Slashdot Mirror


LulzSec Posts First Secret Document Dump

Dangerous_Minds writes "LulzSec has been vowing to expose government secrets for the last few days. Now they have delivered. According to ZeroPaid, LulzSec has posted secret documents about Arizona Law Enforcement. The release has been posted to file-sharing website ThePirateBay. LulzSec says the release is because they are 'against SB1070 and the racial profiling anti-immigrant police state that is Arizona.'"

835 comments

  1. AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.

    1. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's face it: they're "anti-Mexican".

    2. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between the two positions. My legal immigrant friends sure can.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    3. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I mean, all they're asking is that anyone who fits a certain racial profile prove that they're legal. I don't know how you can call that racial profiling.

    4. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Libertarian001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You really are stupid. I live in AZ. My immediate supervisor is 100% ethnic Mexican (and his grandfather immigrated here). His stance? Fully supports SB1070. It's anti-illegal-immigration.

    5. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Libertarian001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Border Patrol? You mean from U.S. Customs and Border Protection? The Federal Agency? Why are you bringing this up in a conversation about a state law?

    6. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by William+Ager · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's worth noting that Mexicans from more affluent areas, and more central areas in general, often are quite racist against Mexicans from border areas. It isn't hard to find people who immigrated to the US from Mexico City and dislike Mexicans from Tijuana more than white supremacists do.

    7. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the people who own land near the border who have to deal with a constant stream of "undocumented workers" and drug smugglers coming across their property breaking into outbuildings and destroying their property, or the schools and tax payers who have to bear the brunt of supporting the happy go lucky extra-legal immigrant population.

    8. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are federally owned and operated checkpoints which Arizona has no control over. You'll see them in Texas and New Mexico as well as other states. To every citizen of the US they are clearly un-constitutional suspicion-less checkpoints, but the Supreme Court ruled that they're okay.

    9. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BS: Arpaio and company hate everything with brown skin. Stop deluding yourself. SB1070 does not target "illegal" immigrants, it targets latinos. Period.

    10. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.

    11. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many legally inmigrated Mexican-Americans currently live and work in Arizona? Is your supervisor some type of moral leader to them? Are you familiar with high-school level statistics? Do I care about what your supervisor thinks about SB1070?

    12. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by JackSpratts · · Score: 0

      lol. right.

    13. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Are you kidding me. I got stopped twice in arizona during the first week of the that law and I'm not even part mexican!

    14. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Legalize drugs
      2) Every human has unalienable rights and the richest nation on earth has a Constitutional duty to provide them.

    15. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The dirty little secret is that it actually targets Canadians. End any of your sentences in "eh" or slip in an "aboot" and you're aboot to get yourself stranded in the desert.

    16. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's not. It claims to be anti-illegal-immigrant, but it's really just white supremacy. Even native-born citizens have been picked up and imprisoned for months because somebody suspected they were illegal. No proof required. There was a case where a guy was imprisoned in...either Arizona or New Mexico. For months. He was forced to work for $1/day to earn the money to purchase a copy of his birth certificate from the federal government to prove he was a legal citizen. (So much for "Innocent until proven guilty") Another case up here in Pennsylvania, a man (again, a legal citizen, not sure if he was native-born) was arrested and held by ICE for 3 days despite having his valid driver's license and social security card in his wallet at the time of his arrest...strictly because of his last name. It sounded like he might be foreign, so ICE ordered he be detained.

      If even native-born citizens are being picked up and imprisoned for months under OLD laws, what do you think the effect will be of making those laws harsher?

      Besides, even if nobody legal gets arrested, SB1070 still effectively legalizes police harassment of anybody who's skin is darker than a certain shade of brown. And they require that you carry identification with you. This is not a legal requirement anywhere else in America. This is not Nazi Germany, we should not be required to carry our papers. Of course, if you're white, you aren't. It's just brown people who are being required to carry papers...

    17. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between the two positions. My legal immigrant friends sure can.

      Since many can't distinguish between the two positions, I assume many can't either distinguish between an ilegal and a legal inmigrant. Won't this result in unnecesaty police attention torwards your legal inmigrant friends, specially those that have genetic characteristics proper of another nations?

    18. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He may fully support SB1070. Good for him. It's still a bill that is anti-brown people.

    19. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MrEricSir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes. It's not that they're looking to move to a country that's safer where they can work their asses off for less than minimum wage to make a better future for themselves. Nope, that could NEVER be the case.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    20. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.

      Ahem.

    21. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide a reference to the part of the constitution that says the U.S. has a duty to protect non-citizens who are here illegally? And please, feel free to pay for the education and medical bills for these non-citizens.

    22. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Troll

      What's your point?

      I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.

      That much I will never support, and I really could not care less if you happen to know a Mexican who does.

    23. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      He may fully support SB1070. Good for him. It's still a bill that is anti-brown people.

      Please read the bill and quote the "anti-brown people" portion of it.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    24. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Every human has unalienable rights and the richest nation on earth has a constitutional duty to provide them to its citizens and those willing to immigrate the legal way.

      FTFY

    25. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ohnocitizen · · Score: 0, Troll

      The parent isn't stupid. AZ is doing everything they can to make life unpleasant for anyone who even speaks spanish, never mind is an immigrant from south america. Your response is essentially the "but I have a black friend" defense. Oh so you have a supervisor who is Mexican and he supports it? Even if that is true, why should we care? Would it justify prop 8 if a gay guy supported it?

      The bill is racist and furthers the police state mentality that is seeing our basic rights abandoned in a race to the bottom.

    26. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      2) Every human has unalienable rights and the richest nation on earth has a Constitutional duty to provide them.

      Assuming that that's true, why aren't they crossing into China?

    27. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Now, now, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Perhaps we should postpone the discussion until after we've all had a chance to read the documents.

    28. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes

    29. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by sycodon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You need to get your information from somewhere other than LaRaza.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    30. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not worth noting.

      and it's very hard to find those people.

      it's a lot easier to find people who are sympathetic, but want the law enforced.

      someone please mod William Ager and his fantasy land into the ground.

    31. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.

      To a lawyer or a Republican.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by anagama · · Score: 2

      I'm as anti-police state as you can get, and the story you tell if true would be very seriously egregious. However, you should do the google work and post a citation. There is one fact in the story that is glaringly wrong -- the Feds don't keep birth certificates, states do that. Secondly, it wouldn't take months of labor to earn enough to get a copy -- I would guess the usual price is $15-30, so two weeks to a month.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    33. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should visit the rest of Arizona sometime.

    34. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by cavreader · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the damn law. They can not be stopped randomly and checked for immigration status. Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status. And yes this could be circumvented by individual police officers but that is true for a whole list of different types of charges. The people complaining about his law are automatically assuming the entire police force are racists and will ignore the law which is a rather insulting and unsupported accusation. Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?

    35. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it's not. It claims to be anti-illegal-immigrant, but it's really just white supremacy. Even native-born citizens have been picked up and imprisoned for months because somebody suspected they were illegal. No proof required. There was a case where a guy was imprisoned in...either Arizona or New Mexico. For months. He was forced to work for $1/day to earn the money to purchase a copy of his birth certificate from the federal government to prove he was a legal citizen. (So much for "Innocent until proven guilty") Another case up here in Pennsylvania, a man (again, a legal citizen, not sure if he was native-born) was arrested and held by ICE for 3 days despite having his valid driver's license and social security card in his wallet at the time of his arrest...strictly because of his last name. It sounded like he might be foreign, so ICE ordered he be detained.

