Ariz. Sheriff Says He Will Refuse to Enforce Immigration Law

[kpete]

Source: ABC

Ariz. Sheriff Says He Will Refuse to Enforce Immigration Law
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's Controversial Immigration Bill is Drawing Ire from Many Americans
By EMILY FRIEDMAN

An Arizona sheriff said today that he has "no intention of complying" with the state's controversial new immigration law, calling it "abominable" and a "national embarrassment."

.....................

Dupnik told ABCNews.com that he'd like Brewer to know that "what she and the legislature has accomplished is morally wrong and a national embarrassment."

"We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't," said Dupnik. "If we go out and look for illegal immigrants, they accuse us of racial profiling and we can get sued. And if some citizen doesn't think we're enforcing the state law, they can sue us too."

"If the chief of police or sheriff takes a squad out and says to them that their only duty is to go out and round up illegal immigrants, they are going to racially profile," said Dupnik. "But we have never done that and we will never do that."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582

[TomCADem]

1. Well, Now Right Wingers Get To Sue Him and Collect Attorneys' Fees...

...that is one of the more stupid aspects of the law. Anyone can sue if they don't think that police are being racist enough.

[SemperEadem]

29. and here I thought the RW was against frivolous lawsuits..

[sui generis]

2. Good - that dried up leather handbag of a governor

needs all the embarrassment the nation can provide. The funniest thing about the immigration crowd: they forget the people who are called on to enforce it are themselves "profilable".

They just assume everyone is white and uptight like they are.

dumbasses - as usual the social conservative can't see as far as even the first consequence.

[classysassy]

21. Hear , hear,

I dare you call our weather beaten old hag a dried up handbag.

[classysassy]

22. Handbags

are useful our hag is worthless.

[classysassy]

23. Handbag or hag?

more like a weather beaten old hag.

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Well, that's one................

NFM

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Very interesting.

[EXneoCON]

5. Well...

I know nothing of Sheriff Dupnik's past actions, but I'll give him a big +1000 on this decision.

[RKP5637]

8. Yep, my thoughts too, looks like Sheriff Dupnik at least has some smarts in AZ. n/t

[atreides1]

18. He's not a bad guy to work for

I worked at the Pima County jail for about 3 years. Dupnik had his quirks but he was never a glory hog like Arpaio.

[Dogtown]

6. An honorable position.

We need more like this in law enforcement.

[Democat]

7. We are a nation of (racist) laws!

So they say.

[RKP5637]

9. So true... a nation supposedly of equality and opportunity for all, but then

we define just who is equal, has rights, etc., citizens or not. This country has been doing this crap from day one. Even women are still fighting for equal rights. This is a nation of conflicts and then we cover it up with apple pie and wave the flag. We're certainly not the worst, but certainly should never brag about being perfect.

[pattmarty]

15. Overall more religious than racist. Most if not all of our laws have............

..........an origin in religion. And, I do realize that religion can be racist too.

[glinda]

10. So will this lead to citizens' arrests and taking the law into their own hands? I can see how it

could lead to that.
Boy, Arizona really has been screwed up by the Republicans.

[Kali]

11. Dupnik has allways been pretty cool.

Back in the day :hippie: , he wouldn't bust for small amounts. Of course Pima county is the main blue county here - if you are thinking of boycotting, consider giving Pima county (Tucson) a break.

[nyc 4 Biden]

12. a good man. thank you sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

[Soylent Brice]

13. K&R

[tqla]

14. I know three officers personally and

two are high ranking, and this law would make their jobs impossible. In simple terms, they rely on good people, regardless of their status, to find bad people. Secondly, it will harass legal Hispanic citizens and violate their 4th amendment. Bad law.

[EFerrari]

16. Welcome to DU, tqla.

:hi:

[strategery blunder]

17. +1

Also, welcome to DU :)

[Soylent Brice]

19. welcome to DU

:hi:

[pampango]

20. Does this mean Arpaio has to enforce it twice as hard to make up for this?

;)

[ThoughtCriminal]

24. Pima County and Tucson - far more liberal than Maricopa / Phoenix

And a way nicer part of the state.

