[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

Point that out. That's not what I understood from what I've read from the published law.

From the factsheet:

"Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state..."

What's he got to with the new law?

He's one of the main vocal backers.

Sure he's had his issues with the abuse of power

Deliberately had at least two people killed and one paralysed for life, yes.

Certainly NOT having this law didn't prevent a bully from being a bully.

So giving him more tools to abuse is a good idea?

That's why we need civilian oversight of our law enforcement community.

You already elect your law enforcement leaders, and that's where much of the issue comes from in the first place. Oversight of the wrong (politically motivated) sort is worse, afaik, than lax oversight.

otherwise by your logic we should apparently eliminate ALL laws as the laws themselves are causing the abuse of police power.

Many laws not essential to the functioning of the state and protection of people's freedoms, yes. The law should never, ever, be an ass.

Also as far as Joe is concerned not all of what he did was bad

Mm-hum. HE HAD AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE MURDERED. Shit, there's nothing someone won't defend.

Make the penalty sever enough to both the coyote AND the person conspiring to enter this country illegally and maybe more of an effort will be made to enter this country LEGALLY.

Not as long as there's a death grip on the numbers entering legally, no effective control over the border and higher wages on the American side. All you do is ensure the Coyote's grip over the people they've trafficked.

Same reasoning you're using as is used in the War on Drugs, remind me how well that's going? (Hint: drug import volume's up again)

Explain to me where in the law it states this? If you could quote it, I may have missed it, and if I did I'd like it pointed out.

Here, for example. Offences can lead to deportation.

I believe those are no longer moot in the US. There is no apartheid, nor any active "Jim Crow" laws in this US that I am aware of, and have not been so for quite some time prior to AZ enacting this law, so you'll need to explain the relevancy of the question.

I believe you're ducking the question. Those laws were entirely legal, and you have called for adherence to all laws. Your not answering the question is an answer in itself, you realise?

So we have to not even bother going after the ILLEGAL immigrants for fear of offending the occassional legal immigrant?

Assumption: You're "offending" the "occassional" legal immigrant. The correct words are "deporting" and "a large proportion of". To explain, see, legal immigrants are the people from other countries you want sticking around, and removing them is not generally considered a good thing.

A simple wording change would protect legal immigrants, but the Governor of Arizona has refused to do so. This means you can't realistically pretend that this is about anything but ALL immigrants, legal and illegal both.

I think not...

Well, you said it, not me. But hey, thanks for admitting it.