      I keep up with this stuff pretty closely, and never heard either one of these. Can't find anything that sounds even remotely similar on google. I suspect you're making things up.

      SB1070 still effectively legalizes police harassment of anybody who's skin is darker than a certain shade of brown.

      It doesn't do anything of the sort, of course.

      And they require that you carry identification with you. This is not a legal requirement anywhere else in America.

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    36. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This moron is modded Interesting?

      If Germans were coming across the Mexico border by the thousands and staying we'd have the same problem.

      America welcomes anyone who goes through the proper process.

    37. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by nurb432 · · Score: 0

      Not to those idiots there isn't.

      I happen to agree with you, AZ just wants the power to enforce the laws and boot criminals.

      And i personally refuse to refer to them using the 'tamer' term "illegal immigrants", as they are criminals, plain and simple.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    38. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MichaelKristopeit502 · · Score: 0
      the state highway patrol was also on the scene and didn't seem to mind the violation of my constitutional rights.

      arizona condones the border patrols actions and actively enables them .

    39. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.

      What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    40. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Xaositecte · · Score: 2, Troll

      "E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
      38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
      39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

      Is generally subject to the fear that "Probable cause" == Brown Skin.

    41. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.

      Except, that's not what the law says. You are assuming that. Without proof, that's called prejudice. You are prejudiced against people simply because they are law enforcement officers.

    42. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately nobody from LulzSec has to live there.

      --
      Being a website owner whose slashdot handle is common to other forums and could link back to me, I feel more comfortable posting as an A.C.

    43. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by magarity · · Score: 1

      Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.

      By definition. Which part of "illegal" != "commit crime" ?

    44. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-immigrant ..... Anti illegal immigrant....

      Whole thing comes down to Policy, which is utterly fucked, and a huge money grab! I have foreign friends in the US who have been here over a decade and are still waiting for their GREEN CARD. They get updates maybe 2-3 times a year, and pay ridiculous legal fees, only to have the 'final decision date' pushed back several more months. A decade? Really?

      One of those friends parents still haven't gotten their citizenship despite having green cards for a decade. They're getting a bit older as well, and one of them has some health problems. Odds are he'll die before he gets his citizenship.

    45. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm, defending this racist bill, and your username is aardvark[JOE]. Is that you, Joe Arpiao?

    46. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, when police are looking for a specific ethnic group to target with laws, they will use racial profiling in deciding who to harass, and who to let go about their business. This is a subject that has been studied extensively, and proven to happen.

    47. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status.

      So what? The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them. That it only happens in the context of some other event doesn't make it any more reasonable.

      Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?

      Well, that's illegal. The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing. At best they an ask for a person's name, but they can't demand ID.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    48. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up "Georgia labor shortage" and read how GA's illegal immigrant law has created an 11000 shortage of farm laborers, so that crops are rotting in the fields. "Provide for the General Welfare" in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution means the Federal govt should do something to protect illegal immigrants, so that food prices don't go up!

    49. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first one is from a published report, ("Jailed Without Justice", published by Amnesty International, page 20, very easy to find if you google it) which lists the original source as: "Testimony of Kara Hartzler, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigrantion, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Hearing on Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention and Removal Procedures, Second Session of the 110th Congress, 13 February 2008, serial Number 110-80, available at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/110th/40742.PDF"

      He worked at $1/day, a birth certificate costs $30, so that's at least a month assuming he was working full time every day. Not sure if he would have, I'm not all that familiar with the prison system. Also doesn't count time spent being transferred and such (which ICE does very frequently and without notice). I suppose I did make a slight mistake though in the time, as the original does only say "over a month". And yes, I suppose it would be state, not federal government that he purchased it from, the original doesn't specify.

      The second case is from the Summer 2011 issue of "Free For All" published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. Article was "Pennsylvania's Secret Prisoners". Unfortunately, I'm not finding it available online anywhere, and the name in the article was changed.

    50. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DWB: "Driving While Brown" is enough of a reason for some officers and their superior officers don't do anything.

    51. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.

      Except that we've made the legal process nearly impossible for most. Fees that are out of the reach of many immigrants, takes an excessively long time, is not a 100% acceptance rate, and the explicit goal is to limit the number of immigrants. If you prefer, we could use the term "anti-poor-immigrant" or "virtually-anti-immigrant" but I call BS on saying we're merely "anti-illegal-immigrant."

    52. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Don't worry this worked well for Germany. "Was? Keine Papiere? Sie müssen ein Jude zu sein und sind verhaftet!"

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    53. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by blair1q · · Score: 2

      That's what they say, but then, they know the immigration quotas keep the numbers of brown people low.

    54. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by xantonin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the united states or arizona constitution"

      Page 1, lines 30-34.

      Do you really think in a state where brown skin is the majority that cops will waste their time bugging everyone who is brown skinned? We in AZ are aware there are a lot of legal Hispanics here, don't insult us with your assumptions.

    55. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by blair1q · · Score: 1, Informative

      Illegal immigration is a civil violation, not a crime.

    56. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you have to have a drivers license to legally drive a car. No US citizen should have to carry papers to walk down the street. If this law only effected illegal immigrants I would have no problem with it, but it can't because there is no way to determine who is a US citizen before you demand to see proof.

    57. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. It claims to be anti-illegal-immigrant, but it's really just white supremacy. Even native-born citizens have been picked up and imprisoned for months because somebody suspected they were illegal. No proof required. There was a case where a guy was imprisoned in...either Arizona or New Mexico. For months. He was forced to work for $1/day to earn the money to purchase a copy of his birth certificate from the federal government to prove he was a legal citizen. (So much for "Innocent until proven guilty") Another case up here in Pennsylvania, a man (again, a legal citizen, not sure if he was native-born) was arrested and held by ICE for 3 days despite having his valid driver's license and social security card in his wallet at the time of his arrest...strictly because of his last name. It sounded like he might be foreign, so ICE ordered he be detained.

      I keep up with this stuff pretty closely, and never heard either one of these. Can't find anything that sounds even remotely similar on google. I suspect you're making things up.

      Just posted my sources in another comment, here:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2264760&cid=36549794

      SB1070 still effectively legalizes police harassment of anybody who's skin is darker than a certain shade of brown.

      It doesn't do anything of the sort, of course.

      That depends who you ask. I'll admit, I haven't read the entire text of the bill. But from what I've read about it, the official government stance is that it doesn't legalize racial profiling, it just allows police to ask if they suspect the person is illegal. But they have never explained how an officer would be able to tell, just by looking at someone, if they are or are not a legal citizen. In my state and many others, if police stop you on the street, for example, you are only required to give them your name. No ID, no license, nothing. Because you aren't required to HAVE any kind of ID. And in fact, if I chose not to drive, I wouldn't have any form of identification on me at any time. I do have my birth certificate and social security card, but everyone I've talked to specifically says that you should NOT carry those with you. Hell, they're both paper, they'd disintegrate pretty rapidly if they were always in your pocket, and at least the social security card specifically says it is invalid if you laminate it or anything. Not sure about birth certificate, as I've never even seen mine...

      And they require that you carry identification with you. This is not a legal requirement anywhere else in America.

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      As I said, in Pennsylvania and many other states, if you are stopped by any law enforcement, unless you are driving a car or doing something else that requires some kind of license, you are required to give your full name. That is all. There is no requirement that you carry ANY identification. Do you have a specific federal law that states otherwise?

    58. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them...

      But then

      The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing.

      So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right? Given that they don't have one, is it reasonable to ask why they don't have it?

