrKJq345E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOXrKJq345E)

Obama to send 1,200 troops to US-Mexico border (AP)
AP - President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.

Word is.... these MAY be desk jobs.... and they will not be armed, observers only. 1200 troops.... lets say they are "boots on the ground", thats what? 3 per mile? If my military time serves me right, out of that 1200 will be many support folks like cooks, supply, etc.

To me, it is sugar  coating, all feel-good bullshit.

Charles Krauthammer (sp) had a great idea.... take 20,000 unemployed folks, and the materials, and build a nice big fence along the AZ border... it could be done quickly... then talk about fixing the rest of the problem.

I agree, By him sending them on his own instead of being forced to by lawmakers..he can call the shots as to what they "actually" do  :79-

According to the Border Patrol the public is being mislead as to WHO is coming into the USA. This IS THE TRUTH. as reported by WSBTV in Atlanta.

        Video 1 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html<http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html>

        Video 2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html<http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html>

If this keeps up, we're gonna have a "Great Wall Of U.S.A." or the German's "Berlin Wall"... :25- :30- :5-

Obama: National Guard Won't Be on Front Lines in Arizona

The 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama is dispatching to the U.S.-Mexico border will provide intelligence, reconnaissance and other "back office" support, but one thing they won't be doing is helping a beleaguered Border Patrol and local law enforcement nab illegal immigrants and smugglers flowing into Arizona.

Speaking at a press conference in the White House East Room Thursday, the president said the Guard won't be on the front lines but will be offering vital support roles.

"What we find is, is that National Guards persons can help on intelligence, dealing with both drug and human trafficking along the borders. They can relieve border guards so that the border guards then can be in charge of law enforcement in those areas. So there are a lot of functions that they can carry out that helps leverage and increase the resources available in this area," he said.

"They can relieve border guards so that guards can be in charge of law enforcement," the president added.

The State Department on Wednesday described the border plan as "not about immigration," but rather about the unregulated flow of drugs and guns being sent into Mexico from the U.S.as well as humans streaming northward.

"And let's understand, we're talking about, you know, flows going in both directions. It's not about immigration. It's not about the flow of certain things coming in this direction. We recognize, as the president has said, as the secretary has said, you know, we have responsibilities here, both in terms of the demand for narcotics within our country, the flow of weapons from our country into Mexico that helps to fuel the violence that Mexico is struggling with," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said.

 :5- :5- :5- Obama said his plan to send as many as 1,200 troops was shaped last year before a national controversy erupted over Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.


The law allows state police to determine whether an individual is in the state legally when he or she is questioned by police on other suspicions.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer repeatedly has said that she signed the law because the federal government has offered no assistance in closing up the gaping border.

Crowley said it's not the first time the Guard have been sent to the border to work in secondary roles.

"You know, the rationale is simply to be able to, you know, take some support functions, relieve the civilian law enforcement of certain support functions and establish a broader presence across our border with Mexico," he said. "This frees up some resources that can be used more effectively to directly interdict the flow of illegal drugs, you know."

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual, speaking to journalists Wednesday in Mexico City, said the troops will serve as a bridge until the American government can get more agents on the border. He emphasized that the troops won't be working on the front lines or interacting with people crossing the border.

"It's much more back office functions of receiving reports that are coming in from other intelligence entities," he said. The troops will "review and analyze" intelligence, then "feed that to the people who are actually the presence on the border itself." In addition, he said the troops will observe the border from remote surveillance points, then communicate with Customs and Border Protection officers.

On Thursday, the Senate voted down an amendment by Arizona Sen. John McCain, who proposed sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the border, saying 3,000 of his proposed sum should go directly to Arizona to help protect his state.

Obama said he wants more than just a border security approach to the nation's immigration problems.

"I don't see these issues in isolation, not solely as a problem of the National Guard," he said, noting he wants a bill in Congress that does "a good job of securing our borders, holds employers accountable, makes sure that those who have come here illegally have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English and get right by the law."

Obama and top members of his administration have said they disapprove of Arizona's law, and the Justice Department is weighing civil action against the state.
The president would not condemn boycotts of the state over its law, saying it is for private citizens to decide, not the president of the United States.

