Arizona's New Immigration Law: Unconstitutional, Bad Policy

Governor candidates in 20 states endorse anti- immigration laws
Jan. 2, 2011
It's not just Arizona.
In states far from the Mexico border — from liberal Massachusetts to moderate Iowa — Democrats and Republicans who won races are running on strict anti-illegal-immigration platforms, pledging to sign an array of tough enforcement measures into law come Feburary. Of the 37 gubernatorial races this year, candidates in more than 20 states have endorsed adopting a strict Arizona-style immigration law or passing legislation that makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live, work and access basic public benefits in their states, according to a POLITICO analysis. The prevalence of the issue means the Obama administration could find itself battling Arizona-style flare-ups in statehouses across the country, raising pressure on the White House and Congress to break the deadlock in Washington over comprehensive immigration reform. The Justice Department sued Arizona in hopes of discouraging other states from following its lead and won a ruling blocking provisions of the law that immigrant advocates found most objectionable. But that hasn't stopped some gubernatorial candidates from trying to one-up each other on the issue. "If President Obama sues us too, we're going to defend ourselves," said Brian Robinson, communications director for Deal. "We've got to protect Georgia taxpayers if President Obama won't." The Pew Research Center found the immigrant population has at least doubled since 2005.
Polls show voters want the government to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. And with Congress unlikely to act anytime soon, gubernatorial candidates are arguing that, as chief executives, they will try to do the job that they say the federal government has neglected.

In 2009 alone there where over 15,000 confirmed visa overstays not counting the ones already in the system from previous year and ones that had not been confirmed.

I'm a puertorican born in New York and have been confused with every kind of latino you can think of, but never had problems with the law. I am in favor of the Arizona law as long as it's done properly. I think it may be very difficult to keep tabs on every officers actions and conduct.

Now as far as undocumented (illegal) immigrants lets not just point the finger at the Hispanic. I personally know many "illegal" immigrants of every race and color.
Not all illegal immigrants are "border jumpers" or hispanics from central and south america. There is a huge and growing number of non-hispanic visa overstays (person who enters legally with a visa then stays after the visa expires).

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Manipulating the Media - CIS report
A Center for Immigration Studies report issued in March, 2010, titled: Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center: invented a smear; served La Raza; manipulated the press and duped its donors concludes that the SPLC smear campaign: ...demonstrates that the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a peddler of its own brand of self-righteous hate. It is a center of intolerance, marked by a poverty of ideas, a dependence on dishonesty, and a lack of fundamental decency." The report, authored by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jerry Kammer, now a Senior Research Fellow at CIS, states that: after the collapse of the Senate amnesty bill in 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) joined with the National Council of La Raza [translates as 'The Race'] and others to launch a campaign to smear the three largest mainstream groups making a case for tighter enforcement and lower immigration . At the center of this campaign was the designation of the Federation for American Immigration Reform as a "hate group" and the spread of that taint to Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies. The announced goal was to pressure journalists and policymakers not to meet or speak with these organizations. Touted as an effort to 'stop the hate,' it was a thinly disguised move to stifle debate.
Among the findings of the Center for Immigration Studies:

The SPLC had demeaned FAIR for years, without tarring it with the toxic 'hate group' smear. It tried to justify its timing of the hate group announcement - the month before the 'Stop the Hate' campaign was launched - with a drummed-up accusation that FAIR had 'crossed the Rubicon of hate' with a meeting between a single FAIR official and a delegation from a right-wing Belgian political party that was visiting Washington.

While the SPLC presented itself as a public-interest watchdog, it became a propaganda arm of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). Its designation of FAIR as a 'hate group' was a publicity stunt in the service of La Raza's 'Stop the Hate Campaign.' That campaign, formally launched in early 2008, is actually an effort to stop the debate on national immigration policy.

The SPLC's attacks on Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, are a classic guilt-by-association smear based on Beck's relationship with FAIR founder John Tanton. Noting that Beck says he is not a racist , the SPLC has acknowledged that 'his website and other writings do not contradict that.' Meanwhile, the SPLC ignores a large body of evidence that demonstrates his rejection of immigrant-bashing and his search for measured public debate.