      The only way this law would come into play is if the cops already have probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, in your words. It's far different than judging their immigration status just by looking at them.

    59. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      I don't know, do you figure the pasty white Scandinavian grandmother will be asked for documentation proving her status as a legal resident?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    60. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.

      Except Sheriff Bubba-Joe is on record as being a bigoted racial profiling asshole. There's a difference.

      5 minutes of research (outside of the Fake News / Tea Party bubble) will show that SB2010 did nothing for immigration save to codify the already existing "fuck wetbacks" mentality down there.

    61. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I get your point but that's an epic logic fail there. Don't ever go into software development.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    62. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I didn't even notice he was Hispanic, judge! I swear!" heh heh.

      Law Enforcement has NEVER lied to make themselves look better.

    63. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.

      Of course. Every single one. If not, they wouldn't be illegal, now would they?

    64. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.

      Not exactly. The law requires you treat all Mexicans as Illegal Immigrants unless proven otherwise.

      In addition, the giant "screw you, liberty" the rabid far right snuck in was the ability for private organizations (read: white supremacists) to sue the police if they don't feel they're harassing Latinos enough.

    65. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's pro-privatized prison system.

    66. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth noting that white people from far more affluent areas, and more central areas in general, often are quite racist against white people from New York and California. It isn't hard to find people who immigrated to the US from Europe and dislike Europeans from (Ireland, England, Croatia, Albania, Poland, Russia, Italy, Germany) more than they hate themselves.

    67. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    68. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the damn law. They can not be stopped randomly and checked for immigration status. Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status.

      (snip)

      Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?

      Except that Sheriff Bubba-Joe has a history of having his officers stop every brown person they see, under the troll logic that "Non-Whites commit more crimes." Usually under the guise of wanting to see their drivers licence. And then, with this new law, they have to PROVE that they're not illegals, or the cop can arrest them on the spot for the crime of "possibly being illegal."

    69. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that part of that $1 a day would go towards rent, food/board, clothes, etc. A pound of flesh and all that.

    70. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like you. Or have you never sped recently? Never jaywalked? This is a greater infraction, you say? Should it be? Does the harsher punishment go to the illegal immigrant or to the people employing the immigrant that thus incentivize him or her to come to the country? Is that fair?

      These are all questions to be asked before you start talking about tame terms and enforcing laws. In the meantime, Arizona doesn't get to enforce federal law. That's what federal enforcement agencies are for. It doesn't get to pass laws on immigration, either. That turns out to be the federal government's purview.

    71. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Except that this law, and the bigoted environment in Arizona, codify anti-latino racial profiling and harassment. You don't see Canadians or Koreans being stopped citing SB 1070. Because that's not what this law is about.

      Amusingly (in the darkly tragic sort of way), the law was actually written by a known white supremacist (Kris Kobach, a member of FAIR, a known hate group). He literally handed it off to Brewer's administration to push through. Which she did, because it was an Election year and she needed the bigot vote to keep her job.

    72. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      Not sure if you'll see this reply or not, but to back up my claims that in PA you aren't required to show ID...granted, it's a blog, but it's at least a blog of a law office, meant to provide legal information:

      http://blog.princelaw.com/criminal-law-blog

      "The Superior Court has held that asking for identification creates an investigative detention that must be supported by reasonable suspicion."

      So as I said, in Pennsylvania, in order to ask for ID, they need reasonable suspicion that you have done something illegal.

    73. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by WNight · · Score: 1

      Even if your supervisor is dumb enough to support a law that implements racial profiling of his ethnic group just to stop the non-problem of unauthorized entry it's not a valid argument in general.

    74. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by anagama · · Score: 2

      Thank you for the citation, and very easy to google under your second message.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    75. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      Pay enough and people will do any job.

      In GA there is a shortage of farm workers who will accept slave wages.

    76. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      so by your logic, because 'some' officers 'may' abuse this law, we should not have it? by that logic, we should not have highways, because some people abuse them by speeding. we should not have internet, because some people might abuse it by stealing music. This is like that bullshit law that was offered up a while back to ban those tiny ziploc bags, because some people use them to sell drugs. need i go on? Just because your theoretical 'some' may abuse this law, and 'harass brown people' does not mean that every cop in AZ is going out tonight with his nightstick and gun to pull over every brown person and rape them in the ass with his baton. Stop with moronic blanket demonizing of the entire AZ police force.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    77. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how to avoid this... "he didn't appear to be wearing his seat belt".

    78. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That is the issue.

      Did you ever stop to think that if the socialists didn't keep trying to turn the country into a "Free Services R' Us" heaven, it wouldn't really matter who the fuck was in the country?

      That's the real issue.

    79. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal immigration isn't a crime. It's a civil infraction.

    80. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      so the federal government answers only to Arizona? what now? You expect state troopers in ANY state to suddenly surround your car and force the border patrol agents to allow you to pass without the cursory inspection they give EVERYONE?

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    81. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      If you have a problem with the border patrol, blaming arizona for it seems a bit moronic.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    82. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 0

      Do you really think in a state where brown skin is the majority that cops will waste their time bugging everyone who is brown skinned? We in AZ are aware there are a lot of legal Hispanics here, don't insult us with your assumptions.

      Sorry Arizona, we've given you the benefit of the doubt too many times, and you've consistently proven us wrong. Maybe stop smurfing up so hard and you'll get some goodwill.

    83. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by WNight · · Score: 2

      Great. Get the fuck out then.

      Or, are you a member of the Navajo, Ak-Chin, Cocopah, etc, tribes? Because if not you're a just another hypocritical authoritarian on a bender. Sit down and shut up.

    84. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The entire police force' has proven time and time again that even though there are only a few bad cops among them, they will all follow and support these bad cops when those bad cops make bad decisions.
      When was the last time you saw a cop stop another cop from abusing someone? They either join in the beating or stand and watch.
      When was the last time you heard a cop approve and support denouncing corrupt cops? They all defend each other, no matter what, and they think the right thing to do is to cover racist, authority-abusing cops.

      I don't think all cops will abuse ethnic people, but should ONE officer abuse someone on racist grounds, I fear the other officers will cover him, defend him, and do whatever it takes to get him off the hook. Cops stand for each other, which is normally admirable, except they also protect the worst among them. Until cops convince me they can be trusted to defend justice and the population, I don't want to empower them further with authority they can abuse.

    85. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 0

      so by your logic, because 'some' officers 'may' abuse this law, we should not have it? by that logic, we should not have highways, because some people abuse them by speeding. we should not have internet, because some people might abuse it by stealing music. This is like that bullshit law that was offered up a while back to ban those tiny ziploc bags, because some people use them to sell drugs. need i go on? Just because your theoretical 'some' may abuse this law, and 'harass brown people' does not mean that every cop in AZ is going out tonight with his nightstick and gun to pull over every brown person and rape them in the ass with his baton. Stop with moronic blanket demonizing of the entire AZ police force.

      By that logic, we should allow officers to shoot on sight, and give them all a license to kill. I mean, we should *trust* people, even if we're sure that some of the cops will abuse the privilege, it's for the greater good!

    86. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Can you provide a reference to the part of the constitution that says the U.S. has a duty to protect non-citizens who are here illegally? And please, feel free to pay for the education and medical bills for these non-citizens.

      The AC who posted that it's a constitutional duty is an idiot. The constitution is flawed, look at the "status" of negros after! (no change).

      The unalienable rights of which the AC speaks are guaranteed by the US participation in the UN, and adherence to the charter of rights and freedoms.

