You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 02:26:03 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?  (Read 13749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #75 on: May 17, 2010, 02:03:06 PM »
Problem with the sheriff's argument is that anyone over 18 is legally required to posess a picture I.D. and migrants are already required by federal law to keep proof of legal immigration status. The law doesn't say you can pull over a beat up truck with six lightly browned people in the back. It says you're supposed to do your job when you pull someone over. Failure to relinquish an I.D. and then the visa, or compliance with the former and not the later, OR if any of the documents look illegitimate/ altered is all the reasonable suspicion you need.

About being sued? Let's just say you'd need a really good lawyer or a really stupid cop. As far as I know, mics and dashcams are standard to protect the officer and the suspect. If the video shows the officer following proceedure then they're just doing their job. If it shows the officer making an ass out of themself or there's no video at all, the court would likely rule for the victim.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If someone is racially profiled against, blame the human element, not the legal one.

Offline Jude

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #76 on: May 17, 2010, 02:51:17 PM »
Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

The law doesn't always work as intended, the way it is enforced and practical consequences need to be taken into account when consider the law, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #77 on: May 17, 2010, 04:56:34 PM »
Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

...!

Clearly the solution is to uninvent racial profiling. Jude, you're a genius! A mad, mad genius! <3

Offline Scott

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #78 on: May 17, 2010, 07:22:36 PM »
Tell them to move or carry the papers, what's the big deal?

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #79 on: May 17, 2010, 07:41:44 PM »
Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

The law doesn't always work as intended, the way it is enforced and practical consequences need to be taken into account when consider the law, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Which if you read the rest of my post you would understand that there are already checks and balances in place and consequences if that law isn't executed properly.

Offline Brandon

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #80 on: May 17, 2010, 09:26:42 PM »
Guns don't kill people, but you can bet before they were invented there were a lot fewer shooting deaths.

I suppose that depends on what you define as shootings. When Gengas Khan was taking over Asia were the soldiers and civilians killed by bow and arrow shooting deaths?

That doesnt take out of account that sharp pieces of metal, thrown stones, or beatings werent the causes of murder. In fact it was much easier to get away with back then too so I imagine murder rates would have been higher before the invention of guns.

Offline Jude

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #81 on: May 17, 2010, 09:37:39 PM »
I'm not arguing anymore about the analogy--my point was just to reference how silly it was to make such a comparison.  That seems to have served its purpose.

As for the safeguards, I don't see any that prevent racial profiling.  Suspicious is still going to mean Hispanic--unless you think they're going to ask everyone who they pull over for their immigration papers, regardless of how they look or their mastery of the English Language (combined with a Spanish accent).  The law is still ridiculously open for abuse.  Confirmation bias and the subtle workings of the human mind make it impossible not to enforce the law as it's written with racial profiling in the back of your mind.

1)  What you're claiming Lyell I've only seen corroborated by one news source which had a well-known conservative/Republican slant.  It's based off of the legal definition of lawful contact, something I know nothing about.  I think I'm justified in my reluctance of accepting a biased source's interpretation.  If you could show us a non-partisan, neutral interpretation of the law that backs your opinion, I'd feel a bit more comfortable about it.

2)  Even if that is so, the language they used in detailing when to ask for immigration paperwork is ridiculously vague and open to abuse.

3)  And, assuming that they can only check these things when they stop someone for something else, that does not necessarily mean that they can only check these things when they're dealing with a criminal who is guilty of breaking something other than immigration laws.  Remember, innocent people get stopped by the police too.

(I don't know if you've made a point in contradiction of that particular thought, but I decided to head that false assumption off at the pass in case anyone was making it.)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 09:46:12 PM by Jude »

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2010, 03:13:44 PM »
I'm not arguing anymore about the analogy--my point was just to reference how silly it was to make such a comparison.  That seems to have served its purpose.

Blame the people, not the tool. I'm glad to see that qualifies as silly in everyone's eyes.

As for the safeguards, I don't see any that prevent racial profiling.  Suspicious is still going to mean Hispanic--unless you think they're going to ask everyone who they pull over for their immigration papers, regardless of how they look or their mastery of the English Language (combined with a Spanish accent).  The law is still ridiculously open for abuse.  Confirmation bias and the subtle workings of the human mind make it impossible not to enforce the law as it's written with racial profiling in the back of your mind.

And if it were in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana or Florida it'd still be racial profiling because there's only one typical immigrant, right? Does that mean it'd be okay in California (not that they'd ever pass a law like this there) because there's more than one typical suspicion? Or is it because you think skin color and accent are the only things officers would look for?

1)  What you're claiming Lyell I've only seen corroborated by one news source which had a well-known conservative/Republican slant.  It's based off of the legal definition of lawful contact, something I know nothing about.  I think I'm justified in my reluctance of accepting a biased source's interpretation.  If you could show us a non-partisan, neutral interpretation of the law that backs your opinion, I'd feel a bit more comfortable about it.