[sabrina 1]

25. Good for him. It really is heartening to see people like this

sheriff speak out like this. I am beginning to think that this law will never go into effect.

Kudos to the Sheriff. I hope his standing up like this will give others the courage to do the same thing.

[DesertDiamond]

26. THANK YOU!!!!! for being a decent and justice loving, true human being!

[whereaminow]

27. Insurrection is a two way street

If we approve of this, then we can't really complain if the cops turn against us.. Careful what you wish for. When the orders come from a democratically elected authority, no matter how despicable, they must be followed.

[Xipe Totec]

30. And "I vas just following orders" is not a defense nt

[whereaminow]

47. We are not dealing with a dictatorship here

The people in charge are there because we put them there. So in this case, orders are orders. They came from us. If we cannot trust out public servants, then there will be no place to turn. They took an oath. We must insure that it is upheld. If they want to resign they are welcome to it, but we cannot have people in this position deciding on their own what is right. You're not considering the ramifications of this. It would set a most dangerous precedence.

[Xipe Totec]

71. Yet... (nt)

[whereaminow]

78. Whatever

We still have a viable procedure. Until it is all used up, I want the authorities to obey the people we put in charge. They can quit their jobs if they don't like it. This is a display of rogue authority at this point. You should be just as concerned about that as the law itself. If you have a problem with majority rule, by all means spell it out. I'm all ears, ok eyes...

[EFerrari]

73. They didn't take an oath to enforce unconstitutional laws.

And civil disobedience is civil disobedience whether it's here or elsewhere.

There were many people who resisted the Fugitive Slave Law, for example. Some of them were fined and/or jailed for it.

Just because discrimination is made into law doesn't make it right or even constitutional.

[whereaminow]

77. Are you a lawyer?

The constitutionality has yet to be determined by the courts. I'm against it as much as anybody. But insubordinate authority is rogue authority... They need to resign from their position, then they are free to do as they please. Until then, they must obey. That is the only proper way.

[northzax]

91. Correct

If you are a law enforcement officer and feel that you cannot enforce a law passed by a democratically elected government, the correct reponse is not to refuse to follow the law, but to resign.

[icee]

32. Try not to inject too much common sense in your comments. On

the one hand we have politicians creating carve-outs to laws so that employers of illegal immigrants can't be brought to justice. So the people, in the form of the governor try to save their State a different way, one which Texas and Oklahoma are considering right now. We HAVE an illegal immigration problem. If that problem is not addressed, the entire southwestern corridor will cease to exist. Look at what is happening in LA Country right now. It is close to collapse. Why? Because there is no money to pay for the services of those who not contribute to social welfare systems designed for much less traffic. The illegal immigration problem will not go away. It needs to be solved now!

[Bluenorthwest]

36. I'm from CA. The immigrants have helped CA

The reason LA County and CA in general is broke has to do with Prop 13- I have a friend who pays #350 a year on a house she is now selling for 900K. Can you see a problem there? Los Angeles City pays their council members a good deal more than United States Senators make, provides them with free cars, free gas, a mechanic, drives and staffs of 20. The spending does not end, and yet no one wishes to pay a dime in taxes.
The city and county of Los Angeles have placed such high fees on the industry that defines the region, that that industry has virtually left town for places where they are able to function.
The entire region engaged in a housing gambling fest that drove housing prices into the stratosphere. It did not work out well, and the 'homeowners' are pissed off. The demand their 200K equity gains in a year, each year, or they will start looking to blame others.
There are many, many problems in CA. Greed being number one.

[icee]

37. I'll stipulate that there are other factors involved with California

and LA going broke, but if you think there is no immigrant problem in LA, then possibly you should take a visit to USC Medical Center. It is near my exact vision of what hell must look like. I could be more specific but that would mean a respondent flame. Another LA problem is Villagrosa (sp) who has done nothing since being elected mayor except collect bribes from contractors.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. See but you claimed otherwise at first.