      Now, I know from 2000-2008, you americans got used to ignoring rights and freedoms, but that has changed. You've got to stop abusing people and play nice, or big brother china is going to call your debts due and make you his woman.

    87. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by unitron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, how dare those Mexican corn farmers who were put out of business by NAFTA and the US agribusiness conglomerates come up here looking for stoop labor so that they can provide for their families?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    88. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jambarama · · Score: 0

      Coincidentally, the law makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. So yeah, probable cause == brown skin, even though the law explicitly disallows racial profiling.

    89. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MichaelKristopeit350 · · Score: 0, Insightful
      doing something to EVERYONE does not make it CONSTITUTIONAL -OR- JUSTIFIED.

      how could you possibly infer from my comments that i believe that anyone should believe that the federal government answers only to arizona? you're an idiot.

      the federal government is OF THE PEOPLE, who are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and NOT SUBJECT TO SEARCH WITHOUT CAUSE.

    90. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.

      By definition. Which part of "illegal" != "commit crime" ?

      " A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
      What public offence makes a person removable from the Unites States (apart from being illegally in the US or some other serious crime - which I would hope would compel the person to produce documentation regardless of this law).
      The law gives police the right to arrest (not just question) anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, they would not need to have committed a crime before being arrested - proving they are profiling is not a simple matter (he/she was acting in a suspicious manner your honour). To argue this will not encourage racial profiling is not being honest.

      --
      BM3
    91. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I'll go the high road here first... To what "extent" is "permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution?"

      Now I'll go the low road... How flimsy of a reason do you think law enforcement bother with to substantiate their probable cause to believe that a person has "committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States?"

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    92. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      I don't see "brown skin", "Mexican", "Hispanic" or anything otherwise identifying any specific race in that quote. It may be possible that individual officers who enforce this law may be racist (thus causing a racially-motivated enforcement of it), but the law itself clearly is not. That law covers Canadian nationals, German nationals, Zimbabwean nationals, Chinese nationals, and even Australians or Arabs equally with Mexicans.

      Don't get me wrong, on this. Our immigration system is fucked the hell up. It takes way too long for people to immigrate legally, and with modern communications and processing technology being what it is, we should be able to take years off of the waiting lists. Just the same, our problem isn't with people who want to come here and build a new life on honest and hard work ala the "American Dream" (those people should be given the fast-track to citizenship, as far as I'm concerned)-- our problem is with people who come here to smuggle drugs and weapons, and to engage in various other forms of illegal activities. Frankly, I think we'd solve a great deal of our problems if we pulled our troops out of Africa, and instead sent them to assist Mexico in their on-going wars with drug lords.

    93. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non sequitur.

    94. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between the two positions. My legal immigrant friends sure can.

      I am anti-illegal immigrants, but I have a problem with the Arizona law: It can't possibly be constitutional.

      Allow me to explain. My mother is a white american who married a latino. I was born in the US, I have citizenship by blood and by place of birth. If I were to visit Arizona, and some cop looks at me, he might decide that he has "probable cause" to ask for papers, because I look foreign. As a result you have a cop that is going to ask an American citizen for papers and jail me if I refuse to comply.

      How in the FUCK can you think that's constitutional?

      Now, if the law would instead put employers in jail who hire illegal immigrants knowingly, I'd be all for it. That's the problem anyway. If they couldn't get jobs here, the US wouldn't be worth the enormous risk they take crossing the border.

    95. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      There is a -huge- difference between giving the government more power and letting people live their lives.

      Whenever you give an individual power, there is a lot you can do to stop them from using that power on you. For example, if I own a grocery store and you don't like that I have security cameras everywhere in the store, you don't have to shop there, nor will anyone force you to shop there. There is no reason why you have to support me at all, heck, you can start a boycott of my grocery store with a bunch of like minded people and even drive me out of business. You don't have to support me or use my business.

      On the other hand, when you give the government power, you have to not only use it but fiscally support it. If you don't agree with Arizona police you can't simply just hire a private security firm and stop paying taxes.

      Your line of reasoning eventually ends up in a police state. Government power should -always- be kept at a minimum because no matter what you can't not support the government.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    96. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and once you can name how you can easily spot an illegal immigrant that will matter. After this bill was signed this was a major news event. Nobody, even your dear Governor said she doesn't know what the hell an illegal looks like, could identify how to tell an illegal. All they could say is we can't just go after mexicans. Ohy, one guy said something about the shoes. Are you still going to say it's the shoes?

      That part is in their to feign constitutionality. This is profiling pure and simple.

    97. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UH hate to tell you but indiana is a stop and indentify state as well as others. You can bet your going to be detained if stopped in any of them and have no id on you.

      http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_sto_and_ide_sta_sta_wit_quo_and_ide_sta-stop-identify-statutes-states-quot

    98. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the conservative buzzword for everything.

    99. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right?

      Why do you think that this law only applies to traffic violations?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    100. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being against someone from a location isn't racist. I can hate the white ghetto boys, it doesn't make me racist. I just hate the shit they stand for. What's wrong with hating someone for the way they think and the way they act? Nothing and to say otherwise makes you a hypocrite since you're passing judgement on others.

    101. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by arth1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't know, do you figure the pasty white Scandinavian grandmother will be asked for documentation proving her status as a legal resident?

      I am pretty sure she won't, no.
      But a Tohono O'odham grandmother who doesn't need papers because she belongs to a different nation within Arizona will now run the risk of being arrested for breaking a law she's not subject to.

    102. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we have evidence they did start the AZ wildfires.

      And if you tell anyone I said that I will deny it up and down!

      Senator John McCain.

    103. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by UHBo2 · · Score: 1

      Mexicans are a different race from Mexicans?

      Mexican isn't a race.

    104. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's face it: they're "anti-Mexican".

      Wow. Arizona. Uh, last time I checked, it still borders Mexico.

      What the fuck did you expect to find as the dominant illegal immigrant problem in Arizona? Undocumented Russians? Perhaps you were expecting to find a major problem with Chinese illegal immigrants?

      Either use some fucking common sense, or buy a goddamn map. Don't give me that bullshit of "anti-Mexican". Perhaps if the problem of illegal immigrants in that state wasn't so out of control, they wouldn't have had to pass such bills in the first place.

    105. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or not speaking english
      Or not having a vaild driver's license
      Or not having a Social Security number

    106. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You really are stupid. I live in AZ. My immediate supervisor is 100% ethnic Mexican (and his grandfather immigrated here). His stance? Fully supports SB1070. It's anti-illegal-immigration.

      I think you'll find that many native born Americans of Mexican descent and Mexicans who busted their ass to get here legally are vehemently opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. Those born here are sympathetic, but realistic. Those not born here but who are here legally tend to get pretty pissed off when they see someone skip all the hard work and long waiting they had to do get here. It really pisses them off when they are allowed to stay through some sort of amnesty program or get first class treatment in some sanctuary city.

      While visiting my wife's family (native born Americans of Mexican descent) near the Texas/Mexico border, I hear the term "wetback" used in the same way us gringos use "illegal". Being a white guy who was raised to consider "wetback" the Mexican equivalent of the N-word (not nVidia) it burned my ears at first just as hearing the N-word does. I guess they were more used to the term.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    107. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Wait a moment now. It's high time that people stopped confusing public institutions with private citizens.

      Consider "privacy." The government must show that it has a damn good reason for rifling through the papers and effects of a private individual. At the same time, the private individual has right to know what his government is up to-- and the government must have a damn good reason for preventing individuals from rifling through government papers.

      Police are minions of the government. While on duty, they shouldn't have the freedom of action that is the right of private individuals. Their duties and actions should be limited to what the government is empowered to do.

