Welcome to Gaia! ::

This article is from Yahoo news. And upon reading, I decided to look at the comment for it on yahoo and saw that it's basically 50/50 some people for it some not at all. So I wanna know how gaia feels on this subject. My personal opinion is that I don't mind the law at all, it's seems people are getting heated over the fact they have to now carry an extra piece of paper in their pocket. I mean yes it could and probably will cause racial profile (which does still happen to many people too, 9/ll anyone?) But at the end of the day all you really need to do is just go in your pocket and whip out your passport, id, or whatever and problem solved. Drive off and give the cop the middle finger (which will probably cause him to pull you over again ><) . But assuming that the person in question isn't doing anything illegal in the first place then this law shouldn't be a problem. Just go through the proper channels get the papers that you need, put them in your wallet, carry it with you and go about your day. But Like I said that's just my opinion on it but I want to know how other people feel. So write down what you think, and let's keep this civil with no unnecessary name calling or having region somehow brought into it. I just would like to to a good discussion go on. please and ty =3




Here's the article:

On Friday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the toughest anti-immigration law in the nation, which is set to go into effect by the end of July. The measure has reignited national debate over illegal immigration. Opponents are calling for mass boycotts of Arizona. President Obama is holding up the law as a prime example of state governments' "irresponsibility" on the issue — and therefore a key reason to speed up federal immigration reform. The president of Mexico is angry, protesters have smeared swastikas made out of refried beans on the glass doors of the Arizona House and Senate buildings, and critics have denounced the law as a blow to constitutional rights and an invitation to racial profiling. So what, exactly, is all the fuss about?

What the law does

The law requires police to ask for immigration papers from anyone whom they have a "reasonable suspicion" might be in the country illegally. Law-enforcement officials are also empowered to detain anyone they hold in such suspicion.

It's also a state crime under the new law for immigrants to be found without immigration papers; individual citizens, meanwhile, can file suit against state agencies that fail to enforce the law. Police can detain and demand papers from anyone they have "lawful contact" with, but since the law defines illegal immigrants as trespassing when in any part of the United States, this gives the police the freedom to question people who are otherwise not breaking the law or engaging in suspicious activity. Those found to be in the state illegally can be thrown in jail for six months and fined $2,500, a harsher penalty than the federal punishment of deportation.

A license to profile?

Since roughly 30 percent of Arizona is Hispanic and about 80 percent of illegal immigrants are also Hispanic, critics say the law basically mandates that police engage in racial profiling — i.e., apprehending people based on their appearance rather than on any evidence that they may be in violation of the law. After she signed the bill into law, the state's Republican governor discounted this view, saying that she had worked hard to amend the bill with language to prevent enforcement from "solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section." Critics have countered that the bill doesn't say what might be grounds for detention apart from race, color, or national origin.

The law has also picked up its share of Republican critics: On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today, host Joe Scarborough — a former GOP congressman from Florida — said he thinks Hispanics in Arizona who are in the U.S. legally will be targeted. "That is un-American. It is unacceptable and it is un-American."

Marco Rubio, a Republican Senate candidate in Florida, said that requiring people to carry documentation is "not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state." And former Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a longtime crusader against illegal immigration, thinks the law goes too far. "I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over," he said.

Brewer has sought to allay many such qualms by signing an executive order for law-enforcement officers to receive special training in the new law's implementation. Part of that training, she assured her constituents, will be a primer in what constitutes "reasonable suspicion."

"As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am EQUALLY committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an individual's rights," Brewer said in the statement.

Other supporters of the law see no cause to soften any of its strictures. State Sen. Russell Pearce, who authored the bill, told CNN that with its passage, "we're going to take the handcuffs off law enforcement, we're gonna put them on the bad guy. 'Illegal' is not a race, it's a crime."

Backlash and Boycotts

Though a Rasmussen poll says 60 percent of Americans favor provisions like those in the Arizona law, the measure has sparked passionate opposition and debate. President Obama slammed the bill before Brewer signed it, saying it threatened "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." Mexican President Felipe Calderon also spoke out against the bill, saying it "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination, and abuse in law enforcement" and that border relations would suffer.

Detractors of the new law are already planning to hit Arizona where it hurts most: the state's coffers. The city of San Francisco submitted a resolution today calling for residents to cut all business ties with Arizona. Democratic Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona is calling for a boycott of all conventions in Arizona — a striking stand for a lawmaker to take in his home state. The board of governors of the American Immigration Lawyers Association has canceled its convention in Scottsdale. One inn owner in Tucson told the New York Times that 12 customers had canceled reservations or said they would not return to Arizona over the weekend in protest of the law.

It's far too early to forecast what the impact of a national boycott might be on Arizona's tourist economy. But there is a recent precedent: In 1992, the state caved on its refusal to acknowledge Martin Luther King Day as a holiday after boycotts that culminated in the loss of a lucrative deal to host Super Bowl XXVII in Phoenix. On Monday, Brewer discounted reports of possible economic duress for the state, saying the law isn't "going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think it might."

Why Now?

According to Princeton political scientist Douglas Massey, the number of illegal immigrants dropped by 100,000 in Arizona over just the last year and has fallen from 12.6 million in 2008 to 10.8 million in 2009 countrywide, as the recession means fewer jobs for immigrants and U.S. citizens alike.

But a combination of factors has brought the immigration debate to the forefront in Arizona. First, the murder of a prominent rancher in March, suspected to be the work an illegal immigrant with connections to the cross-border drug trade, sparked fresh anxieties that the drug violence in Mexico could spill over the border with renewed force. Second, it's an election year, and both Gov. Brewer and Sen. John McCain are facing strong primary challenges from the right. McCain, who once co-sponsored federal legislation that would put many illegal immigrants on the path to citizenship, appeared to embrace the law right before it was passed, saying that it need not entail any racial profiling — while also pointing out that President Obama has "failed to secure our borders."

Also, what constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?

Oh wow. That took me totally by surprise. I had no idea. That's crazy! Thanks for linking.

Pretty much this!

I can talk really loud too! biggrin

Lord I hate him confused

Can someone give me a link to the ENTIRE law? I cannot find it to save my life.