"You know, I'm the president of the United States. I don't endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts," he said. "What my administration is doing is examining very closely this Arizona law and its implications for the civil rights and civil liberties of the people in Arizona, as well as the concern that you start getting a patchwork of 50 different immigration laws around the country in an area that is inherently the job of the federal government."

Ok, he's just proved he's the biggest idiot on the face of the planet.


First, everyone knows what he means by "get right by the law": Don't dumb it down, Obama, don't hide behind pretty euphemisms, have the balls to call it what it is: Amnesty!

He's worried about his approval rating falling, and he realizes he's losing the American people's support, so his grand plan is to create a whole new bloc of voters untainted by his lackluster performance.

Too bad nobody in Washington, D.C. has the balls to ask him exactly what the qualifications are of the National Guard troops to review intelligence. Who exactly has trained them in the geopolitical intricacies of the area, and how long did it take to educate these troops to perform this job? By placing these 1200 troops into these roles, he is guaranteeing the border stays open for his new crop of supporters voters to make their way into our country so they can become citizens in time for the next presidential election. :30-

This is the same president who goes to a $17,500/plate fundraising dinner for Barbara Boxer instead of dealing with the disaster in the Gulf. This is the same guy who, over a third of the way through his presidential term, is still blaming the previous administration for every single problem we are facing. When will  this country become his country? When will he take responsibility  for the job he's supposed to be doing? :103-

I don't know how many of you heard about the "heckler" at the fundraising speech he made for Boxer, but the media sure is making a big deal of it. What they're not telling you is that he had the person arrested. What else they are not telling you is that the heckler worked on Obama's presidential campaign. So much for supporting the people who supported him.  :81-

talked with a buddy from California this weekend, a border patrol agent... asked him about the national guard helping them... they prefer the support setup better, last time they got help, he said the guard had trouble following thier instructions along the border and they kept losing them out in the field. I guess they told the to "stay here and watch" but they wandered around... so in the BP minds, this setup will help more. Still seems dumb to me.

Take a peek at a freinds website...

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003414.html (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003414.html)

nice ... good job.

How long is the Arizona/Mexico border?
200 miles? Why not just set up a temporary franchise of Taco Bells every couple of
miles and keep a buncha handcuffs under the counter?

 :208- :208- :208- :208- :208- :208- :208- :208- :208- :208-

Take a look at the picture that I have circled a portion of below. I X'ed a guy out to prevent confusion. I know the pic was small to start out with, but look carefully and you will see a man taking his daughters for a civics lesson in the front row of the meeting... The girls have an AZ flag in their laps, and their dad is to the left of them. Can you guess who they are?

Yup, It is Joey, Shayla, and Christina! :244- :3- :88-

CaptainHappy :95-

MAKES YOU WANT TO MOVE TO ARIZONA !!!!!!!!!!!!! :137- :244-

Skipper   You didn't hide any camera's here at my house did you ???????             :103- :103- :103- :103- :103-

Buzz.. when you coming to Phoenix?

Scared to I don't have a Green Card  and I was born two years before birth certificates were invented. Now can't you just see NIS trying to figure out how to deport me back to Kentucky. NO THANK YOU.   

Buzz,

Cameras are expensive, and you know that I can't afford to buy replacements, so I think you are safe as I would not want to risk breaking a lens taking your picture!  :200- :208- :208- :208-

CH :95-

Buzz, tell them you homesteaded here....

Let's say I break into your house
A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!!
It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV. 
Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress 
is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. 
Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, 'No! I like it here. It's better than my house. I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters: 

You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan 
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family

My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest. (except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. 

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house 
And what a deal it is for me!!! 

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, and I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so that you can communicate with me. 

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?!  
America is populated and governed by idiots.

If you agree, pass it on (in English). 
If not blow it off......... 
along with your future Social Security funds and a lot of the former benefits of being an American Citizen.

All right Bunker, now you're just racially profiling illegal aliens. :81-











 :79- :200- :96- :72- :72- :97- :97- :208- :208-

rickh,

K+ for sharing that! :244- Interesting reading, now to get people to read it! :89-

CH :95-

thanks capt... my job is to inform, I do it all the time. I wont argue or debate, I just let people learn and act.

rickh, Thanks for sharing.   :3-
A very good depiction in my opinion.