You said the problems are because of the immigrants. Period. I had to point out to you the endless list of corruptions, waste, lavish pay for politicians, squandered industry, the lack of attention to affordable housing, the lack of attention to public transportation, and you yourself added another one, unwittingly, which is the fact that no one cares to run for mayor of LA, and apparently you have proof of bribery that you are simply sitting on. You shrug at corruption you state as fact, while blaming not the corrupt nor those who aid and abet them, but another group entirely.
I've been to County USC many, many times. It is a very American place where those with no choice go for medical care. During the early days of the AIDS crisis, many people wound up there because Insurance Companies denied coverage, others had no coverage, few had enough money to pay for it all. So I have spent days there, over many weeks, many months and years, visiting many very ill people.
I will share with you the fact that the majority of those I visited at County USC were white and naturally born citizens. The only, and I mean the only, person I knew who died in that era who was able to pay for all of his own medical care, and still leave money for his family, had come to this country just a few years before, without papers, without a dime. Died with plenty, employer to many, loved by many more. Paid his own way, all the way. I personally spent thousands on Americans who could not do the same.
So that is just one story, but it is the one I lived. Sure does not fit your view of things. I do wonder why you feel you could not speak of County USC without being 'flammed'. I think you simply lack the specifics, as you lack experience of that place over the long haul. Notice, I have lots of specifics offered about County USC, you, not a one. Why is that again?
We could talk about specific departments there, or even doctors and nurses- oh the goodness of the nurses there- we could talk about why such a place is needed in a modern city. Such things do not exist in London or Paris. But we'd need to be specific. This routine about generalities is not useful to anyone. God is in the details, so go ahead, be specific. Not being specific just means you are too craven to speak your mind. So you make implications and suggestions. Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Give it a shot.

[icee]

41. Baloney! Period. We HAVE an illegal immigration problem. The

systems are overwhelmed by immigrants. Prop 13 reduced the inflow of tax money, sure. But there are two sides to the coin. Reduced revenue AND TOO MUCH NEEDLESS EXPENSE. So the helpful illegal immigrant earns his money picking fruit and then sends it all back to Mexico. Where is the multiplier effect in that? Don't put words in my mouth in order to justify your postion. Also, with respect to USC medical center, which I find your description of dubious, I went there every day to shuttle lab specimens back and forth between it and Impath. I know the place well. I often would have to literally wade between people clutching at me for money. If I never see the place again, it would be too soon. It's nice to be altruistic, like you obviously are, but someone has to pay the bills. And the middle class taxpayer is out of money. And they are now leaving California in droves. Not because of Prop 13, which is NOT a proximate cause of the problem. Because of fear, fear of gangs, weariness of every other person asking for a handout, rage that what they had envisioned for their future for themselves and their families by working hard and obeying rules AND HAVING ONLY ENOUGH CHILDREN THAT THEY CAN SUPPORT has been vacated by......

[Bluenorthwest]

44. What words did I put in your mouth?

What is my position? That California's problems are huge, diverse and would not vanish even if there was a rapture of all Mexicans?
In your post, you suggest that I do not pay my share in taxes, question my sick bed experiences at County, claim I am putting words in your mouth, but you do not say what words. You shout NOT about prop 13, but offer no support for your view. The rage and the fear is your own trip, and it is destructive to you, more than to others. If raging fearful people don't get their dreams, the fear and rage are most likely the reason for that.
And of course, you end your post by not saying what you are too fear filled and enraged to say, that which is on your mind, which you in your cowardice can imply and seethe about, but still you can not manage to simply state. Speak your mind. What's with the... bit? Are you ashamed of what you want to say, or just afraid?

