From Maria's article:
"Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
no, that hasn't changed at all, except that now we'll all have to.

But I'm a citizen of this country and expect everybody -- including law enforcement -- to respect my rights and individual freedom. If I don't want to carry my passport while I'm walking my dog in the park -- I don't have to.
if you pick up after your dog, no one will have to a reason to ask you for your passport.. you still failed to mention which rights of yours would be violated.. I am sure you don't like to show your car registration if you are stopped.. too bad... but just like the police and the FBI were after Italians when they were fighting organized crime years ago, they would be after certain people now.. safety of innocent people is more important than your inconvenience..

I don't think this is correct, as according to that Arizona law if

reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States
I can be asked to show my immigration papers. A reasonable suspicion can arise if a police officer overhears me calling "Молодец, Полкаша!"

safety of innocent people is more important than your inconvenience..
So I see that you agree with the policy of putting Americans of Japanese origin into concentration camps during the second World War...
Anyway, I think I fundamentally disagree with you on that one, because it this logic leads to suppression of my individual freedoms given to me by my Constitution -- and US turning into USSR.

Anyway, I think I fundamentally disagree with you on that one, because it this logic leads to suppression of my individual freedoms given to me by my Constitution -- and US turning into USSR.
again, which right would it be??
Why the Soviet Union?.. Mexico is very harsh with their illegal immigrants from Central America, as well as other countries..
You have to admit - you are against the police enforcing it because you don't see anything wrong with people coming here illegally, right?? Well, this is where the Arizonians and you disagree.. they are fed up with illegal immigration to the point where it hurts them..

"Natan, I agree with all of your points, except for the very last one. I don't believe that Republicans have political will to change the situation -- there was no immigration reform during 8 years of Bush administration."
Алексей,
Conservatives, like myself, do not care if the people in Congress as listed with an "R" or "D" next to their names. I already said that the problem was created by both Republicans and Democrats.
We will vote for and hopefully elect those who espouse conservative values including responsible LIMITED Federal government which DOES the things it is MANDATED to do by the Constitution - that included foremost protection of the borders, and, more importantly, the Federal government that DOES NOT DO things that are not in its jurisdiction and should be handled by states and localities.
People are gradually waking up. There are millions of us and in November in Washington we will be heard.

So far the only argument objecting to the new AZ law basically can be boiled down to the following: "This law has a potential for abuse by the law enforcement agencies".
I have news for you, folks. ANY law has a potential for abuse. You've got to come up with better/newer arguments.....
The AZ law has succeeded already by putting this issue in front of the American people - front and center, as a prime example of the Federal government's complete and total abdication of its lawful responsibilities.

Svetlana, my right to a due process and my constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
You have to admit - you are against the police enforcing it because you don't see anything wrong with people coming here illegally, right??
Please don't second-guess my opinion on that issue. As a person who went through all of the legal and due process of immigration, I see a lot of wrong with people coming here -- and saying here -- illegally. I don't have an issue with improving border security -- I will support building a wall there if needed, because I believe that it is a national security issue. I would support doubling or tripling the budget for border protection, if needed. I believe that illegals should be immediately deported -- and if they want to appeal their deportation, they should do that from their country.
I DO have a problem with a law that introduces different casts of CITIZENS and brings my country closer to a police state.

one of us doesn't understand the meaning of the due process..
to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.
How is anyone's due processed being violated with this law?? If you can prove your legal immigration status you will not be detained.. if police were not allowed to question anyone, they wouldn't b e able to prosecute the majority of the criminal activities..
do you have a problem with the law enforcement monitoring certain groups and places like muslim extremists and mosques to get clues of the impending attacks too??

Svetlana, there is such a thing called a "warrant". Law enforcement can do whatever they want if they obtain a warrant from a judge to do so. This is constitutionally-anchored separation of powers.

In most jurisdictions, an arrest warrant is required for misdemeanors that do not occur within view of a police officer. However, as long as police have the necessary probable cause, a warrant is usually not needed to arrest someone suspected of a felony.
let's say the police spots a van full of people or a house.. since the majority of legal residents don't drive in overcrowded vans or on top of the pick-ups, don't live in over-crowded houses, there is a resonable suspicion to believe those people have broken the federal law and are staying in the country illegally.. if it's not so, they will not be detained or arrested..

the police has too much discretion to begin with..
i am sure they have better things to do besides chasing after the illegals who have done nothing wrong besides jumping the fence.
all that it's going to create is some added costs and 0 benefit.

that's the problem.. they believe the illegals have been contributing to crime in Arizona (drugs, gangs, violence, transpassing of the private property, robberies), and they haven't been able to do anything about it up till now..I think it's a good start..
and jumping the fence IS a crime.. people who respect the rule of law wouldn't jump over the fence.. we don't need those who don't respect our laws..

