Arizona’s immigration law is constitutionally troubling

Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, just days old, already is sparking challenges and extensive controversy.  Most Republicans, including many self-proclaimed “conservatives” who might otherwise oppose expanding government police powers, have lined up squarely behind this measure.  This is mystifying.

The law is fundamentally at odds with principles of federalism designed to reflect proper spheres of authority as between state and federal governments.  It also is in conflict with traditional notions that the police are not permitted to stop and detain individuals based on mere suspicion.

Many supporters of this measure appear to have concluded that, since the federal government has not been sufficiently vigorous or consistent in its enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration, it is perfectly permissible for the states to step up to the plate and take on this responsibility.  Interestingly, this argument has rarely, if ever, been employed to justify states stepping into federal law enforcement shoes in any context other than immigration. 

Protecting our borders is in fact a singularly federal function; reflecting the fundamental responsibility of the national government to protect our sovereignty.  Traditionally, and appropriately, states have not been permitted to assume federal government functions; just as Washington should not be permitted to assert powers properly left to the states.  This split of enforcement authority – while in modern times often not honored by the federal government – is codified in the Constitution, including in the Tenth Amendment.

There are any number of federal laws and responsibilities that do not receive the attention many citizens and state governments believe they should; but this is hardly reason to jettison constitutionally-sound principles of federalism, and open the floodgates to states assuming federal functions. 

The vast and virtually unfettered power the new Arizona law grants local law enforcement to stop, question and detain individuals to determine if they are in the country lawfully, is even more troubling.  But here also, many citizens, state legislators, commentators, and of course, members of Congress, appear far too ready to grant police this broad power simply because it purports to address the problem of illegal immigration.

While a number of Republican supporters of the Arizona law claim that its provisions would come into play only after a police officer had lawfully stopped an individual for another offense, the clear language of the law says otherwise.  Under it, an officer need only have “lawful contact” with a person – which can be something as innocuous as passing them on the sidewalk – to provide the officer the justification to demand the person produce papers establishing their lawful status in the United States.  The only predicate then required, is that the officer have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an unlawful alien – based on what, the statute does not say.

The new law includes many other provisions troubling because of their vagueness and breadth.  For example, a person is subject to arrest without a warrant if an officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed an offense that makes them “removable from the United States.” Determining exactly which offenses make someone “removable” is hardly an exact science.  But, insofar as being in the country unlawfully subjects one to “removal,” this provision in the law becomes completely circular.

Hopefully, the federal courts will quickly avail themselves of the opportunity to determine the constitutionality of this Arizona law.  And hopefully, they will find its exceptionally broad grant of police detention powers to be unconstitutional.  If not, it won’t be long before the same powers are sought and applied to other areas in which police agencies want to enhance their ability to detain and question individuals.  Once released, this genie will not easily be returned to the bottle

252 comments Add your comment


May 4th, 2010
2:11 pm

Big party tomorrow. Mexican Christmas.

Juan Carlos Diego Raul Sanchez

May 4th, 2010
2:14 pm

You stupid douche bag. It’s a federal freaking law that AZ is going to adhere to. I wish we could box up all of the brown leeches and send them back. They are a threat to our national security, they take jobs from us that are citizens, and the fact that we have to pay for their stupid a** kids to go to school. They just sit there “si” “no”. Go to Mexico on vacation and leave the resort – see how many times you get asked to show your passport…you are a foot fungus troglodyte

You can call me Al-Quaida

May 4th, 2010
2:15 pm

Bob Barr is an honorable man & is absolutely correct on this one. Leaving US borders open can only help my fellow terrorists in coming to America. I have already spent the last several months learning Spanish, I’ve shaved my beard (kept my mustache though), worked on my tan, wear cowboy boots & I am now going by the name Jesus (ironic no?). So hopefully the US gov’t. will overturn this law, so we can continue to build our terrorist cells in your country & someday perpetrate mass Jihad on all you infidels.