[icee]

45. You are now attacking me--not the post. Have a nice day.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. any one who can read can see that I was talking about policy

and you were talking about me. I wanted to talk about CA's problems, you wanted to talk about 'them'. Part of your problem is that you claim to want to speak about immigration, but you speak instead of immigrants. You claim to wish to discuss policy, but you launch personal attacks.
I asked you what words I put into your mouth, there were none. You attacked me, and any literate person can see that, and also see why you did so.

[pampango]

40. Thank God for republican legislators and governors in Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma?

"So the people, in the form of the governor try to save their State a different way, one which Texas and Oklahoma are considering right now." That "different way" is the same ol' republican way of "enforcement only" - a higher/longer/better wall and more border guards/troops/now police (with this new law). Are there any Democratic legislators or governors who are trying a "different way" to save us from illegal immigration or is it just republicans? BTW, it doesn't matter that we have spent billions trying this "enforcement only" approach and this is the result.

Republicans run from any idea of a comprehensive reform of immigration such as the framework proposed by Obama and endorsed by organized labor and the Progressive Caucus. Any mention of comprehensive reform brings forth republican cries of "Amnesty". They defeated comprehensive reform in 2007 and will oppose it 100% in the house and senate since it is a more emotional issue (particularly to their tea bag contingent and party base) even than health care reform was. The will demagogue it on the campaign trail. I think we all know that.

Is the "illegal immigration" problem more of an "illegal" problem or an "immigration" problem? If the folks who are causing the "problem" were legal would that fix everything? Or would the new "problem" be that they are still there even though they are legal? The unions support Obama's framework, in my understanding, because they believe that legal immigrants will be less easy to exploit and more easy to organize.

I think Obama would prefer to push comprehensive immigration reform, not only as a good policy, but as a means to let republicans back themselves into a corner and alienate even more voters. He is hesitating because he suspects (or knows) that there are enough Democrats in the "enforcement only" camp who would support republican efforts to kill reform that the damage to republicans would be weakened.

I do agree that "It needs to be solved now!" comprehensively.

[icee]

42. I agree with your post, except with your conclusion that Obama

is trying to back the Republicans into a corner and alienate more voters. I believe the Republicans are trying to back Obama into a corner by him being forced to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and turn vast numbers of voters against him--including legal immigrants. On our current trail, the USA will eventually be turned into a South Africa and I belief we are at the point that this cannot be reversed. We have gone from fruit pickers in northern California to hordes of occasionals standing in front of Home Depots and Lowes. The situation is out of control. I believe Arizona enacted its new law to force the US Government's hand, which it apparently has done. Like I have said before, illegal immigration will make or break the election for the Democrats in November. Oh, one other thing. I agree with your inference that the problem may be an immigration problem rather than an illegal immigration problem. I think that problem will attenuate in severity once the boomers are gone.

[pampango]

52. I disagree with everything in your post.

"I believe the Republicans are trying to back Obama into a corner by him being forced to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and turn vast numbers of voters against him--including legal immigrants."

I realize that the "amnesty" card is what the republicans consider their ace in the hole. (Luntz has advised repubs to tie "amnesty" and "illegal" together as often as possible and to pretend to be in favor of legal immigration). Polls do indeed show that people oppose "amnesty" while they support "a path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants, which is why Luntz recommends its usage.

"On our current trail, the USA will eventually be turned into a South Africa and I belief we are at the point that this cannot be reversed. We have gone from fruit pickers in northern California to hordes of occasionals standing in front of Home Depots and Lowes. The situation is out of control."

You sound distraught that people of color might become the majority in the USA as they are in South Africa. That's not something that concerns most of us Caucasians (at least those of us who are not Tea Baggers or republicans). The day that happens the country will be no worse off (and perhaps will be better) than the day before. The good ol' days of a few "fruit pickers in northern California" are gone.

"I believe Arizona enacted its new law to force the US Government's hand, which it apparently has done."

How so? In this case I wish you were right and Congress would take up comprehensive immigration reform, but I think it is still behind financial reform and climate/energy reform and won't be brought up this year mainly because too many Democratic politicians are afraid of the republican "amnesty" card.