Bolded for emphasis, because they don't exist. Everyone in this country is either giving Arizona a pat on the back or threatening to gut all interstate connections. The reason I mentioned it is because I understood it, not because it's my opinion. I'm studying criminal justice with the goal of joining the police force.

2)  Even if that is so, the language they used in detailing when to ask for immigration paperwork is ridiculously vague and open to abuse.

All laws regarding police proceedure and conduct are created with the human element in mind to leave some discretion up to the officer. If some officer actually testifies in court that he asked for immigration documents on the basis of "His skin was slightly darker than mine and he talked funny" I will laugh my ass off and reccomend his resignation. Failure to produce a lisence, producing a phoney lisence or reluctance are three distinct scenarios in the span of 3 seconds that an officer has to use to make a judgement call.

3)  And, assuming that they can only check these things when they stop someone for something else, that does not necessarily mean that they can only check these things when they're dealing with a criminal who is guilty of breaking something other than immigration laws.  Remember, innocent people get stopped by the police too.

An officer has an obligation to identify witnesses. That's probably the only instance in which a bystander would be asked for their I.D. Loitering or Soliciting in a place that prohibits it doesn't qualify as innocent bystander material. You STILL have to commit a crime or give the police probable cause that you HAVE committed a crime before they can ask you for any documentation of immigrant status. If there isn't any, that's what the "you can sue us" portion of the law is for.

Offline Jude

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2010, 03:53:51 PM »
Blame the people, not the tool. I'm glad to see that qualifies as silly in everyone's eyes.
How the law is applied is very different from how a gun is used.  Precedence, anyone?
And if it were in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana or Florida it'd still be racial profiling because there's only one typical immigrant, right? Does that mean it'd be okay in California (not that they'd ever pass a law like this there) because there's more than one typical suspicion? Or is it because you think skin color and accent are the only things officers would look for?
I don't think they're the only things that they'll look for, but it's definitely going to be a point of suspicion.
Bolded for emphasis, because they don't exist. Everyone in this country is either giving Arizona a pat on the back or threatening to gut all interstate connections. The reason I mentioned it is because I understood it, not because it's my opinion. I'm studying criminal justice with the goal of joining the police force.
It's still your opinion, even if it's based on something.  And if it's based on something that's solid, you could always link to that as evidence to back up your claim.  Also, there are people who are in the middle, saying there's no one is a bit silly.  Personally, I'm a little confused as to what to believe.  If someone could actually show to me that the interpretation that you are offering is true, and if someone could convince me that racial profiling isn't likely to occur, I think I'd probably support it.  I find complete support for this law just as ridiculous as I find the Nazi Germany comparisons.
All laws regarding police proceedure and conduct are created with the human element in mind to leave some discretion up to the officer. If some officer actually testifies in court that he asked for immigration documents on the basis of "His skin was slightly darker than mine and he talked funny" I will laugh my ass off and reccomend his resignation. Failure to produce a lisence, producing a phoney lisence or reluctance are three distinct scenarios in the span of 3 seconds that an officer has to use to make a judgement call.
The thing is, people are very good at justifying their behavior.  They won't actually say in court that it's because the color of their skin.  The law is so complicated and vast that if a police officer really wants to find a reason to be suspicious, they can do it--people tend to act extremely erratic around the police whether they're guilty of something or not.
An officer has an obligation to identify witnesses. That's probably the only instance in which a bystander would be asked for their I.D. Loitering or Soliciting in a place that prohibits it doesn't qualify as innocent bystander material. You STILL have to commit a crime or give the police probable cause that you HAVE committed a crime before they can ask you for any documentation of immigrant status. If there isn't any, that's what the "you can sue us" portion of the law is for.
I get that they're only supposed to approach them, according to you, if they can find a legal reason to do so.  I just don't think it's that hard to find a reason to suspect someone of breaking a crime if you look hard enough.  What do most people think when they look at a Mexican who only speaks Spanish?  The Police will then look for a reason to ask for their papers--again it's not very hard.

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2010, 05:23:25 PM »
How the law is applied is very different from how a gun is used.  Precedence, anyone?

You point a gun at a target. It makes a loud noise and the target is destroyed. You make a law to prevent a behavior. The behavior is destroyed, or people suffer consequences. Ofcourse, this behavior was already illegal, so I guess we didn't need a new law. Or gun in this case. Whatever. The metaphor (as abstract as it was) isn't important.

I don't think they're the only things that they'll look for, but it's definitely going to be a point of suspicion.
Quote

So you agree with my previous point that past experiences influence future judgements, I'm guessing?