У нас был знакомый, который жил в Аризоне, недалеко от границы. Жизнь в их городке из-за постоянно мигрирующих через их земли нелегалов превратилась просто в кошмар. Представьте толпы голодного и страдающего от жажды-а от этого теряющего всякий контроль над собой- народа еженощно! проходящего по вашей проперти. Мало того что они не дают покоя ночью, ломают заборы. Они воруют всё подряд, гадят, мусорят, реально угрожают жизни и здоровью местного населения, которое пытается защитить свою собственность и драгоценную там воду. И которое без оружия уже давно не живёт. Им даже приходится отстреливаться (в воздух) от нападающих нелегалов. Там давно уже своя милиция, сами охраняют, сами (подозреваю) наказывают... И так живут они уже десятки лет пытаясь привлечь внимание гос. органов к государственной, вобщем-то, проблеме. Такие вот кошмарики.

Хорошо, в свете зоиного поста. Мне кто нибудь объяснит почему не построена стена или граница не держится на замке в стиле Карацупы? Я догадываюсь что не вся советская граница была пропахана и держалась на под контролем так строго как нам рассказывали в школе, но почему мы не можем стеречь границу чуть-чуть получше?

Конечно, можно потратить деньги на построение Великой Мексиканской Стены или поставить по овчарке с пограничником через каждые 10 метров... Но я бы лучше потратила их на пару дополнительных блок-постов, через которые пропускали бы жаждущих мексиканцев сюда, выдавая им временные разрешения на работу, тем самым регистрируя их. Люди сюда лезут (в прямом смысле, в данном случае) за работой, за заработком. Если они смогут найти её, то официально будут наняты и будут вынуждены налоги платить в нашу госказну. Это нашим работодателям невыгодно-им нелегалов дешевле нанять и проще штраф заплатить в случае поимки. (tr)

— The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

— If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

How Mexico treats illegal immigrants....
— Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment.

Хорошо, в свете зоиного поста. Мне кто нибудь объяснит почему не построена стена или граница не держится на замке в стиле Карацупы?
*****************
проблема мексиканской границы лежит в Вашингтоне.......... Обаме и демократам нужны голоса нелегалов на выборах...
поэтому границу не усиливают а ослабевают перебрасываю пограничный патруль с мексиканской границы на канадскую... одновременно Обама будет стараться провести эмиграционную реформу... Обаме наплевать на безопасность и простых американцев.... он переживает за нелегалов или преступников попросту говоря...

Обаме и демократам нужны голоса нелегалов на выборах...
---------------------------------------------------------------
don't you need to be a citizen to vote?

Lina. do you need to show your proof of citizenship to vote? did someone actually ask?

oh, and as for the Soviet border, my dad (bivshij pogranichnik :-) ), said the security was actually pretty tight. the only ones that attempted and successfully made it across, were the soldiers.

Yeah, those were the borders with super tight security, I doubt that Mongolian or Chinese borders were that well guarded.

"Дима, а почему Буш не построил стену за 8 лет? Тоже демократам угождал?"
Олег, я писал об этом нескольким и страницами ранее - Вчера 03:47
Демократам нужны мексиканские голоса, а республиканцам - мексиканская дешёвая рабочая сила. И те и другие одинаково виноваты. (N) (N) (N) (N)

Часто *читаю и смотрю новости и комментарии к ним на русскоязычных сайтах (два профайла открытых мною за неделю были заблокированны, т.к. понятное дело гадости можно писать только об американцах и евреях, такие форумчане ни разу заблокированны не были). С интересом наблюдал за реакцией на продление контракта для российской военной базы в Севастополе. То, что Бандюкович прогнётся в интересной позе под кремль, можно было даже не сомневаться. Форум ликует, как снова американцы "получили пощёчину" и какие русские самые-пресамые. Вашингтон и НАТО спокойно заявило, что не видит никаких проблем с этим контрактом. Форумы естественно позлорадствовали, что мол ничего сделать не могут, потому и делают "хорошую мину при плохой игре". Сначала, по поводу продления контракта, я ничего кроме брезгливого презрения к Яныку не испытывал. Потом проанализировав с точки зрения постороннего наблюдателя (к Украине ни каким боком не относящимся), пришёл к мнению, что это в принципе хорошо!

Что получила Россия в результате этого договора? Ещё одну огромную статью расходов на абсолютно бесполезный флот и *предоставленную жирную скидку на газ покрываемую из бюджетных денег. *Украина получила ту самую скидку за счёт России, $100 000 000 ежегодных выплат за присутствие этой рухляди громко именуемой флотом, где единственная под. лодка приварена к пирсу, потому что не в состоянии даже держаться на плаву самостоятельно не то, что выйти в открытое море, и жалкой горстки устаревших кораблей в закрытом Чёрном море не имеющего выходов никуда, кроме Босфора, работа для 15 000 севастопольцев (хотя за то скотское отношение *к американскому кораблю которое было устроено там путиноидами в 2008м , я бы не стал сильно беспокоится, если бы они все остались без работы, надеюсь только на то что, не одни гоблины живут в этом городе). Не такой плохой гешефт для Украины. Гордость правда можно засунуть себе в одно место, но во всём остальном-полный ажур! Россия опять выкинула деньги на ветер.