"I agree with your inference that the problem may be an immigration problem rather than an illegal immigration problem. I think that problem will attenuate in severity once the boomers are gone."

Actually, I asked "Is the "illegal immigration" problem more of an "illegal" problem or an "immigration" problem?" I made no inference as to my position. It is revealing to know that you feel it is "an immigration problem rather than an illegal immigration problem". Color me unsurprised that you are more upset that "they" are here than that they are here illegally.

[icee]

55. Steer toward your own conclusions in whatever manner you

desire. That's what politicians and lawyers do. My post stands, generated from what I have witnessed going on all around me. You apparently live in another place...and definitely another mindset. Color me unsurprised that you manipulated my point about illegals v/ legals to satisfy your own need for righteousness.

[pampango]

57. "...the problem may be an immigration problem rather than an illegal immigration problem."

Manipulated your point about illegals vs. legals? How so? I quoted you and posted my reactions. I think you made yourself very clear. I tried to do the same.

I'm glad that your post stands. You are obviously a person of your convictions. I just don't agree with it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Wow. Just wow.

"So the people, in the form of the governor try to save their State a different way, one which Texas and Oklahoma are considering right now."

I'm sure you could have inserted "glorious", "manly", "pro-America", or "rugged individualists" somewhere in there. But hey, we don't want to be TOO obvious, do we?

[icee]

50. 70 per cent of Arizonans favor the law their governor signed

into law. Arizonans ARE the People in that State. But the message in your inferring collective "We" was not missed...and ignored, uh, Commie Pinko Dirtbag. Talk about Wows...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Yeah, yeah. Keep doing the victory chest-thump.

It may very well be true that 70 percent of people there are indeed evil bastards. I don't deny that possibility. The difference is that I lament it instead of celebrating it.

By the way, do you want to know why I chose this username? Because I (like 90% of humanity) am to the left of Augusto Pinochet, and for the crazed RW extremists that infest the Internet, being to the left of Augusto Pinochet makes one a crazed murderous far-left Maoist, so why the hell not? It's a mockery of RW trolls.

[icee]

54. I celebrate a representative democratic republic, which gives

rise to the term People. And if 70% of those who are voting for anything are indeed evil, then I have to abide by their decisions under our current system of government. You, otoh, seem to favor questionable political figures. To each his own.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. "Questionable political figures"? Like who? Colonel Jessep? Jon Arbuckle? Lemmy Kilmister? -nt

[whereaminow]

56. We treat Mexico(and most of the world) as our plantation

So I'm a bit sympathetic towards the runaways. So how do you want to "solve" it? Throw 'em back to their "owners"? Well I have a much better solution. First, quit meddling in Mexico's politics. Quit propping up their corrupt politicians, and abusive cops. I hope you don't think they risk their lives crossing hundreds of miles of desert just to collect food stamps. If you do, there's not much to discuss. American's are just too comfortable to have even the smallest idea of what it's like. Hell, if their cable gets cut, they'll be running up to Canada so fast... Second, tear down the damn fence! Let the traffic flow freely in both directions. The notion of being "illegal" simply because you're on the wrong side an arbitrary line is so absurd, I really don't have words... A person has a right to BE where he wants, so long as he doesn't displace somebody else. No authority on earth has a right to dictate otherwise. The borders are Jim Crow laws on a grand scale. They all must come tumbling down.

Screaming "It needs to be solved now!"* is a sign of panic. Reasonable thought is out the window, and the "solutions" are frequently worse than the problem. And it only gets worse from there. Time for a total rethink.

*Remember, it's that attitude that gave us the patriot act and two wars started on entirely false premises. So I'm willing to step back a little to grab a bit wider view of the issue.

[icee]

61. A country without borders is not a country at all.

[whereaminow]

62. Fine by me

Who needs it? What does "country" have to do with anything? I equate nationalism with racism. We don't need walls. We need bridges.