May 4th, 2010
2:19 pm

You guys can get as mad as you want. This law doesn’t stand a chance.

Get Real

May 4th, 2010
2:21 pm

Even the Liberal news CNN showed and discussed the amount of mid-easterners found trying to cross the border. That’s how the dirty bomb will be brought into the USA, via open border! The way these hispanics reproduce when in the USA they will soon be the majority and we will be like the American Indians once were. Seal up the borders now and Arizona won’t have to resort to these measures. Seal the borders and deport all illegals immediately!

Get Real

May 4th, 2010
2:24 pm

BTW Bob, enter Iran, North Korea, China, Vennezula, Cuba, etc. and see what you get! It’s won’t be a government handout and freedom to do as you wish! And, I don’t think you will be protesting the unfairness of the welcome you received!


May 4th, 2010
2:31 pm

It must be terrible going through life as scared as all of you are.

You are too chicken-sh*t to realize that every tiny bit of freedom you give up isn’t ever going to come back.

I would rather be dead than give up my freedoms to government control. Thank God this isn’t a police state. The local authorities have no right to ask me for anything unless they have probable cause.

You call yourselves conservatives? You should be ashamed of yourselves.


May 4th, 2010
2:46 pm

No progress,,

Is that sorta ’separate but equal’?
As long as you have ID everything should be fine..

So I have to carry ID at all times because I’m Hispanic even though I am an American and my family has lived in TX for almost forever.. No one in my family ever crossed any borders. Notice all the Spanish surnames at the Alamo.. But to PROVE to some cop who thinks I ‘Look Mexican’ that I am a US citizen.?!

I have to carry ID at all times for fear of being questioned/detained.

And maybe a driver’s license won’t be enough..

Check out this video link below… Is this what you hope for our country to become? Have Conservatives become so completely racist that they would rather have a Nazi like Police State government all in the name of getting rid of all the little brown people.

sam adams

May 4th, 2010
2:47 pm

i’m glad someone has finally awakened to the fact that the “conservative” wing of the republican party has been giving away my rights for years now! fear of terrorists, fear of foreigners, fear of financial ruin — they always have some excuse to scare themselves into giving away my rights…when did AMERICANS become such wussies???


May 4th, 2010
2:55 pm

Why is it that so-called conservatives are all about “Less gov’t., more freedom”, yet they want our gov’t. to force a woman to have a baby, drill for oil on pristine land or on our coasts (where’s the conservation in that?), tell me I am not responsible enough to purchase alcohol on Sunday and continue to allow our borders to remain porous, while spending billions on a war in Iraq, when everyone knows it was the Saudi’s (whom Barack bows down to) that we should be dealing with. I will gladly carry & show my ID in order for the US to remain a safe & free country!


May 4th, 2010
3:08 pm

Is this the same Bob Barr who spoke at a Minutemen Rally in D.C. 2 years ago when he was running for President?

Eat the Immigrants

May 4th, 2010
3:15 pm

The national government is not going to do anything right now, so it’s good to see that a state is taking action. If the illegals want to pay my taxes for me, then I’m ok if they want to stay.


May 4th, 2010
3:16 pm

Juan Carlos Diego Raul Sanchez
May 4th, 2010
2:14 pm

You stupid douche bag. It’s a federal freaking law that AZ is going to adhere to. I wish we could box up all of the brown leeches and send them back. They are a threat to our national security, they take jobs from us that are citizens, and the fact that we have to pay for their stupid a** kids to go to school. They just sit there “si” “no”. Go to Mexico on vacation and leave the resort – see how many times you get asked to show your passport…you are a foot fungus troglodyte

Juan Carlos,,,
Why don’t you do something with your life if you have to compete with the work the illegal immigrants are doing.