California is not beyond hope yet...  :3- :3- :3- :3- :3-



http://www.youtube.com/v/Ldx8gZDwZWs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0 (http://www.youtube.com/v/Ldx8gZDwZWs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0)

Bill That was a good one. That makes us a majority of three doesn't it!   :139- :139- :139- :137- :137- :137-

Yup!

Video of us riding to the capital.....

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1481417158586 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1481417158586)

Seems fitting some days....

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=108181832526833 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=108181832526833)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbZtuS2HBA4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbZtuS2HBA4)

US-Mexico tensions heightened after US Border Patrol agent kills Mexican teen near El Paso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKNl9PI-XU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKNl9PI-XU)

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) — Mexicans are seething over the second death of a countryman at the hands of U.S. Border Patrol agents in two weeks, an incident near downtown El Paso that is threatening to escalate tensions over migrant issues.

U.S. authorities said Tuesday a Border Patrol agent was defending himself and colleagues when he fatally shot the 15-year-old as officers came under a barrage of big stones while trying to detain illegal immigrants on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande.

About 30 relatives and friends gathered late Tuesday to mourn Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka, whose shooting Monday evening came along the border with Texas. He died on the Mexican side of the river.

"Damn them! Damn them!" sobbed Rosario Hernandez, sister of the dead teenager, at a wake in the family's two-room adobe house on the outskirts of Ciudad Juarez.

Preliminary reports on the incident indicated that U.S. officers on bicycle patrol "were assaulted with rocks by an unknown number of people," Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Ramiro Cordero said Tuesday.

"During the assault at least one agent discharged his firearm," he said. "The agent is currently on administrative leave. A thorough, multi-agency investigation is currently ongoing."

The shooting happened beneath a railroad bridge linking the two nations, and late Tuesday night a banner appeared on the bridge that said in English: "U.S. Border Patrol we worry about the violence in Mex and murders and now you. Viva Mexico!"

Less than two weeks ago, Mexican migrant Anastasio Hernandez, 32, died after a Customs and Border Protection officer shocked him with a stun gun at the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. The San Diego medical examiner's office ruled that death a homicide.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said Tuesday that his government "will use all resources available to protect the rights of Mexican migrants."

The government "reiterates its rejection to the disproportionate use of force on the part on U.S. authorities on the border with Mexico," the president added in a statement.

On an unpaved street, gathered around Hernandez's gray metal casket, the teen's family called for justice.

"There is a God, so why would I want vengeance if no one will return him to me. They killed my little boy and the only thing I ask is for the law" to be applied, said the boy's father, Jesus Hernandez.

His mother was less hopeful. "May God forgive them because I know nothing will happen" to them, Maria Guadalupe Huereka said.

Above the casket was a photo of the youth wearing his soccer uniform and his junior high school grade cards, which showed A's and B's.

His mother said he was a good student who never got in trouble. He was the youngest of five children, played on two soccer teams and had just finished junior high school, she said.

The case took a testy turn when U.S. and Mexican officials traded suggestions of misconduct in the incident.

Arturo Sandoval, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state Attorney General's office, said a spent .40-caliber shell casing was found near the body — raising the question of whether the fatal shot was fired inside Mexico, although he did not explicitly make that allegation. That would violate the rules for Border Patrol agents, who are supposed to stay on the U.S. side of the border.

A U.S. official, meanwhile, said video shows the Border Patrol agent did not enter Mexico.

The official, who agreed to discuss the matter only if not quoted by name, said the video also shows what seem to be four Mexican law enforcement officers driving to the edge of the dry but muddy bed of the Rio Grande, walking across to the U.S. side, picking up an undetermined object and returning to Mexico near the area where the boy's body was. Like their U.S. counterparts, Mexican law officers are not authorized to cross the border without permission.

According to the FBI, Border Patrol agents were responding to a group of suspected illegal immigrants being smuggled into the U.S. near the Paso Del Norte bridge, across from Ciudad Juarez around 6:30 p.m. Monday.

One suspected illegal immigrant was detained on the levee on the U.S. side, the FBI said in a statement. Another Border Patrol agent arrived on the concrete bank where the now-dry, 33-foot (10-meter) wide Rio Grande is, and detained a second person. Other suspects ran back into Mexico and began throwing rocks, the FBI said.

At least one rock came from behind the agent, who was kneeling beside a suspected illegal immigrant whom he had prone on the ground, FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons said.