[icee]

65. This ain't Pandora. And we are not Navi-like people by a long shot We.

have a need to have our own space, with rules.

[whereaminow]

67. Yep

And none of that is going to stop me from trying to change them. Anybody who has ever complained about the Berlin Wall should be doing the same for every other wall. Time for people to act like adults.

[EFerrari]

75. Then we need to stay the hell out of Latim America

so these people won't be driven north by the greed and cynicism we call a regional policy.

You want borders respected? Then let's get out of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia and Haiti. Let's respect the heck out of them first.

Ever notice that the countries that are the tightest with us wind up being the most royally screwed? Free clue: that's not an accident.

[icee]

76. I agree 100% with that. Let's not spread our current values anywhere.

[whereaminow]

79. Was that sarcasm?

You know, because that looked like a sarcastic statement :-|

And now you piqued my interest. Please let me/us know what you really think.

[icee]

80. The main thing this country thinks about is money, politics and what can

can be done for "me". We are the most egocentric civilization that ever existed. Let us not interfere with countries who are not as mercenary as us, those that still have interpersonal relationships not based on what dollar benefits can be obtained. End of short rant.

[pampango]

63. Since every country has borders, you must mean "use its borders to keep "others" out".

Tell that to France, Germany and every other country in the EU. They all have "borders", but they chose not to use them to keep out the citizens of their European neighbors. Imagine the surprise in Paris when we tell them that France is not a country at all unless they build a wall to keep the Germans, Italians and all their other neighboring countries' nationals away from sacred French soil.

Every country does have borders. You can see them on any map (though oddly enough they often don't show up in photos from outer space). Countries have every right to decide how they will use those borders. They can build walls to keep "others" out as the US does and just like I can do if I build a fence to keep my neighbor out of my backyard. Or they can decide that it is better allow an open flow of people across a border for mutual benefit like every country in the EU does and like me if I decide to not build a fence and share backyards with my neighbor.

It is nonsense to say that a country is not a country unless it treats its border like the old East Germany did or the current North Korea does.

[icee]

64. You took my one statement post and constructed a post of

your own from it. If France had no delineation of borders they would not be France. How would they rule? How would they create laws specific to themselves? Remember, I am responding to a post that indicated borders must come tumbling down, that they were purely Jim Crow. You put a lot of stuff in your post that you somehow inferred what I meant, which I did not. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that you are upset about something regarding immigration.

[whereaminow]

68. They would rule by consent of the ruled

Pretty simple, huh? Local governance requires no hard border. Discrimination by "misfortune" of where you were born is precisely the same as basing it on skin color, gender, etc. Borders, in the age of instant communications and transportation, have become an anachronism. They serve only the slave trade and the bureaucrats. Still don't believe in insubordinate cops though. We just need to change the rules. Just trying to drift back towards the topic :-) All this stuff here might be the subject of another thread. However you want to deal with "illegals" is your choice, but I recommend that you make sure that people, "illegal" or not, are treated humanely.

[EFerrari]

74. LA County is not collapsing because of undocumented workers

who pay into SS accounts they can never draw from, or who pay sales tax on everything they buy in LA County. Or who have to pay bribes every time they turn around to stay safe.

You want LA County to collapse a little faster? Deport them all TODAY.

Good luck with that.

[olegramps]

35. I suppose that you would approve of Hitler's henchmen "just following orders."

I don't think that have carefully thought this through. The law is ridiculous political theater at its worst and totally unenforceable.

[whereaminow]

49. The governor of Arizona is a duly elected official

And still rules with the consent of the people. Unless a law is being broken(to be decided by the courts if necessary), they have to obey. You may want to think that all this is hunky dory, but think of the consequences if some mad tea bagger cop decides to go nuts. Then what are you going to say? "Oh! that's different."? Sorry Charlie. Homey don't play that. The rules apply to everybody.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Tell me, by what percentage did she win this imaginary election?

She is the legal Governor, but not an elected Governor. She has not faced the consent of the people as yet. That is just a fact. She was an appointed replacement, and from the opposite Party as the Governor she replaced.