May 4th, 2010
3:44 pm

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. – Benjamin Franklyn


May 4th, 2010
4:36 pm

Our government is supposed to protect it’s citizens. Yet Rob Krentz among others have lost their lives due to illegal immigration.
Arizona did the right thing. Most Americans are pro-SB 1070.

Honest Abe

May 4th, 2010
4:38 pm

Everyone should read this by attorney Walter Moore!

The Dishonest Debate about Arizona and amnesty.


May 4th, 2010
4:49 pm

The Arizona will be found to be Constitutional. While the Feds claim that the Constitution gives the Feds the sole right to control Immigration, and base that claim on the short statement in the Constitution- the process of Naturalization is reserved to the Federal government. The process reserved to the Feds is the issue of Legal immigration and how someone, an aien, will be admitted to citizenship.

The criminalization of the act of invading this nation, as an illegal alien, is no where reserved to the Feds. No where in the Constitution are the states pre-empted from enacting criminal statutes. As an example, bank robbery is a State and Federal Crime- the prosecution of which, in many instances, is left in the hands of state prosecutors.

As for Bobby Barr, he has his own ax to gring. As for the law abiding citizens of the country– we no longer trust Bobby and those of his ilk, that being the political class, to protect US.

No More Progressives!

May 4th, 2010
5:18 pm


May 4th, 2010
2:46 pm
No progress,,

So I have to carry ID at all times because I’m Hispanic even though I am an American and my family has lived in TX for almost forever.. No one in my family ever crossed any borders. Notice all the Spanish surnames at the Alamo.. But to PROVE to some cop who thinks I ‘Look Mexican’ that I am a US citizen.?!

For the last time, the way the Arizona law was written, a police officer cannot stop you “because you look Mexican.”

If you ran a red light, caused a disturbance, shoplifted, etc., and the police officer has engaged you for a legal reason (probable cause, the phrase you’re having so much trouble with) then he can proceed by searching your trunk, asking you for ID, etc. If, in the course of his legal contact with you, he discovers that you’re here illegally, action may be taken.

And I’m glad you’re an American. But you’re taking this way too personally. Mention has been made about the rancher Kertz, who was killed. Arizona is under seige! They have to do something!


May 4th, 2010
5:26 pm

I disrespectfully disagree. This commentary shows just how far into the abyss of Libertarianism (where “laissez faire” rules over common sense) the once-conservative Bob Barr has fallen.

Honest Abe

May 4th, 2010
5:27 pm

Contact every politician or City such as West Hollywood, City of Carson, Los Angeles,
and San Diego for opposing Arizona’s new law. Give them hell!

The law is Constitutional!


May 4th, 2010
5:28 pm

When they came for the agricultural jobs, I said nothing because I didn’t pick strawberries or tomatoes. When they came for the service jobs, I didn’t say anything because I didn’t bus tables or wash dishes.
When they came for the construction jobs I was silent because I didn’t build houses.
When they exported my neighbors job to India, I was quiet because it wasn’t my job.
When my boss replaced me with a legal H-1a visa holder, there was no one left to speak for me.


May 4th, 2010
5:31 pm

I am Hispanic and I do not fear being asked about my legality. It’s the damn illegals
that are in an uproar because they know they are not supposed to be here.
The Hispanic groups are in an uproar because their TAKE OVER PLANS may be
Don’t be stupid white people the Mexicans want to take over and have been planning it
for about 4 decades!
U are all so stupid to have allowed this crap to happen!


May 4th, 2010
6:01 pm

Mr. Barr,

You are not correct in your assumption that it is a federal responsibility only. While it is a federal responsibility, most laws are actually repeated in state laws as well, such as robbery and kidnapping. This is no different. The below link shows the law relating to the arrest of an illegal alien. It is in the US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII > § 1324.—-000-.html
(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

“All other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws” includes both state and municipal law enforcement officers.


May 4th, 2010
7:38 pm

The Constitution gives USA Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The Constitution also requires the Federal Government to GUARANTEE each state freedom from invasion.