      People can do whatever the hell they want, with certain limited exceptions. Governments shouldn't be able do much of anything, beyond certain limited exceptions.

      Don't confuse the public and the private. As concepts, they are useful only as long as they remain separate.

    108. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wisty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The best way to beat sympathy isn't hate. It's disgust. I read a study [citation needed] that showed people stopped showing sympathy if they were disgusted by the perp's crime. This is, incidentally, why perverts (for whatever the current definition of pervert is) get cracked down on so hard - it's easy to be disgusted by them, so nobody has any sympathy.

      If you want to get rid of illegal immigrants, you don't run a hate campaign. It's likely to be illegal, makes you look bad, and may actually drum up a lot of opposition. Accusing Mexicans of being drug smugglers, violent criminals, and terrorists might drum up a bit of fear (and hate), but it doesn't really work.

      The best way to persecute people is to drum up disgust. It can be overt (attacking their personal hygiene), or more subtle (attacking their immoral values). Calling mexicans "filthy" has been extremely effective, but it isn't going to fly anymore. The modern day equivalent is calling them tax cheats, freeloaders, and queue jumpers. Queue jumping (at the supermarket checkout, or Disneyland, or any other context) isn't seen as a serious crime, but as a disgusting lack of social nous. Which makes it a far better slur than "drug runner", if you want people to lose sympathy.

    109. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's not worth noting.

      and it's very hard to find those people.

      it's a lot easier to find people who are sympathetic, but want the law enforced.

      someone please mod William Ager and his fantasy land into the ground.

      It's quite easy to find Hispanics who are against illegal immigration. Of course, you won't find them on TV. Newscasts are borderline racist in their portrayal of Hispanics as one, big, massive stereotype. They display them as if they are all lemmings who follow whatever the liberal Hispanic "leaders" say.

      If you want to know the truth, go to a place where Hispanics are the majority and live there for a few years. I live in such a place. My wife, daughter and best friend are all Hispanic. To be honest, Hispanics are some of the most racist people I've met towards other Hispanics.

      It other words, you don't know WTF you are talking about, gringo.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    110. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.

      You mean like when he gets pulled over and the police man asks for his driver's license? Yeah, that never happens to white people.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    111. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Except that this law, and the bigoted environment in Arizona, codify anti-latino racial profiling and harassment. You don't see Canadians or Koreans being stopped citing SB 1070.

      You don't see anyone stopped citing SB1070. SB1070 does not give the police the right to stop anyone at all. A person has to be stopped legally under some other section of law before SB1070 can even be brought up.

    112. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by gtbritishskull · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that you have it backwards. If we let everyone in this country who wanted to come, then they would have no problem going through a drug search or whatever when they cross the border. But, their only option is to do it illegally. So, if you are already breaking the law to get yourself into this country, why not make a little cash in the process. Also, if there are thousands of people crossing the border each day, you are much less likely to catch the 10 or 20 who are carrying drugs. If you make it so that many normally law-abiding citizens break the law, you only make it easier for similar, but more severe, crimes to be committed. The same thing can be said of File-Sharing and Marijuana. Actually, the biggest blow you could give to the drug-lords in Mexico would be to open the borders (but still require that people crossing the border go through a checkpoint) and legalize Marijuana.

    113. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Except that this law, and the bigoted environment in Arizona, codify anti-latino racial profiling and harassment. You don't see Canadians or Koreans being stopped citing SB 1070. Because that's not what this law is about.

      Amusingly (in the darkly tragic sort of way), the law was actually written by a known white supremacist (Kris Kobach, a member of FAIR, a known hate group). He literally handed it off to Brewer's administration to push through. Which she did, because it was an Election year and she needed the bigot vote to keep her job.

      Call me a troll if you like, but I'm compelled to point out that illegal immigration from Canada and Korea are pretty low. Canada not being a third world crap hole and there being an ocean, vice a line on the map, between the US and the Koreas. Not saying people don't get smuggled in from less fortunate places oceans away, just that their numbers don't reach "millions". Further, please don't cite SPL for anything more complicated than the weather. Asking them for unbiased information would be like asking the Klan about segregation. Just because SPL lists you as a "hate group" doesn't mean you are one unless your stated policies, or at least actions, include anything like actual hate.

      That said, I will agree with others in saying that the current immigration system in the US is garbage. I don't really believe that the vast majority of illegal immigrants come here to cause trouble and make life suck for everyone else. However, people who do scam the system and come here illegally make it a fuck load harder on those trying to do it the right way. So speaking as someone who has dealt with the mess that the scammers and illegals have indirectly caused, I must say I'm tempted to toss them a big bucket of fuck you.

      I don't know if this law is the solution or not. It probably isn't. Yet, you can't hardly say that it is racist simply because it ends up impacting one group more than another. Are laws against crack cocain racist because it is more popular with blacks than whites? What about laws against meth? Racist because white people tend to do it more?

      In the end, we're dancing around an important subject. These people who are "targeted" are only targeted if they broke the law. Is the immigration law broke and in need of fixing? Hell yes. Does that make it "right" to just hop the border and do as you please? No. If you think it does, try to illegally immigrate to Mexico and see how that goes.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    114. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.

      Not exactly. The law requires you treat all Mexicans as Illegal Immigrants unless proven otherwise.

      In addition, the giant "screw you, liberty" the rabid far right snuck in was the ability for private organizations (read: white supremacists) to sue the police if they don't feel they're harassing Latinos enough.

      Please, quote me the exact portion of the law that requires all Mexicans to be treated as illegals until proven otherwise. I've read it and I can't find it. Was there an amendment I'm not aware of?

      Or, if it's not in there, you are lying your fucking ass off and you think it's OK. You have literally made stuff up and convinced yourself that it is true to justify your opposition to the law. So, go read the law, and tell me where it says what you say it does or STFU.

      Or, tell you what. Go to Arizona and walk up to a police officer. Odds are he will be Hispanic since Hispanics are the largest race in Arizona and be sure to let him know that he is a "white supremacists".

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    115. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How you can tell that Arizona-bashing is largely political: when the Massachusetts senate passed an even stricter anti-immigration law (denying public health insurance to illegal immigrants, setting up an 'anti-illegal' hotline), it was barely even mentioned by the news. Obama has focused on Arizona, because he supports unions, and labor unions tend to be anti-immigrant (they compete for the same jobs: it is just like programmers are often anti-indian). He criticized Arizona while federal agents across the country were cracking down on illegal immigration.

      A lot of people in the Latino community are quite annoyed by Obama's immigration stance (see here). He has deported more people than Bush.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    116. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Do you really think in a state where brown skin is the majority that cops will waste their time bugging everyone who is brown skinned? We in AZ are aware there are a lot of legal Hispanics here, don't insult us with your assumptions.

      No, we're afraid of the few asshole cops who will bug whoever they want who happens to be brown-skinned. A law that arguably opens up probable cause to search on the majority of the population is dangerous to civil liberties.

    117. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekmux · · Score: 1

      DWB: "Driving While Brown" is enough of a reason for some officers and their superior officers don't do anything.

      Yes, and all it is going to take is enough cases of "false positives" brought to a courtroom to get LE policy changed, or even this law changed. Cops KNOW they're walking a fine line with that kind of profiling, so it doesn't go on nearly as much as people hype it up and assume it does. Let's face it and be honest; profiling within law enforcement exists everywhere and with every single gender, race, and skin color, and to an extent makes sense due to accurate results. Again, only when false positives reach a certain level will that change anywhere.