[whereaminow]

60. Has anytbody filed an objection?

Until then, they'll have to wait until election time. The rules are well understood by all. If there's a problem, people need to speak up. and some are. But calling for insurrection is very dangerous. In the words the "wise" George Lucas, "To a dark place this line of thought will carry us. Great care we must take." If the law is not struck down, then they need to vote for politicians that will repeal it. These are the rules as generally accepted by the people at large. We're not even close to exploring our options here. Trying to Godwin the discussion serves as nothing but distraction. "Hitler" is not applicable.

[olegramps]

81. Your response is so damn ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a response.

The law is unconstitutional. I can imagine how you would have responded if you were faced with defying the God appointed King of England' laws.

[whereaminow]

87. But you responded anyway

:-) Constitutionally will be determined by the courts.. Or are you personally an expert on such matters? Now, if you're not willing to wait, I suppose you could pick up a gun and try to convince people that way. I don't believe you will get very far at this time.

[olegramps]

89. Your response to the response is ridiculous.

Even in the military when you are given a order that is clearly immoral and un-constitutional it is your DUTY to not obey it. Ever heard of the Nuremberg Trials? You don't have to be an expert on the Constitution to know what is guaranteed by it unless you can't read English and comprehend it which is obviously the case.

[whereaminow]

92. Merely mocking its absurdity

Know what's cool about winning the war? Nuremberg doesn't apply. Only to the losers. Otherwise you better start drawing up papers and rounding up all the guys that went to Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam for that matter. This isn't some order from a crazy general. It came from the elected legislators of the people of Arizona. Until it is determined otherwise, proper procedure has been followed all the way through. You are the grumpy one, aren't you? Smile, gramps :-)

[olegramps]

93. I love the apologists for racists.

Let's see if I understand you. A legislature can pass a law that is solely designed to target those of a certain ethnic heritage demanding them to provide proof of their citizenship. Now we shouldn't question the intent of the legislatures just because the were elected. Now we could suppose that some citizens could challenge the constitutionality of the law and if the Supreme Court happens to be packed with Republican racists that uphold its constitutionality then I would only suppose that you would believe that is just swell. This is the same type of thinking that allowed Jim Crow laws to be enacted to deprive citizens of their right to vote or a Supreme Court that found that a slaves had to be returned to their "owners." I don't need some damn court to tell me what I know to be against the Constitution and what is basically immoral.

[whereaminow]

94. You are perfectly welcome to challenge the law

And lord knows, there's plenty that need challenging. But this government still rules with the consent of the majority. So I expect its officials to comply, or resign. You can blab all you want about how the courts and congress are "packed with republicans", but the voters did the packing, like it or not. And if 51% is against you, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If majority rule isn't your cup of tea, well, that's another thing altogether..

I fully encourage a constitutional challenge to this law. We have a working procedure. Let's use it.

I have a feeling I'm wasting my breath. You don't seem to see what I'm concerned about. And if you're really against Jim Crow, I'll take it you're against having a border to begin with.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

83. Not following insurrectionists is NOT insurrection...

The bat-shit crazy repub Arizona leg and unelected governor are trying to usurp Federal authority and the Constitution...

One is NOT required to follow insurrectionists like them...

[whereaminow]

86. We have a procedure to decide who the insurrectionists are

Until the courts say otherwise, then the sheriff, if he refuses to up hold his oath, is obligated to resign. Look, if I had full confidence this could never go the other way, and some tea bagger cop decides not to enforce anti-discrimination laws or simply turns on us, I would be for this. But I must remain consistent, as ugly as that may appear.

[skepticscott]

28. The problem with what he says is

that the law does not require the police to "go out and look for illegal immigrants".

[EFerrari]

72. The law puts LEOs squarely between people who will contest

racial profiling and people who will claim they're not profiling enough.