I don’t see anything in there that prevents the State Government from enforcing Federal Law.

I further think that “GUARANTEE” is about the STRONGEST word in the Constitution and if the Federal Government won’t live up to that obligation that they can STFU.


May 4th, 2010
7:57 pm

As one that lives in the Border State of Texas, I applaud Arizona for stepping up to the plate to protect their citizens. The MSM will not provide the real truth about what is going on, not just at the border but beyond. What the MSM will not tell you is there are a lot of Hispanics that are in favor of this law as well.They intend on lumping all Hispanics into a box to further their agenda.
Immigration and Naturalization Law passed in 1952. It made it a Felony for anyone to aid, abet or provide comfort to those in this country illegally. That included elected officials and law enforcement. What Arizona has done is nothing new however the open border groups that staged the May 1st protest along with Communist, Socialist and other groups calling for a Revolution in the US know this very well but they count of the forever silent American Citizens,many who are the real victims of Illegal Immigrants, to remain silent.As one that is in the Mortage Industry I can attest to the fact millions of illegals falsely claimed to be an American Citizen in order to obtain a home under the same guidelines as Citizens/Legal Immigrants.This is another Felony. So when those the speak the loudest try to proclaim illegal immigration is a victimless crime, stop and think of the additional crimes they commit once then illegally enter this country. I personally turned a man from the Dominican Republic into the FBI for his mortgage fraud committed against a retiree. The man racked over 3 million in fraudulent mortgages..all cash out under the SS# of a woman drawing SS. It was up to her to prove she did not take out these mortgages and had her SS suspended and bank account frozen all the while the illegal took the millions and ran…..
Rape, robbery, identity theft, voter fraud, murder…these are all acts committed against American Citizens/Legal immigrants by those that should not be here in the first place. So when Mr. Barr states it should be the Federal Governments job, they have failed ,not only this country but every citizen/legal immigrant.
If we are a nation of laws, we need to stand up, if we are not, then just open the border and become what many illegals have left.
As for the “racial profiling” Hispanics are classified as White…maybe I should revert to my Ethnicity which would make me a minority, and refuse to “show my papers” somehow, I don’t think I will get a free gratias….I show my “papers” everyday including not being able to write a check without proving who I am…do you think if I refuse Mr. Al will march in protest?

jimmy martin

May 4th, 2010
8:16 pm

What’s the problem? All interstate and local class A truck drivers have national ID’s and have to show them, sometimes, several times a day. It is the illegals (ALL felons) who are fighting this new law in AZ. I hear no problem from the American citizens showing their ID’s. They are proud to show they are American citizens and NOT Illegal felons who are stealing our jobs and benefits. With a coward “president” we must do what we must do. Arizona is just the first step. People of color (non caucasian) who are legal citizens are screaming for something to be done to get the illegals out of the jobs they used to have. First it was the elevator operators in California….as for agriculture…use prison labor!!!

lance sjogren

May 4th, 2010
8:19 pm


Don’t play dumb. Everyone believes government has certain roles, but people who fall on different places on the political spectrum differ on what those roles are.

Libertarians do believe in little or no government, in fact I would say they are borderline anarchists. Conservatives are not the same as Libertarians, however. They believe there are certain functions that the government not only should perform but has an obligation to perform. One of those functions is securing our borders.


May 4th, 2010
8:29 pm

no progress,,

if a driver fails to come to a complete stop, receives a ticket, and then the police officer looks in the car and sees a Hispanic in the passenger side, then do they have reason to ask for the passengers ID? which i never carry, i don’t care how many times you say you need yours daily.. I don’t. nor am I required to carry ID on me, but if i don’t have it then poss. off to detention?! Of course, I would sue as I’m sure many others would too. Which might be a much larger problem for AZ than the illegals.

If not by skin color, then how do police officers decide whose legal status to check.?