The agent told the rock throwers to stop and back off, but they continued. The agent fired his weapon several times, hitting one who later died, said the FBI, which is leading the investigation because it involved an assault on a federal officer. The agent was not injured, Simmons said.

Chihuahua state officials released a statement demanding a full investigation into the death.

The boy was shot once near the eye, Sandoval said. Authorities were still investigating the bullet's trajectory, he said.

Sandoval said he couldn't comment on the video reported by the U.S. official because he didn't know anything about it. "I am unaware about those hypotheses," he said.

Sandoval said Mexican investigators were questioning three teenagers who were with the victim at the time of the shooting.

The boy's sister, Rosario, told Associated Press Television News that her brother was playing with several friends and did not plan to cross the border.

"They say that they started firing from over there and suddenly hit him in the head," she said.

The boy's mother said he had gone to eat with his brother, who handles luggage at a border customs office. While there, he met up with a group of friends and they decided to hang out by the river, she said.

"That was his mistake, to have gone to the river," she said in an interview with Mexico's Milenio TV. "That's why they killed him."

Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said its records indicate the number of Mexicans killed or wounded by U.S. immigration authorities rose from five in 2008 to 12 in 2009 to 17 so far this year, which is not half over.

T.J. Bonner, president of the union representing Border Patrol agents, said rock throwing aimed at Border Patrol agents is common and capable of causing serious injury.

"It is a deadly force encounter, one that justifies the use of deadly force," Bonner said.

 :50- Hmmmmmm  can you say justified shootings   :50-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKMgPN_ZRPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKMgPN_ZRPA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUlhYkJVu0Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUlhYkJVu0Q)

thanks joeylc ... I tried but failed embedding that video. Whats funnier, the origional just had an ugly cartoon-like character, not picture clips... song seems the same tho.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKNl9PI-XU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKNl9PI-XU)

Update:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiA9XPAZ1c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiA9XPAZ1c)

 :211- :211- :211-

You got a big stick, just stirring the POT don't ya Joey you just gotta look at all this in another light. You have all these poor Mexicans down on the boarder that can't be wrapped real tight, think about it they are trying to sneak into Arizona of all places!!   :79- :79- :79- :79- :79-


Joey they must have had one of the Illegals make that bill board for them. Last time I looked at a map I-8 doesn't go to LA. ( To save all you the trouble of looking it up, I-8 goes from Arizona to San Diego )   

then north 1.5 hours to LA... from the Mexico border, it is the fastest way there.

FBI: Mexicans chased away agents after slaying

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37598115/ns/world_news-americas/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37598115/ns/world_news-americas/)

Racism blamed  :25- :25- :25- :25- :25- :25-

Chihuahua Gov. José Reyes Baeza blamed the two killings on racism fueled by Arizona's law.

"We believe that this killing, the second in recent days in the border between the two countries, is due to xenophobia and racism, derived from the approval of Arizona's anti-immigration law," Reyes said.

Mexico's Foreign Relations Ministry said its records indicate that the number of Mexicans killed or wounded by immigration authorities rose from five in 2008 to 12 in 2009 to 17 so far this year, which is not half over.

Meanwhile, the Border Patrol released statistics showing that assaults on agents along the border between El Paso and Juárez were on pace to far exceed totals in the previous four years.

Since October, Border Patrol agents in the El Paso sector have been assaulted 33 times, compared with 39 times in the previous fiscal year. Twenty-nine of those incidents were rock-throwing, compared with 31 such incidents in all of fiscal 2009.

T.J. Bonner, president of the union representing Border Patrol agents, said rock throwing aimed at Border Patrol agents is common and is capable of causing serious injury.

"It is a deadly force encounter, one that justifies the use of deadly force," Bonner said.

The mother of the boy killed Monday said in a television interview that she doubted the U.S. version of events and quoted a witness as saying her son had raised his hands just before he was shot.

"I am sure my son did not attack them. He wasn't like that," María Guadalupe Huereca said. "His only mistake was being near the river ... staying there to watch.

"My son paid for what others did," she added, breaking down in sobs.

