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.