I notice you didn’t comment on the video.. That’s the problem with this law. I don’t believe that police officers will always just stop for a ‘first offense’. And I don’t believe a Drivers License will always be sufficient enough to ‘prove’ one is American. Look for yourself all the police brutality videos on you tube. AZ is giving too much power to their police.

And it’s not personal, I just can’t believe so many cannot see how much room for abuse there is. Normally, if one jaywalks do you think an officer would arrest them? Well, now they can if you can’t prove right then and there that you’re a US citizen.

People from all over keep saying the constitution does not apply to illegals, that’s fine. My argument is that there is still room for many upon many of American’s that can be jailed under this unjust law. And the full constitutional rights should still apply to all Americans whether they look legal or not.


May 4th, 2010
8:53 pm

Danielle….would that be like my ITALIAN Grandfather that interned during WWII…a US Citizen with 2 sons serving in the US Military?
Guess what…..after he was released..he moved on and never deamonized the US for what they did…..the “racist” word never left his mouth for, regardless of what he went through, he knew the US was acting in the best interest of the American Citizens/Legal Immigrants. That is the difference between the Immigrants of old and the new found Illegal Immigrants that think for some reason they are “owed” because they came here illegally…..


May 4th, 2010
8:53 pm

Danielle….would that be like my ITALIAN Grandfather that interned during WWII…a US Citizen with 2 sons serving in the US Military?
Guess what…..after he was released..he moved on and never deamonized the US for what they did…..the “racist” word never left his mouth for, regardless of what he went through, he knew the US was acting in the best interest of the American Citizens/Legal Immigrants. That is the difference between the Immigrants of old and the new found Illegal Immigrants that think for some reason they are “owed” because they came here illegally…..


May 4th, 2010
11:09 pm

The Feds haven’t followed the Constitution for years. Meanwhile, a showdown is brewing over state’s rights. First, you have state overlay of immigration enforcement in AZ. Next, you have 1/2 dozen states that have passed in state firearm manufacturing exemptions from Federal firearms laws. Third, California will legalize marijuana next November.
All are in direct violation of Federal laws and statutes. Montana passed a law allowing the imprisonment of any Federal agent up to 2 years in state prison that attempts to interfere with Montana gun laws.
Something must give. What an exciting time to be alive.


May 5th, 2010
12:39 am

Congress has been granted power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. What specifically does this mean? Naturalization is the act by which an alien is made a citizen of the united States. Sherman, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution notes the intentions for which the power was granted. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148

Indeed, the power over naturalization granted to Congress is very limited in its scope and merely determines who shall or shall not be a Citizen of the united States.

In 1824, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out:

“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise Of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” ___ OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 22 U. S. 738 (1824)

In debating naturalization, Rep. WHITE notes the narrow limits of the power in question and ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152

Also see:

“MR. STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens.[page 1157] Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

Listening to the assertions made today regarding the supremacy of our federal government’s powers over aliens, and particularly an alleged federal supreme power over those who have invaded the borders of any one of the united States, it is stunning to study the Naturalization Debates of 1790 which repeatedly confirms our States have retained a policing power and power to legislate upon the rights and privileges of citizens and persons within their borders. In fact, they delegated a limited power to Congress to merely establish how an alien might become a citizen of the united states which then extended the rights and privileges of each State to those declared to be citizens of the united states by Congress‘s rule of Naturalization.

The 14th Amendment: its legislative intent

After studying the debates which framed the 14th Amendment it is found that to secure rights and privileges to Blacks as were secured to White citizens prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment under each State’s laws, the objective of the 14th Amendment was to secure and extend these same rights and privileges to all people without distinction based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. This was the narrow objective of the 14th Amendment and was never intended to enlarge or establish new rights and privileges under a State‘s laws.