It's still your opinion, even if it's based on something.  And if it's based on something that's solid, you could always link to that as evidence to back up your claim.  Also, there are people who are in the middle, saying there's no one is a bit silly.  Personally, I'm a little confused as to what to believe.  If someone could actually show to me that the interpretation that you are offering is true, and if someone could convince me that racial profiling isn't likely to occur, I think I'd probably support it.  I find complete support for this law just as ridiculous as I find the Nazi Germany comparisons.

You know, and I know, and I'm pretty sure everyone in this entire forum knows that Arizona isn't worried about being overrun by undocumented Canadians. That you're asking me to provide proof that the police won't do something that hasen't been given the chance to happen is an uncompeltable task. I will however provide proof of my previous claims.

Legal Requirement to Posess an I.D. while driving (each state is different, so I'll post Arizona's)- Okay, you got me. I honestly can't find anything that requires you to have an I.D. on you ANYMORE. Probably because patrol cars have laptops in them linked to the DOPS's database so they can look up your information and confirm it anyways. However Arizona's Penal Code statute 13-2412 states:

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Reason that failure to communicate in English is a valid suspicion for illegal immigration status- Naturalized citizens must demonstrate an ability to speak, read and write basic English.
http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-overview.html
-Requirements for Naturalization: Literacy and Education

A cop that stops a car driven by someone speaking English and possessing a valid driverís license or valid DOPS entry can be fairly sure that person is a US citizen. A cop that interviews someone that is behaving suspiciously and receives answers in English accompanied by some form of ID or a valid DOPS entry can be fairly sure that person is a US citizen. A person who cannot answer basic questions in english and/or can/will not give their name is a valid suspect.

It really needn't be any more difficult than that for 99% of instances.

The thing is, people are very good at justifying their behavior.  They won't actually say in court that it's because the color of their skin.  The law is so complicated and vast that if a police officer really wants to find a reason to be suspicious, they can do it--people tend to act extremely erratic around the police whether they're guilty of something or not.

Well, now, that's an opinion. One I could easily contradict by saying that most people I know have little or no fear of police officers. They're fairly friendly, and good conversationalists given the chance. Lots of attention to detail too.

I get that they're only supposed to approach them, according to you, if they can find a legal reason to do so.  I just don't think it's that hard to find a reason to suspect someone of breaking a crime if you look hard enough.  What do most people think when they look at a Mexican who only speaks Spanish?  The Police will then look for a reason to ask for their papers--again it's not very hard.

As I stated above, that's already enough reason as set by national standards for naturalized citizens.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #85 on: May 19, 2010, 01:57:58 PM »
Excuse me stop all  the talk here lets get down to the basic fact everyone seems not to be getting here with this law that I hope other states will adopt -

The People In Question are ILLEGAL and Are Breaking the Law

The states have the right under the 10th Amendment to pass laws and enforce them inside their state as they see fit if its not in violation of other areas and this law was CAREFULLY tailored to be sure people had more rights than under Federal Law. If they may end up having to target Hispanic persons its simply geography since most of the illegals of concern are south of the border in or through Mexico.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #86 on: May 21, 2010, 03:43:30 PM »
Itís a place to vent.  If people did not have an organized outlet for these discussions they would appear in the public Off Topic forums.  Staff would be forced to police with more diligence and more restrictions to keep things in line.  There would be more resentment by the populace and accusations of favoritism.  This is essentially the ďarenaĒ for gladiators to get out their frustrations at world events and such in a more controlled environment.  If the forum disgusts you such then please refrain from reading the posts and the forum especially since this is four pages of text you showed a good deal of effort on something you hate.  Also, refrain from posting in the forums you hate with such diligence.

Back to the discussion at hand please.

Offline Jude

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #87 on: May 21, 2010, 04:09:43 PM »
It's a bit silly to wander in, state how you don't like the fact that this sort of thing is being discussed, then state your opinion and leave.  It really smacks of an inability to accept criticism of your own ideas and wanting for other people to uncritically listen to what you have to say without having to return the favor.

Offline Cythieus

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #88 on: June 13, 2010, 04:46:26 AM »
This law was changed and really is perfectly fine now, in fact every state should make it policy. The dumb thing is that when we tried to do it in Houston, people got out and protested. Some of them admitting to being illegal on the news. I think that should get you arrested and deported on the spot.

What the law basically says now is the cops will conduct a background check that includes a check of citizenship. They don't do that already. In fact we've had several people arrested here that were illegal immigrants and no one knew till well after they had been arrested for other crimes. One of them it wasn't known about until he escaped and killed a cop. I think the problem people don't see is that there is an issue with illegal immigration and it doesn't matter how bad off your country is, you can't break the law and come here when there are those waiting patiently in line to come here legally.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #89 on: June 15, 2010, 10:23:42 AM »
Anti-immigrant laws are apparently like Lays: you really can't have just one.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/_GyKGHq-i0YYccgTJr

This one doesn't sit well with me because it really seems like they are punishing the kids for the sins of the parents.