The Associated Press

Just made some items that hit the market after this weekend....

paraphrased from Rod Serling’s In the Presence of Mine Enemies  Aired on Playhouse 90, May 18, 1960



__*  insert the people you wish to hate here. Today, it’s illegal aliens from Mexico, and the “nation” is the state of Arizona. When Serling wrote this, it was someone else. You get one guess. The man in the film speaking the lines above was a Nazi officer, speaking to a younger junior officer.


God, help us. Help us to turn away from anger and hate.

no anger and hate here...

There might be anger and hate but I think its more resentment. I think all Americans understand wanting to be in this country, its a no brainer!  :25- The problem is the ILLEGAL act getting here, "possibly" taking a job here ILLEGALLY and becoming a financial drain on the economy for health, food and housing assistance. Hell, I'm against that even from natural born citizens! Then throw the refusal for assimilation and expectation to appease their "home" language and customs!  :30- Hell, maybe people in Cali, Texas and New Mexico just make more cash than Arizona. Thats why those states are not making and enforcing laws like this as well. The shame is that if you can insulate yourself from the problem, by making enough money so you can live in an area that isn't exposed to the problem, it doesn't concern you. But then IMHO you don't have an informed experience or opinion on the problem. Lastly, its hard to have an informed opinion on the problem when our media only releases slanted information from whichever side of the aisle they are on politically. Sad, Sad, Sad.

 Dan (tacman)

I am always curious how we figure out which laws we enforce vs those we will ignore. Illegals and their supporters want the immigration lawbreakers ignored... why not hookers? Drug dealers? Tax cheats? Child molesters? Drunk drivers? Who draws this line, the media? Politicians? Us?

And when some city is attacked by someone that shouldnt be here ie invader from any other country, where will the finger pointing go after that? To those attempting to stop the free flow of people dancing across the open borders? Nope... it will fall directly on those supporting the illegals coming in and staying, from any country.

Viva Arizona!

Press 1 for English.

Press 2 to speak the INS.

  U.S. Border Patrol Seizes Marijuana Backpacks, Arrests Smuggler Friday, 11 June 2010 07:58 U.S. Border Patrol

Wellton, AZ. — U.S. Border Patrol agents seized more than a quarter million dollars worth of marijuana and arrested a suspected smuggler east of Lukeville, Ariz., early Tuesday morning.

Just after midnight, Border Patrol agents assigned to Yuma sector’s Camp Grip detected the illegal entry of six individuals about 15 miles east of the Lukeville port of entry. Agents tracked the group on foot for about two hours when they came across eight abandoned makeshift backpacks full of marijuana.

Border Patrol agents secured the contraband and continued searching for the group that had begun walking south toward Mexico. Agents later located and arrested one man from the group; the remaining five men fled back into Mexico to avoid apprehension.

Agents transported the suspected smuggler and bundles of marijuana to the Wellton Border Patrol station for processing. Agents seized a total of 314 pounds of marijuana with an estimated street value of $251,200.00

Camp Grip is Yuma sector’s tactically deployed forward operating base that is designed to maintain effective control of the seam between the Yuma and Tucson sectors. These bases act as a deterrent and an additional detection platform, ensuring that smuggling organizations understand that if they operate in these areas, they will be pursued and apprehended.

To report suspicious activity, contact the Yuma Sector Border Patrol’s toll free telephone number at 1-866-999-8727.

Hmm...314lbs Total pot seized / 6 individual backpacks = 52-1/4lbs per backpack = $251,200.00?

This pot made out of gold?  :97-
That's big bloody backpacks...about the size of a haywagon...

This brings up the proverbial trick question:


What's heavier? 100lbs of hay or 100lbs of bricks?

I am thinking they limit the packs to 75 lbs or less.... something to do with getting caught, the charges are less or something.

Between Yuma and Casa Grande it is about 150 miles.... between these 2 cities are probly the most traffic coming in. Drive along I-8 between Dateland and Casa Grande at dusk and you will see them running across the desert, headed north for the freeway. I even had a few dozen cross in front of me at nite while on my bike... my headlite hit them and it was like deer in front of me. I think it will peek soon, with all this attention coming from the law kicking in next month.

My question is: why are they coming here?
I hear it's really nice down in Alcupulco?

several theories.... freebies abound within the States.... also, ones with pregnant wifes get a huge free ticket if they pop the kid out here. Lots of work from those that ignore thier status and give them slave wages.... and the drug trade is still heavy up here, so many are doing that.