The 14th Amendment accomplishes this by first making Blacks Citizens of the united states and of the State wherein they resided, and then forbid every State to make or enforce any law which abridged its recognized privileges or immunities, or deprives any “Citizen” or any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process under state law; nor allowed any State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws, which included a State‘s Bill of Rights. In fact, whatever a state’s Bill of Rights was, the 14th Amendment was intended to make those rights equally applicable to Blacks as they were to Whites! The legislative intent of the 14th Amendment is summed up by Rep. Shallabarger, in the following words:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Cong. Globe, 1886, page 1293

So, with regard to aliens who are not “citizens of the united States“, and especially with regard to aliens who have invaded a State’s borders, the 14th Amendment actually confirms Arizona is free to enact their own legislation dealing with aliens who are not entitled to the privileges and immunities as bestowed upon “citizens” of the united States. The exception to a state’s policing power is, that no person, alien or not, within a particular State, may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law as determined under the State’s statutory laws which must be applied equally to aliens as they are applied to any “person“.


Unlike Congress’ power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, meant to say who is and who is not a citizen of the united States, and there the power ends, our Constitution charges our federal government with the duty To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Those who point to Congress’s power over Naturalization and clamor in support of “comprehensive immigration reform” so as to have Congress reward those who have invaded a State’s borders with “citizenship“, thereby granting them the same rights and privileges of “citizens” of the particular state they are found in, are attempting to have the federal government subjugate those powers retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment by misapplying Congress‘s power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and are very much in favor of violating the very intentions and beliefs for which the power was granted!

No More Progressives!

May 5th, 2010
4:55 am


May 4th, 2010
8:29 pm

Believe what ever you want, Danielle. Your obstinence is exactly what will draw attention when you ultimately do run the stop sign and get pulled over. If you’ve made a conscious decision to NOT carry any form of identification, how do you drive/buy a beer/write a check? Wal Mart ID’s everbody for alcohol and tobacco; what do you do then?

Not only are you a liberal, you’re on my “hammerhead” list. Nothing I say will placate you. You expect the entire Nation to change just to suit you. It ain’t gonna happen.

The Alamo was in 1836. It’s now 2010. Your Mexican “countrymen” have brought this on themselves by virtue of the invasion we’ve watched.

Qui habet aures audiendi audiat. Sagely advice from our Roman friends.

Chris Broe

May 5th, 2010
5:40 am

The GOP loves big government. To protect our coastlines from big oil. To patrol our borders for Mexican aliens. I guess you could say the the GOP is having their “Baja” moment.

Oh, and WIndows 7 was their idea.

just kiddin…….Welcome to the big tent democrats, you silly little repudlickan pudwits, what took you so long?

just kiddin’

John Nordman

May 5th, 2010
9:31 am

I have to disagree with you on this one as well Bob.
The new law doesn’t give the Police the right to pull anyone over for no reason to ask for proof of citizenship. Only after they have a reason to pull you over can they ask for the info.
Since our carrier Politions in Washington didn’t want to enforce the Federal Imigration Laws, Arizona decided to do it, at least for thier State. Kind of like the law that states that if your local law enforcement won’t keep the people safe the people may take matters into thier own hands.
(Of course you had better be able to prove it.)
Personnally I don’t think the Law goes far enough, we have become so politically correct that we as a nation are commiting suicide! It’s time to say enough!


May 5th, 2010
10:34 am

Mr. Barr, the only thing “mystifying” about this is the fact that it’s Arizona’s business even though everyone else has seen fit to add their two cents. So here’s mine: Can you say you approve of the invasion of our country by millions of terrotists? There is no difference in a Muslim extremist murdering Americans and illegal aliens murdering Americans. The end result is the same. Arizona’s bill, which is patterned on Federal law, needs to be implemented in every state in the Union. We either defend our country from invasion, or we wave a white flag which we’ve done for two decades. People who believe in the Constitution and who love their country will keep fighting. Those who are ready to wave the white flag…well, they can continue to pander to both and aid and abet in destroying our nation.