    118. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in most cases a drivers license is more than sufficient proof. if you are driving without a license then they can already nab you for that.

    119. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.

      Show me where that is written into the law. Someone has lied to you.

      For the record, pulling someone over because based on looks is strictly forbidden in the law.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    120. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Faux_Pseudo · · Score: 1

      There was a case where a guy was imprisoned in...either Arizona or New Mexico. For months. He was forced to work for $1/day to earn the money to purchase a copy of his birth certificate from the federal government to prove he was a legal citizen.[citation needed]

      Last time I checked the Federal Government had no ability to sell you a copy of your birth certificate. That is a state issue.

    121. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, first it requires that you break the law. Then, they can ask for your papers. How are we to deal with any problem if 100% political correctness is the only goal?

    122. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you could pay enough, but illegals work at terrible wages and love it. Why not just let them do it?

    123. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This land is ours by right of conquest. Those tribes sucked at doing anything useful with the land anyway.

    124. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      so by your logic, because 'some' officers 'may' abuse this law, we should not have it?

      Yup.

      by that logic, we should not have highways, because some people abuse them by speeding.

      Random Joe Blow speeders aren't in positions of power to incarcerate people. Awful analogy.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    125. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, I made a slight mistake on the details. Already posted my sources and correction here:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2264760&cid=36549794

    126. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekmux · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. It claims to be anti-illegal-immigrant, but it's really just white supremacy. Even native-born citizens have been picked up and imprisoned for months because somebody suspected they were illegal. No proof required. There was a case where a guy was imprisoned in...either Arizona or New Mexico. For months. He was forced to work for $1/day to earn the money to purchase a copy of his birth certificate from the federal government to prove he was a legal citizen...

      imprisoned for months, eh?

      A) Drivers license or State identification (picture ID)

      B) Know your own Social Security number

      C) Know your own home address and phone number

      D) Know anyone who could help validate your citizenship status (what, he had NO friends whatsoever?)

      E) No family? No son, daughter, wife, grandmother, cousin, nothing?

      F) How many people actually DO have a copy of their birth certificate at home somewhere? I'd say probably 99% of legal citizens do, since a birth certificate is required starting at kindergarten enrollment.

      G) No property tax statment,gas bill, water bill, cable bill, or electric bill? Ever? All of these usually require some form of identification or proof of residency

      I'm sorry, but this is just a short list off the top of my head that SHOULD have only kept that man in prison for a few hours, not a few months. If you were actually born here, then at least ACT like you KNOW how to identify yourself with the most common tools. If you somehow failed to acknowledge that you should have at least ONE of the above, then you are practically hiding, and I would have to ask the most obvious question...Why.

    127. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ! man on a mission, aren't you?

      internet superhero.

    128. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them

      Legal ones have (real) identification. Illegal ones don't. I have no problem with cops asking someone to ID themselves.

      of course, I have no problem with cops picking up the illegals, fingerprinting them, throwing them in cells until they have a busload, then driving them to the border and shoving them across with the warning that if they come here illegally again, then get shot as invaders.

      Okay, maybe not the shot part. But I think we should bill Mexico for the cost of rounding up and returning them.

      And by 'bill', I mean reduce the shittons of money we send them.

    129. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the record, pulling someone over because based on looks is strictly forbidden in the law.

      But pulling someone over for driving erratically isn't. Good luck proving that you weren't driving erratically.

      Your selective distrust of the government is incredibly amusing.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    130. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Abreu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a Mexican, I can say it is true that there are frictions between ethnic groups and geographical regions within the country.

      A lot is just stereotype and jokes, like Californians and Appalachians and New Yorkers, etc, might regard each other.

      But there is an undercurrent of racism in Mexico, which is not polite to admit in public (People say "this is a country that abolished castes and slavery during its independence war! Of course we are not racists!"), but is true nonetheless.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    131. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm going to blatantly whore for visibility because this entire discussion is still a bunch of "racist Arizona nyah nyah bickering, and contains nothing of the content of the torrent which I downloaded and briefly pored over. Here are some highlights, feel free to share your own:

      - The conversations in Charles_Springstun.txt include correspondance from a Mr. Frankie Oxendine who is an antiterrorism /OPSEC officer and U.S. Army reserve candidate. He has "In God we trust, all others we monitor" included in his sig - that alone should provide some insight into the sanity of the whole homeland security operation. His business, mobile, and fax numbers are listed in the document.

      - In one of the text documents(forgot, too lazy to look through again), there is a detail about an officer bragging about how easy a shotgun is to operate, before or after he had to undergo remedial training for ditching his shotgun and cowardly running away from a firefight while his compatriots charged on.

      - From the Larry_Parks document, in the Blythe, AZ paperz pleaze gestapo checkpoint, "a K-9 alerted to the vehicle he was driving. A secondary inspection was negative for contraband; however, record checks revealed that the driver had a suspended registration and no valid driverâ(TM)s license. The subject also admitted that he had no insurance. YCSO was contacted, responded and arrested the subject and took custody of his property. "

      - A very professional conversation from the originator in the Steven_Loya document: "I'm sorry bro, I don't even talk to my squad or they talk to me. I really don't know where I belong right now... And we can't take blame for anything bro...Im sorry bro, there is just a lot of stuff going on... Keep me updated bro.

      - A fairly gruesome video called ' Spike Deployment Gone Bad, ' not for the faint of heart. Also among the documents are the usual MBA-prepared homeland security warning charts, a racial profiling advisory by the ACLU, what appear to be photos of an officer's' family/ies, an amusing survey of Jihadist tattoos, Active-duty membership of outlaw biker gangs, and an advisory about Purple Drank.

      The documents individually are not significant, but when read as a whole show the frightening, incompetent, paranoid mess that is the homeland security apparatus.

    132. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Are you similarly outraged about copyright infringers? They're also committing crimes.

      Just because the law says something doesn't mean it's a just law. Simply breaking a law doesn't automatically make a person some sort of criminal unworthy of human compassion.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    133. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by futuresheep · · Score: 1
      Hartzler was talking about Thomas Warziniak, a drug addict that started the whole thing by repeatedly lying about his identity, including saying he was born in Russia. Kind of hard to retrieve a birth certificate when your suspect is handing out false names and claims he doesn't know english numbers when you ask for his SSN.

      http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20080202/NEWS/309668797

      Speaks good English Warziniak used heroin for more than two decades.

      Arrested several times under several names, including Thomas Warz, Warziniak was busted by Grand Junction police Sept. 26, 2006, after shooting methamphetamine into his arm at a Grand Junction hotel.

      The lies started when officers tried to figure out who he was.

      I asked Mickaa (Warziniak gave an officer the false name of Joey Mickaa) for his social security number, and he told me he was an illegal from Russia and that he did not know for sure how to say the numbers (in English), an arrest affidavit reads.

      The skeptical officer noted his English was just fine moments earlier.

      Warziniak was jailed.

      In a deal with prosecutors resolving two cases, he pleaded guilty on Jan. 2, 2007, to a minor criminal impersonation charge related to another arrest. Warziniak was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

      Warziniak continued with tall tales about his past. According to a McClatchy-Tribune news service report on Warziniakâ(TM)s story, probation officials concluded in a report before his sentencing hearing that he was probably mentally ill.

      Don't let the rest of the story get in your way.

    134. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this Sherriff Bubba-Joe? Unless you can give me a name and specific example in which experienced law enforcement personnel have a history of using "troll logic" without base, as you described it, I think you are just blindly repeating generic concepts from biased media and prime-time tv dramas.