There is also a faction building up thier population for the even where they will take back the southwest.... too many guns in our hands here in AZ, but most other SW states are ripe for the picking.

Quick really really simple answer.... ANYWHERE ELSE WOULD SHOOT THEM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXs8gRI70oo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXs8gRI70oo)

The meeting went well  until the Arizona governor demanded to see Obama's birth certificate.

Hee, hee.

Immigrants from around the country are taking to the streets this week demanding that they be allowed to stay in the US in order to maintain their jobs. And what better way to maintain those jobs than by parading in the streets in the middle of the afternoon on a Wednesday.

A US Border Patrol Agent catches an illegal alien in the bushes right by the border fence, he pulls him out and says "Sorry, you know the law, you've got to go back across the border right now." The mexican man pleads with them, "No, noooo Senior, I must stay in de USA! Pleeeze!" The Border Patrol Agent thinks to himself, I'm going to make it hard for him and says "Ok, I'll let you stay if you can use 3 english words in a sentence" The Mexican man of course agrees. The Border Patrol Agent tells him, "The 3 words are: Green, Pink and Yellow. Now use them in 1 sentence." The Mexican man thinks really hard for about 2 minutes, then says, "Hmmm, Ok. The phone, it went Green, Green, Green, I Pink it up and sez Yellow?"

This has been floating around U-tube. A Obama supporter?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMK9zxb5HyE&NR=1

Ron (r273)

OMG !   :25- :25- :25-

I refuse to beleive that ANYBODY is THAT stupid !  :30-

We are in real trouble !  :60-

This editorial article was in a local paper. Not sure how correct the facts are.


Published June 2, 2010

People, both here and abroad, are upsetting themselves over the recent anti-illegal alien laws, voted in by Arizona's citizens and signed into law by Arizona's Governor. In light of the following regulations, their position demonstrates the typical double standard used by the race-baiters and assorted frauds, ne'er-do-wells, y fulano-de-tales.

Here's a partial list of some immigration rules and laws that you might or might not enjoy:

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language ONLY.

3. All government business will be conducted in our language ONLY.

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they live here.

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor other government assistance programs. Anyone who is a burden will be deported.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be in an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners come here and buy land, options will be restricted. Certain parcels, including waterfront property, are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may have no protests. No demonstrations. No waving of any foreign flag. No political organizing. No bad mouthing our President or his policies, as these will lead to deportation.

10. If you do come into this country illegally , you will be actively hunted. When you are caught, you will be sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be removed from you and not returned.

So perhaps you say some of these are just too strict?

The above listed regulations are a portion of the current immigration laws of MEXICO! They sound fine to me.

Now how can I get this brought before Congress?

 
 

ot sure how correct the facts are.

It sounds close, if not correct....

I just got some calls about tying in and doing the printing of some items for some of the national anti-illegals groups.... so I printed this and am sending it off to see what comes of it.

ACLU issues travel warnings to Arizona

 :208- :208- :208- :208-

PHOENIX – The nation's top civil liberties group on Wednesday issued travel alerts for Arizona, saying the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants could lead to racial profiling and warrantless arrests.

American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in Arizona, New Mexico and 26 other states put out the warnings in advance of the Fourth of July weekend. The Arizona chapter has received reports that law enforcement officers are already targeting some people even though the law doesn't take effect until July 29, its executive director said.

The alerts are designed to teach people about their rights if police stop and question them.

The Arizona law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.


 :5- :5- :5- :5- :5- :5-


Attorneys defending the law against constitutional challenges filed by the ACLU and others argue that the Legislature amended it to strengthen restrictions against using race as the basis for questioning by police. Five lawsuits are pending in federal court, and the U.S. Justice Department is believed to be preparing a legal challenge.

Despite the legislative action, the ACLU still believes that officers will inappropriately target minorities.

"We have a long history of racial profiling in this state, and this is basically going to really exacerbate that problem," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona.