[ProudDad]

84. The law says that police officers, departments and Cities/Counties

can be sued if they DON'T automatically check for PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP... (passport or birth certificate -- state ID doesn't PROVE citizenship)...

And if you are asked, and cannot PROVE you are a citizen, you WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ARRESTED and then have to try to prove citizenship from your jail cell.

You don't have a clue as to how unconstitutional and racist this law IS...

That's why it will NEVER go into effect...

And you obviously don't see the fact that it's just the latest cynical tool for voter suppression passed by neanderthal racists to make sure that only white people are in charge when the state goes majority people of color in about 5 - 10 years.

[customerserviceguy]

31. He'll be up for re-election in two years

We'll see what his constituents think at that point.

[icee]

33. I would guess he'll be gone.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. And you, of course, would rejoice.

Damn pinko sheriff. Not a manly-man true American red-blooded God-fearing rugged individualist like Joe Arpaio.

[icee]

66. Whatever the People decide is okay by me. Since I stopped

voting I have to trust in the People.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

69. You stopped voting? Ha.

The ancient Greeks had a term for that.

[ProudDad]

85. He has just guaranteed his reelection here in Tucson

if he wants it...

This is NOT fucking Maricopa or Coconino or Mesa (where that racist, christianist hate monger russell pearce comes from)...

This is bloody Tucson!

[customerserviceguy]

88. Having only been to AZ once

for part of a week in 1990, I can't argue with what you've said. But we'll see if Tucson is what you think it is in a bit more than two years.

[Yeahyeah]

34. Dupnik?That sounds like some kind of a forenner name.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[newspeak]

43. I'll say again

the republicans made immigration a campaign issue back in 2004--an issue to keep the populace from dwelling on the lying wars he created. They used it as an issue--after * was put back into office-they did nada, zilch, nothing about immigration. Some should go back in history and see the similarities to the great depression and the "evil" immigrants taking our jobs away from us. Directing blame from the greedy and corrupt to the most used and victimized.

So interesting that someone should say that immigrants are putting a drain on states--working with a subcontractor, I know that most of those immigrants wouldn't seek any funds, especially if they were injured. That's why certain companies hire them, because they know they won't file for worker's comp. if they are injured--and depending how injured they are, some will continue to work. And, carrying a bogus SSN guarantees that you're not going to be collecting any benefits, but paying into the system, that also includes income taxes. Yes, some are paid under the table-but many are given regular paychecks, with deductibles taken out. Look at the hotels, chicken factories, etc...

Back in the nineties, booklets were distributed to employers with photos of bogus green cards and bogus SSN cards and numbers. It is fairly easy to determine a fake card--that's if the employer was really interested in legal status of his/her employees. The whole point is that government doesn't want to upset those constituents(business owners) who give them money, they'd rather profile certain people, even if it steps on people who are citizens of this country.

Also, why someone in construction would blame the immigrants for going for jobs, when it is the employers who are hiring them, is beyond me. A cheap employer who loves to fudge the laws as much as possible so he/she can make an extra buck by exploiting all. some construction companies that received contracts to rebuild NOLA, had no problem of hiring illegals, and then didn't pay them.

The unfortunate incident with the rancher being shot adds fuel to the fire, but how about those immigrants found in graves in northern california. See, the farmer didn't have to pay them, he could just eliminate them. Or, the boy who was shot by the rancher also in northern california, so he didn't have to pay him. Just used, abused and thrown away.

someone said it's harder to go after the employers because most illegals do under the table jobs, day by day. If law enforcement can pick up a person attempting to buy sex, why would it be hard to pick up someone who is attempting to hire someone under the table? The employers should be the ones to face the consequences of hiring illegal employees. They're the ones that are exploiting the situation.

[ProudDad]

82. Charlie pleasantly surprised us here in Tucson...

Good on him...

And he would get sued either way so he picked the side of the Angels instead of joining the forces of hate and voter suppression.

But this law is SOOOOOO bad that it will never go into effect...

[rucky]

90. Don't Boycott Tucson!