    135. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that's racial profiling then please stay out of Europe. You're required to carry ID and present it at any time and you'd need it to get work.... Oh, and stay out of China, Japan, Russia, Egypt.....

    136. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem is that this requirement is, effectively, unenforceable.

    137. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1
      aww, that's adorable, you still think police actually obey the "probable cause" or even "reasonable suspicion" standards.

      they always tell the truth, too.

    138. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget there's a BIG difference:

      There are those that try the royal way, put in for green card lottery, do all the paperwork, and get turned down. They will NOT be in the US of A.

      Then there are those that use the law to wipe their behinds; they come anyway regardless of the rules, and do whatever they like.

      Which of those two categories would you like to reward for the choices they made?

    139. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      The first story is longer than that .
      http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20080202/NEWS/309668797 Arrested several times under several names, including Thomas Warz, Warziniak was busted by Grand Junction police Sept. 26, 2006, after shooting methamphetamine into his arm at a Grand Junction hotel. The lies started when officers tried to figure out who he was. “I asked Mickaa (Warziniak gave an officer the false name of “Joey Mickaa”) for his social security number, and he told me he was an illegal from Russia and that he did not know for sure how to say the numbers (in English),” an arrest affidavit reads. The skeptical officer noted his English was just fine moments earlier. Warziniak was jailed. In a deal with prosecutors resolving two cases, he pleaded guilty on Jan. 2, 2007, to a minor criminal impersonation charge related to another arrest. Warziniak was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Warziniak continued with tall tales about his past. According to a McClatchy-Tribune news service report on Warziniak’s story, probation officials concluded in a report before his sentencing hearing that he was probably mentally ill.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    140. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      how do they get their backs wet from walking through a desert? do they get sweaty?

    141. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by tautog · · Score: 1

      Shush - reason and understanding are not permitted here.

    142. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by hldn · · Score: 1

      Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?

      because the only time you're required to show a driver's license is when you're driving, and furthermore police cannot randomly pull over cars to check if people have a license.

      aside from the case of driving, if confronted by a police officer you generally do not have to identify yourself. some states, however, do have stop and identify laws wherein you are required to identify yourself if detained* by a police officer. depending on the jurisdiction, refusal to identify yourself can be used against you or even carry it's own criminal penalty.

      * know the difference between a consensual contact with a police officer and detention. he must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been/is being/is about to be committed to detain you. if he is not detaining you, you do not have to stay and talk to him or identify yourself.

      that said, i have no problem with police officers checking the immigration status of anyone they have already arrested for other reasons.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    143. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Go to Arizona and walk up to a police officer. Odds are he will be Hispanic since Hispanics are the largest race in Arizona

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona#Demographics says: "According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Arizona had a population of 6,392,017. In terms of race and ethnicity, the state was 73.0% White (57.8% Non-Hispanic White Alone) [...] Hispanics or Latinos of any race made up 29.6% of the state's population."

      Unless that "largest" was a fat cop joke or something, in which case it whooshed right by me.

      The "assume all Mexicans are illegal" part probably comes from this section:

      FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

      Sorry about the all-caps-shout, that's direct copypasta from the all-caps pdf quickview from googling for SB1070.
      Anyway, that could easily end up being discrimination-by-demographics - it's Arizona, 90+% of illegals in Arizona are Hispanic, so the only time a cop has 'reasonable suspicion' that they're talking to an illegal alien is when they think he looks kinda Mexican and has an accent, since that's the only thing you'd be able to see and hear until after you checked. Given the stats I listed earlier, that's kind of a problem... apparently almost 30% of Arizona residents look kinda Mexican! That's a whole lot of citizens and legal residents who could basically be checked at any time.

    144. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So instead of refuting the point you resort to ad hominem attacks.

    145. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are stupid. I live in AZ. My immediate supervisor is 100% ethnic Mexican (and his grandfather immigrated here). His stance? Fully supports SB1070.

      There were also African Americans who supported segregation. Doesn't mean it wasn't racist.

      "Fuck you, got mine" is a universal sentiment that knows no cultural boundaries.

    146. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by russotto · · Score: 1

      It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.

      Sure, they claim not to oppose legal immigration. Which essentially isn't permitted (the US is currently not processing visa applications from Mexico any more recent than 10 years ago). So there's a distinction without a difference.

    147. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wulfmans · · Score: 2

      Excuse me idiot. In AZ a drivers license is perfectly good to prove your in the US legal as is a state issued ID card. Its the ones who cannot produce ID of any kind and that goes for brown black white or pink. To get a state issued ID or license you need to prove with a birth cert that you were born in the US.

    148. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that Sheriff Bubba-Joe has a history of having his officers stop every brown person they see, under the troll logic that "Non-Whites commit more crimes." Usually under the guise of wanting to see their drivers licence. And then, with this new law, they have to PROVE that they're not illegals, or the cop can arrest them on the spot for the crime of "possibly being illegal."

      Evidently, you've never been to Arizona. Nearly 40% of the police officers there consider themselves to be Hispanic.

      So, are you going to change your statement to read "Except that Sheriff Lupe-Jose has a history of..."? Why not? Why is it OK to assume that AZ Police officers are "Sheriff Bubba-Joe" when you thought they were all white and not OK when the Sheriff is Hispanic?

      Sorry, buddy, I just proved that you are a racist. You are what you accuse others of. I guess that makes you a hypocrite too.

      And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one? He can then beat the crap out of you the back of the car and charge you with resisting arrest. While you lay in the back of his car, bleeding, he can "find" that missing girl's body in your trunk and have you on death row for murder. Why are you not suggesting that we do away with cops? After all, you are against this law because cops might use it to profile, even though profiling is explicitly prohibited by this very law. Why are you not against all laws because any law may be abused by any cop?

      And again, you totally ignore that 40% of cops in AZ are Hispanic. Or do you think they are racists too?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    149. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by russotto · · Score: 1

      But pulling someone over for driving erratically isn't. Good luck proving that you weren't driving erratically.

      In fact, once the cops find one or two nondisprovable reasons for pulling someone over, it'll just become part of the standard narrative in court. Testilying: It works.

    150. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jd · · Score: 1
      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    151. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The unalienable rights of which the AC speaks are guaranteed by the US participation in the UN, and adherence to the charter of rights and freedoms.

      Umm, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't actually a Treaty.

      It's not even a UN resolution.

      Which means it's not actually binding on the US.

      Or anyone else, for that matter.

      And while I notice that leaving your country of origin is a guaranteed Right in that particular document, entering any other country isn't actually a guaranteed Right.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    152. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool - so we're going to throw ourselves out of the country? After all, we did steal the land and kill the people who were here first, aside from the descendents of those here before us, we're all descendants of 100% illegal immigrants.

    153. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      His birth certificate, bills, etc along with anyone else who could bring it to him/validate his citizenship, were in Michigan (or maybe Minnesota, I forget). He was in prison in Arizona (or New Mexico...somewhere down there). Not sure about social security number or driver's license. Maybe he didn't drive and just didn't know his social number though. Certainly plausible. I don't know mine. Obviously he didn't have much money, since he couldn't get anyone to get the relevant documents to him, if he was living in a city he may not have owned a car -- so no driver's license -- and personally, the only time I've ever needed my social security number is when applying for a job. Sometimes. Not always. Again, I don't know mine, seems plausible he wouldn't know his.

      Sure, is it likely? no. But it happens.

    154. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexicans are a different race from Mexicans?

      Are any Americans a different race than other Americans?