Путин правда при этом сделал довольно хитрый финт ушами. Раскритиковал высокую стоимость нахождения этой груды металлолома на Украине. Без его ведома яТогда Вовансен пень такой контракт заключён не был бы. Контракт для России разорительный и это само собою очень скоро всплывёт. *Тогда Вован разведёт руками в стороны с видом пророка Моисея и скаже, ну вот дорогие Россияне, не говорил ли я вам??? И как всегда будет слава великому Пу за его мудрость и все его Ку!

Sergei, they are planning to put three new destroyers there plus that French-made Mistral ship... and that makes Georgia nervous.

That's all they can do, to make small country like Georgia to be nerves. Also, to plan and to do in Russia it's not necessarily the same thing;-)

I DO have a problem with a law that introduces different casts of CITIZENS and brings my country closer to a police state.
Different casts of citizens? :-O Are you talking about the illegal immigrants? Or who do you call CITIZENS?

Я из Крыма родом... *Там мнения разделились... *Про-русские очень рады, что гордость Российская -Севастополь -остаётся российским. *И флот, который ещё до Советских времён создали, остаётся русским.
Украинцы же жаждут скинуть проффесора...
Хотя рассуждения Сергея разумные -Украине хоть с энергией полегчает

"they are planning to put three new destroyers there plus that French-made Mistral ship..."
Алексей, на какие шиши???
Я в группе "Политкультура" пытался объяснить россиянам, что для Украины эта сделка намного выгоднее, чем для России, но кроме лозунгов советского времени типа "Севастополь будет русским" или "Российскиой флот будет на Чёрном море всегда", ничего вразумительного в ответ не ответил.
Правда была высказана одна интересная гипотеза, что в России знают, что у Украины всё равно нет денег платить за газ рыночную цену, а это снова закончится перекрытием газа следующей зимой и очередным скандалом с Европой. Поэтому так называемая "скидка" в $100М вовсе не скидка, а неизбежная потеря, за которую Россия получила хоть в/м базу в Крыму.
Может быть в этой теории есть какой-то резон.

Я думаю что теория, о которой пишет Натан, самая вероятная. Прэзытэнт выставлен в самом лучшем виде: да, я про-московский, ну и что? Смотрите каких пряников я привез вам из столицы. Для Москвы, мне кажется важен только один фактор, пока ЧФ находится в Украине, о НАТО не может быть и речи.

Different casts of citizens? :-O Are you talking about the illegal immigrants? Or who do you call CITIZENS?
Maria, I'm obviously talking about of citizens who were born in the 50 states of United States of America or its territories and LEGAL immigrants, who received US citizenship via naturalization process after being admitted to the United States as lawful permanent residents. Should I be more specific that that? (sc)

someone obviously refuses to understand the law the way it's written - just like now, in the future a police officer CANNOT approach/stop/come in contact with anyone based on race or any other factor..unless there is a violation of some sort - only then a police officer can engage in a lawful contact with citizens..

No, I think someone refuses to understand the opposite -- that the law clearly states that the only thing that is needed is "reasonable suspicion", NOT other violation.

I found those two "explanations" of the lawful contact and resonable suspision that people seem to be confused about.. and that the officers have to be compliant with the federal immigration laws that already exist..
No, lawful contact does not mean just because you're talking to a cop he can ask you to prove your a legal resident. Profiling is illegal. Period.
There is so much hyperbole and histrionics surrounding this bill and false information it's not even funny any more.
Since profiling is illegal, lawful contact requires an activity. There is going to have to be some type of activity that will lead to a reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally. If that activity leads to the reasonable suspicion, the police officer has the means to determine whether you are a legal resident.

Police officers are not going to be walking down the street asking people for papers. If you call the police to report a crime, they are not going to request you to prove legal status due to that. (Calling in a crime does not give them reasonable suspicion you're an illegal alien).The Arizona Immigration Law copies federal code already in place and moves it to the state level to allow police the ability to detain, arrest and try transfer illegal aliens or to transfer to ICE. There is nothing "new" in the law, other than it's at a state level now.
if you are stopped for speeding and can't produce your driver's license, then there is a reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally.. but you CANNOT be stopped just to check if you have papers..

Apparently, too many of the bill's opponents don't understand the legal meaning of "lawful contact."
What is lost in the heat of this debate is the word "reasonable." And no, I'm not referring here to the other hot-button phrase in the bill, "reasonable suspicion," but rather, to a general legal concept applicable to virtually all law enforcement activity.
Let's take this part of the question above: "the officer thought you were parked illegally (even if you weren't)"

In every case, an officer's actions must be reasonable, meaning other reasonable people in similar circumstances would draw a similar inference. A police officer cannot simply say I "thought" that car was parked illegally; he or she must describe observations that would lead a reasonable person to believe the car was parked illegally.
Another clause missed by most of the bill's opponents is this, the second-to-last sentence of the act: "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."
Let me repeat the key phrase: "protecting the civil rights of all persons...." Please bear that in mind when debating the relative merits of this bill.