The ACLU's warnings were accompanied by a "bust card" that citizens or non-citizens can print out or download to their mobile phone instructing them about their rights during encounters with police.  :30- :30- :30- :30-

typical dumbasses

So in an effort to make it look like I'm not "racially" profiling in a state that borders Mexico and has a high percentage of hispanic illegal immigrants, I will have to stop and question an equal number of blond, blue eyed caucasians about their status in the state.  :103- :103- :103- When are we just going to get rid of the lawyers, they're the cause of just about every problem we have!  :25-

 Dan (tacman)

Amnesty will be passed soon, so it may not be an issue soon.... no telling what will happen after that.

from a friend in AZ, Kelly Townsend (running for House Rep), about todays first hearing on SB1070

Hello gang,

Here is the update about today.
... See More
We went there quite early, with only the law enforcement present. Our group began arriving, and giving interviews to the media, representing the many voices who couldn't be there because they are working. The opposition showed up much later, and in small number.

Chris Rossiter and myself were able to go inside and watch the proceedings. We were intrigued by the arguments posed, and realized that it will be difficult to guess which way this judge will rule, regarding the injunction. She made it very clear that she was hearing both sides, who both had strong arguments, and then would review it. Rumor has it she will make the decision within the next day or so.

Here are the sections of the law that are being challenged, and it is our understanding that the injunction would apply only to them, not the entire bill. Or only to the sections she decides, perhaps only one of these.

ARS11-1050 (in its entirety)

ARS 13-1509

ARS 13-2319

ARS 13-2929

ARS 13-3883 (Subsection 5 only)

It was clarified that the injunction was against SB1070, as amended by HB2162, not the original SB1070.

It was also determined that this is against Jan Brewer acting in her official capacity, not her as an individual.

There were many previous rulings cited, which we will list here and you can research them at your leisure.

IRA-IRA (13 years ago) which was cited a few times but we don't have any other info on that.

Heinz v. Devinowitz (spelling could be off) but this one was cited frequently and eluded to it being most important.

Cobar vs. Nevarrez (again, spelling cold be off)

North Lake Tahoe case (not sure if that is linked to any of the above, but seemed significant when dealing with supremacy).

The main argument was that there is a conflict of unreasonable detention (release if not prudent to detain - at the officer's descretion) vs. indefinite mandatory detention until imigration status is determined. One part of section B states that they should be detained only when reasonable, and then a little bit later it says the "SHALL" be detained until their citizenship status is determined, which could then extend outside of the "reasonable" realm, potentially making it unconstitutional. The Governor's defense agreed it was worded poorly but that it rarely takes very long to establish citizenship.

This along with the argument that law enforcement officers are being asked to enforce a so-called potentially unconstitutional law and by upholding their oath to not accept an unconstitutional order, they may be disciplined and/or lose their job. They are asking for the injunction until it is determined whether or not the law is indeed unconstitutional. Liken it to if they were told to seize the citizen's handguns. An officer could rightfully refuse to follow that order/law and risk losing his job, and is asking that until the lawsuit is complete and a judgement is made about the Constitutionality of the law, there be an injunction so he is not required to enforce it. Here we have an officer who believes he is being asked to enforce an unconstitutional law. The judge remarked that it was a matter of opinion until the outcome of the lawsuit.

It seemed the judge questioned the validity of most of the arguments, except she did seem to agree that we cannot indefinitely detain someone until their immigration status is determined, according to the Constitution which states we cannot detain someone for an "unreasonable" amount of time. The question is, what is reasonable and how long does it really take to determine a person's citizenship?

The attorney Montoya is a formidable player in this and is not to be underestimated. We could very well see an injunction in this, however it won't be on the entire SB1070, but likely on the wording of indefinite detention until status is determined.

As a side note, the other protestors there, I am told, were threatening our people, however there was no real actual trouble to speak of (other than heat stroke!)

There is a lot of indepth stuff that happened there today, but we wanted to give you the overall briefing.

We were comended, by the way, for our professional approach to the situation, and thanked for calling ahead yesterday and asking what was requied of us, and letting them know we were coming. We do want to thank all our law enforcement, who were there in force, from even as far away as Los Angeles, to make sure everyone was safe. It was considered a "dry run" for next week, when the hearing will begin on July 22 (not the 20th).

Thank you all who participated in person and in spirit. See you next Thursday!

Kelly Townsend

Visit Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots at: http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

So, the sticking point about defining an "unreasonable amount of time" is already codified. A person must either be arraigned or released within 72 hours of their detention/arrest. Does the judge somehow feel that existing law isn't good enough?