Thom Bing

May 5th, 2010
12:06 pm

If criminals are going to break into your house anyway why lock the door. Why not just put a sign up in the front yard saying “House unlocked come on in and take what you want”. What if me and ten of my friends decided to come and live in your house for as long as we want and even though there are laws against it they decide not to enforce them. Is that ok with you? That is exactly what ignoring illegal immigration is. A sign that says come on in and we will do nothing. When 20 mexicans take over your house you will be the first to call the police and scream for justice. There are 50 million in my house and I am supposed to do nothing.


May 5th, 2010
12:37 pm

No progress, You obviously don’t care to listen to any of the points I’ve been making as to how this law has miles of room open for American’s to be unjustly ‘detained’. I am amazed many of you so blindly trust the police with much of your freedoms.

For the tenth time, I carry a drivers license when I drive… That is the only time it is needed here in TX.

BTW, I do not drink or smoke. And my debit card, I use a pin number so no ID needed.. We write checks when we send payment in the mail. But pay majority of bills via Internet. I do tons of shopping via Amazon. Have a package arrive about every other day, no ID needed. Go grocery shopping once a week as a family.. So my husband drives. The last time I needed to drive was when my son needed to be picked up from school early because he was sick.. That was in September and the school is just a few blocks away, so I could have walked if I wanted to. Point is, not everybody lives their lives exactly as you do… But even if ID were present, by the Video example, it doesn’t look like that would always be enough..

Also, if I were to try to purchase alcohol without proper ID I would not be arrested for doing so.. See the difference?

And I’m about as conservative as anyone can be. But call me a liberal, that no longer bothers me.. In fact it is now an embarrassment to be known as a republican. I guess I am with the liberals on this one.


May 8th, 2010
4:30 am

i think the new law is great, what these illegal immigrants and people that support them dont understand is that their stealing our identities and working under names that are not even theirs. they want us to treat them fair but they are breakin our laws and not paying taxes most of them. unfortunately we have to suffer for their choices, it is not our fault their county is bad, you want to be a citizen pay taxes and quit making us feel bad for you, not the only one struggling.

Connie A

May 9th, 2010
2:47 pm

Why would any one want to boycott a state that simply wishes to enforce the law? Being in this country illegally is against the law. Why then should we attempt to penalize the state of Arizona for upholding the law. What’s the point of laws if they aren’t enforced?


May 17th, 2010
3:51 am

First of all I think this law is not fair for the fact that I might be at risk of being stopped by the police just simply by the way I look?That for me is racial profiling and some what of an insult to me. Next I agree with Nicky in that there are many illegal immigrants who steal identities, and lie just to get financial and other benefits. But then there are many others who dont. In addition, I do not know what goes through Diane’s mind. She says she is hispanic, therefore someone in her family must have been an immigrant at some point right?And she is talking about the immigrants and their take over plans and I guess you are right because the prove of this is that you are here in the U.S.(for if you haven’t noticed you, yourself took over this country!)You are an embarresment to all hispanics.

Red AZ

May 17th, 2010
10:24 pm

Stand with Arizona! Maricopa County is ground zero for illegal immigration in Arizona – and there is a Special Election this year for County Attorney (District Attorney elsewhere) who will be responsible for implementing SB1070. The two candidates are Bill Montgomery, a West Point Graduate and career prosecutor who has pledged to enforce SB1070 fully and fairly and Rick Romley, who called for a veto of SB1070. Show support for Arizona and for SB1070 by donating $10.70 to Bill’s campaign. Everyone can afford it and it gives people a chance to show support in an active way. You can donate online at: Let’s take a united stand for the rule of law!