Offline Aiden

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #90 on: June 15, 2010, 11:18:16 AM »
Anti-immigrant laws are apparently like Lays: you really can't have just one.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/_GyKGHq-i0YYccgTJr

This one doesn't sit well with me because it really seems like they are punishing the kids for the sins of the parents.

linky no work!

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #91 on: June 15, 2010, 11:20:00 AM »
Try taking out the m and just going to cnn.com_____ since you're not mobile.

Offline Aiden

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #92 on: June 15, 2010, 11:24:27 AM »
Is it the one on deny citizen ship to US born children of immigrants?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/index.html?hpt=Mid

If that bill passes then it really is going to get ugly, I am seething at the thought of it alone.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #93 on: June 15, 2010, 11:50:30 AM »
Yes it is, thank you very much Aiden.

If they aren't US citizens, what country will they claim? Would they have to claim citizenship in whatever country their parents are citizens of? Or would we be creating this generation of nation-less nomads not really subject to anyone's protection? Citizenship bestows rights, but it's also important for protection.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #94 on: June 15, 2010, 11:58:43 AM »
When my parents were stationed in Germany (like, 10 years before I came into the world), my two older sisters were born.  They automatically had the citizenship of my parents, and I believe at the time, they also had German citizenship.  I also believe that at some point they relinquished that dual citizenship.  This may have been a special consideration due to Dad being in the Army, but parental citizenship seems to have some ability to confer.

(I'm not sure if it could confer if the parent was a legal immigrant with dual citizenship - if so, then theoretically, one could eventually end up with a child who is inclusively a 'citizen of the world'.)

Offline auroraChloe

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #95 on: June 15, 2010, 12:00:57 PM »
Yes it is, thank you very much Aiden.

If they aren't US citizens, what country will they claim? Would they have to claim citizenship in whatever country their parents are citizens of? Or would we be creating this generation of nation-less nomads not really subject to anyone's protection? Citizenship bestows rights, but it's also important for protection.

it would take changing the constitution.. an amendment or something.  that would never pass and states rights only go so far.

it's a quagmire, and not a giggity one.   :-(



Oniya..  isn't any baby born on an american military base considered a citizen of the usa ? 

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #96 on: June 15, 2010, 12:06:57 PM »
Looked it up:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_two_United_States_citizens

If both your parents are US citizens, then even if you're born abroad, you are a citizen.  It's the German half of it that I'm not entirely sure I'm remembering correctly

Offline Aiden

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #97 on: June 15, 2010, 12:12:30 PM »
It is getting really bad in Arizona and it is going to get to a boiling point soon. Here in California families were being destroyed because of immigration sweeps, border patrol agents were setting up shop at schools that had US born children of immigrants and they would be deported. Out of fear these kids were not picked up or sent others in their place.

What happens when you deport these parents and leave their children behind home alone? (It has happened here). I read a story of parents who were deported leaving the kids at home, so not only did they lose their home (because who is gonna work and pay the bills if they are out of country) the children went into state custody.

Fuck this topic really boils my blood, I am gonna stay out of it now.
(I was the US born offspring of immigrants before my parents got their citizenship from my godfather who knew people to contact in the right places, others are not as lucky as my parents were)
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 12:14:02 PM by Aiden »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #98 on: June 15, 2010, 12:41:17 PM »
It's possible that this law is an attempt to be able to legally send kids back with their parents instead of put them in foster care. Even if their parents are dirt poor, I really feel like the kids would more than likely have a better chance with their parents than they would in the public care system.

Because it involves kids, this is going to draw emotional responses. I'd normally be supportive of such legislature, if it weren't for the fact that it forces the poor kid to break the law just by being born. That's not fair, that's not right.

It's like, okay Arizona, we get that you're pissed and fed up with illegal immigration. Can you give it a rest long enough to clean up the Gulf, and THEN go back to pounding the gavel?

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #99 on: June 15, 2010, 12:58:03 PM »
For the children of immigrants they should be citizens of their parents nation of one is an American then there you go. If not and they are born on US soil let them apply just like anyone else when they are at least eighteen years old with special consideration say a fast track to citizenship if they surrender loyalties to their parents nation.

And excuse me if a child is born of an illegal immigrant and an American citizen and there is an issue the illegal must go back to say Mexico, can't the American and child immigrate to the nation the other parent came from? I would think they would have the right to do that?

Or just marry the American and apply for citizenship that way.

As for the law its legal they are enforcing a state law and have the right to enforce Federal Law as in finding and reporting illegals, so I see no problem with the Arizona Law we need one like that in Florida.