When the SPLC designates an organization as a 'hate group,' it places that organization on a list already occupied by such notorious groups as the Ku Klux Klan and racist skinheads. Yet SPLC director of research Heidi Beirich acknowledged that 'we do not have a formal written criteria' for assigning a label intended to bring disgrace to its recipients. Beirich said this in a radio interview : 'You qualify as a hate group if you treat an entire group of people for their internal characteristics, or their inherent characteristics, or you demean them in some way.' The report observes: 'A definition this flexible and imprecise could summon the SPLC Hate Patrol to the door of nearly any group of football fans, political activists, or Apple computer enthusiasts.' It says such laxity is an invitation for the malice and mischief that are characteristic of the SPLC.

The SPLC is equally reckless in its evaluation of Otis Graham, the most important figure in the founding of CIS and a member (and former chairman) of the CIS board. Graham is a respected scholar with a long history as an advocate of civil rights and environmental protections. In his 2008 memoir he reflected on his efforts to seek reduced immigration, 'without disparaging immigrants or their cultures, reserving condemnation for our own incompetent and shortsighted public officials and ethnocentric lobbyists rather than the immigrants caught in the mighty currents of globalization.'
Because of Tanton's role as the founder of FAIR, and because he was instrumental in the establishment of CIS and NumbersUSA, he can rightly be described as the father of the modern movement to restrict immigration. But the SPLC caricature of Tanton as a sinister 'Puppeteer' manipulating the groups at will is absurd. Nevertheless, the CIS report also criticizes Tanton, describing his big-tent philosophy that embraces some figures who do not play a constructive role in the immigration debate. It also says that he has 'a tin ear for the sensitivities of immigration.'
The report shows that the SPLC has distorted many of Tanton's comments, egregiously taking them out of context to justify their claims of bigotry . It shows that many of Tanton's concerns have also been raised by other serious students of immigration.

Your friendly neighborhood bank, can I help you?
Customer: Yes, I want to cancel my account. I don't want to do business
with you any longer.
The Bank: Why?
Customer: You're giving credit to illegal immigrants and I don't think
it's right. I'm taking my business elsewhere.
The Bank: Well, Mr. Customer, we don't want to see you do that, but we
can'tstop you. I'll help you close the account. What is your account number?
Customer: (gives account number)
The Bank: For security purposes and for your protection, can you please
give me the last four digits of your social security number?
Customer: No?
The Bank: Mr. Customer, I need to verify your information, but in order
to helpyou, I'll need verification of who you are..
Customer: Why should I give you my social security number? The reason
I'm closing my account is that your bank is issuing credit cards to illegal
immigrants who don't have social security numbers. You are targeting that audience and
want their business. Let's say I'm an illegal immigrant and you've given me a
credit card . I have a question about it and call for assistance. You wouldn't
be asking me for a Social Security number, would you?
The Bank: No sir, I wouldn't.
Customer: Why not?
The Bank: Because you would have pressed '2' to speak in Spanish. We
don't ask for that information when calling in on the Spanish line.

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/new_arizona_immigration_law_bad_for_women

http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/arizonas_new_immigration_law_means_imprisoning_trafficking_victims

Read this as well since it will affect our economy ...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/27/arizona.law .tourism.impact/index.html

SB1070 found at Arizona State Legislature.com. Take a large cup of coffe with you. The state has incorporated the laws of the federal goverment into state laws. Lets deal with the facts not all of this touchy feely stuff. READ THE BILL, then you can spout off about it. Yes as a freeman you can if you like speak from a position of ignorance but that does not change the truth.

I read a little ways down into the article and it heads nowhere fast. The police can't make you produce proof of citizenship on the spot. They have to have cause. The same comparison can be made about searching your car and your person if you are pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Additionally, they cannot ask you for proof of citizenship because of your race . They have to have something that points to the probability of being illegal . They cannot just walk up to every Mexican and ask for papers.

This is just a scare piece designed to frighten people into believing they will have to carry papers and worry about the police thinking they are illegal and sending them to Mexico without basis. It's absurd, and a lie.