May 31st, 2010
3:52 pm

This is a hot button for an election if ever there was one, but instead of overs stepping their rights as a state making laws that that make no sense “illegal to be illegal” work the laws you have better documents for workers to start! If they want to build a wall the do it but don’t stop until all the boarders are covered other countries you need to show papers but this county is not one of those if you like there ideas then go there but they also don’t have the freedom.
States taking over if the ferderal government can’t do something then call back the arizona troops invade mexico and raid their country see if those will work.
Hard times call for hard measures said by thoses that have giving up or never wanted the best we are a country made on dreams not reality we strive for the best locking people up because they are hired by greedy people braking the law on jobs many of you would refuse to work what a quagmire so sellrightousness.
Why didn’t you fight this hard when america started using another language other then english on offical documents. Wouldn’t that have made it harder for illegals forcing them to speak english what about the cubans wet foot rule but anyone else is deported. There are problems all around us stop blaming others and start fixing it! But with in the rights the law afords you. What if arizona had a kill on stight illegal law would that make murder okay what about the ones killed by accident because they were to tan? Is killing a bad word replace it with detaining infact replace illegal with the word you because anyone could be from another country look like a terrorist or be one. You are seeing a problem and letting your xenophoida get in the way because it can’t be your fail you didn’t do anything. I say find the steam of the weed not the flower

[...] addition, some analysts say Arizona’s legislation crosses the division of power lines between state and federal enforcement. Examining potential challenges to the law, the Wall [...]


June 22nd, 2010
5:10 am

Seems like a dilemma: jail an illegal immigrant for repeat offences of deport him. He may return soon after deportation or join one of the gangs or cartels in Mexico. Mexico should help secure the shared border that exists between us. The Mexican soldiers did rally at the border waving their guns in show of support for the illegal immigrants crossing over into the United States after a boy illegal immigrant was shot for throwing rocks at a U S Border Patrol agent. The Mexican authorities could make it harder for the drug runners by strategically placing their troops at the International Borderline.


June 22nd, 2010
5:13 am

The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution might be changed if the combined Congress would do that. I suppose, since many illegal immigrants give birth in the United States, our Congress might re-consider Section One of the 14th Amendment. President Abraham Lincoln would have liked to leave the US Constitution the way it stands but the 14th was drafted after Lincoln passed away. I believe that the 14th amendment was ratified for protecting the rights of the former slaves, some who lived in the United States for generations, after the trauma of the Civil War that ended human slavery.

Tyler Rieves

July 2nd, 2010
10:25 pm

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that if the Constitution doesn’t have anything about enforcing immigration laws, the Federal government cannot step in. Therefore, any immigration law created by a State is Constitutionally valid.


July 7th, 2010
8:19 am

wet back you love mexico so much then go home you f up your gov now you want to f ours up


August 22nd, 2010
8:43 pm

What is most troubling about the Arizona Law is the majority of the comments posted here about the very valid issues this article illuminates. I am an American citizen, born and raised on this soil. Most people, who commented in favor of the Arizona law are assuming that the police will be 100% correct in their selection of who to detain as illegal immigrants. As I stated, I am an American citizen, but when in Arizona I may be detained until I can prove it. How many of you carry your United States passport while traveling in the U.S. so you can prove to any law enforcement officer that you are indeed a citizen? How many of you American citizens could prove at that very moment, if stopped on the street by a police officer that you truly are a citizen? How many of you citizens carry your birth certificate in your wallet or on your person. How many of you want to do so or be subjected to being detained or arrested by law enforcement for not doing so? Let’s hope all of your family members and future grandchildren look “American” ,what ever that means to every random Joe Officer on the beat or you can be sure that, if this law stands, no American citizen is safe from Constitutional Rights violation. Bob you hit the mark. Unfortunately, most Americans, politicians included, are Tunnel Visionaries and fail to see the consequences to freedom of their support, actions and legislation. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson, who said it best, “Those who are willing to trade freedoms for security deserve neither.” God help us because this nation is full of people willing to do just that.


September 8th, 2010
11:51 pm

Odd that all this discussion about the Constitutionality of this States Law.
Read Article III, Section II, Clause 2; This issue can not be heard in a district court; The Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction and only they can rule on this States issue.