    155. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be pulled over for a legitimate reason. Federal law mandates that legal immigrants (not citizens) carry around proof of identity. State law mandates that you have a legal driver's license in order to drive. A legitimate suspicion that those items are forged, or simply lacking should absolutely qualify the officer to question further and possibly make an arrest.

      I cannot understand where people keep forgetting the illegal part of illegal immigration. Most anti-illegal-immigration people do not mind legal immigration. If you do not have respect for the law to just get into the country, then you should seriously question their respect for the other laws. As someone that used to live with two State Police officers (in a state on the East Coast), I cannot even count the number of times that they arrested an illegal immigrant who was drunk driving for a second, or third time; it's is a striking percentage. And they worked just as many accident scenes where illegal immigrants simply hit and run, or worse--injured or killed people in a nasty accident.

      It has nothing to do with race or even their point of origin. It has everything to do with respect of the laws.

      I cannot blame Arizona for wanting to enforce those laws, as the Federal government willfully ignores them. In half or more of the stories from my Trooper roommates, ICE absolutely refused to come pick up the offenders, which basically meant an unpaid ticket and someone out there simply repeating the same offense later. Awesome. That must be racist though...

    156. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find your .sig interesting, given that there were Jews in the Nazis who apparently couldn't distinguish between the positions either. Since this means illegal immigrants are now incapable of appealing to the law against forced labour (which is actually very common in the US), slavery hasn't ended either. Russia has reverted to communism because President Raygun failed to provide support for Gorbechev's reforms. And since American independence was founded on no taxation without representation, taxing these people whilst prohibiting them from enjoying any rights whatsoever is clearly a complete destruction of what American independence actually is.

      In short, you're not just a fool, you're a damn fool.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    157. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read the law? you cannot enforce it based on race it has to be suspicion such as not having legal identification. Yes latino's will be affected the most but that is only because they make up 90% of illegal aliens that cross the southern border. The race card is just used to halt any real debate and does nothing positive.

    158. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by indiechild · · Score: 0

      Hmm I dunno, I don't think there is much difference between disgust and hate.

      This is exactly how the right-wingers and shock jocks portray refugees/asylum seekers and other "undesirables" such as Muslims in Australia. Queue jumpers, illegals, terrorists, organised criminals/gangsters, persecutors of Christianity. "The illegals want to come here and change our way of life and dictate how we live our lives" and other such lies. The illegals/Muslims spit on the street, rape your teenage daughters, etc. Oh, and the "reverse racism" card gets played a lot too.

      "The illegals are racist against us (White Anglo-Saxon Australians)!!!!" and "We are being racially demonised in our own country!"

      It's all very calculated and it happens with the tacit approval of the government which remains largely silent about this kind of insidious propaganda.

    159. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      So it's OK because he was pretty obviously mentally ill and might not have even known what was going on?

    160. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Except that this law, and the bigoted environment in Arizona, codify anti-latino racial profiling and harassment. You don't see Canadians or Koreans being stopped citing SB 1070. Because that's not what this law is about.

      Amusingly (in the darkly tragic sort of way), the law was actually written by a known white supremacist (Kris Kobach, a member of FAIR, a known hate group). He literally handed it off to Brewer's administration to push through. Which she did, because it was an Election year and she needed the bigot vote to keep her job.

      I think they know that nobody from Canada with half a brain would want to sneak into the US to live there.

    161. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by indiechild · · Score: 1

      It's a kind of self-preservation tactic. Usually by people who are insecure, selfish and opportunistic.

      For example, in Australia I've noticed that there are a significant number of ethnic minority politicians who sign up with the larger right-wing parties who are always very anti-illegal immigrant/anti-asylum seeker etc.

      I think of it as a kind of collaboration with the occupiers. Ally yourself with the all-powerful and suck up to them so that they don't persecute you as well.

    162. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Barrinmw · · Score: 1

      there is a sizeable portion of poor LEGAL american citizens who have no form of ID, since when are we required to carry ID with us at all times to prove our innocence?

    163. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Barrinmw · · Score: 2

      A child brought across the border committed no crime, their parent did, yet they are still an illegal immigrant.

    164. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by cavreader · · Score: 1

      So you just assume that the entire police force is comprised of nothing but racists and law breakers? "Probable cause" is for the legal system to determine and it offers the accused a chance to challenge every impropriety they have suffered at the hands of the police. Unless of you also think every single judge is racists and law breakers? The US judicial system is adversarial in nature which allows the accused an opportunity to defend himself in a court of law and assert their rights if they feel they have been denied of their rights.

    165. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Actually they are not.

      The Arizona law requires that anyone legally stopped or detained by police officers who meets some unspecified criteria that may suggest the detained individual is an illegal immigrant must prove on the spot that they are in the country legally.

      If you are in the country legally under any type of visa or a work program then you must carry the proper documentation at all times according to Federal laws. If you are a naturalized citizen you are not required to carry documents to prove on the spot that you are a citizen. The closest anyone has been able to come up with "papers please" Federal laws are the stop and identify legal cases, and even then they do not require citizens to carry papers but instead only require citizens to respond accurately to investigating police officers when asked their name.

      There are in fact NO Federal laws requiring citizens to carry and produce citizen papers on demand. There are in fact NO Federal laws that assume guilt and require the arrest of citizens who are not carrying papers. The problem with debating people on this issue is they automatically assume that everyone detained by the police is either a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant and absolutely refuse to allow the reality into their brain that there are many legal immigrants who are naturalized citizens of the United States and are not required to carry papers with them to prove their citizenship.

    166. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      He was caught using illegal drugs and then lied to the police repeatedly. What do you expect? Why do you have such sympathy for him? If he was truly mentally ill to the point where he "didn't know what he was doing," then it wasn't the police officer's job to diagnose that. I think it's unlikely, though, that he was so schizophrenic that he honestly thought he was a Russian immigrant who couldn't count in English. That sounds like lying to me.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    167. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So instead of refuting the point you resort to ad hominem attacks.

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      The point being made by the GP was that it is a racist law. Saying that it was written by someone who is a racist (white supremacists call themselves "racist", by the way), is a perfectly valid point in support of the argument, and is in no way ad hominem.

    168. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by cavreader · · Score: 1

      If you want to fast track your citizenship just join the US armed forces.

    169. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1
      I don't. But a traffic stop is a good example of a time where the police can specifically require a driver's license (which is always proof of residence.) Any time police have made an arrest for a violation of any law (wrongdoing, right?) is a time the police should be asking for some form of identification and the legal address of the person they arrested. The justice system clearly needs an address for someone who's been arrested, right?

      Since we should already be asking people for their legal address when they get arrested or get a citation, it's not that great a leap to check immigration status for people who are here legally. It should only cause problems for illegals, which is, of course, the point.

    170. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by shermo · · Score: 1

      I know of a Chilean athlete who was put in a Miami jail for three days because he wouldn't walk on the footpath when told to by a policeman.

      Admittedly, he's an ass, and it was unfortunate that he hadn't learnt to fear American police so he didn't just comply with what the officer told him to do.

      Even more unfortunately for him he looks Cuban, talks with a South American accent, and he didn't have his passport on him. He was detained as a suspected illegal immigrant and cost himself a few thousand dollars of legal fees. All it would have taken to identify him was googling his name, and the first 5+ pages on google are about him.

      This is how the world sees America and it can only get worse with these sorts of immigration laws.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    171. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      It's a kind of self-preservation tactic. Usually by people who are insecure, selfish and opportunistic.

      For example, in Australia I've noticed that there are a significant number of ethnic minority politicians who sign up with the larger right-wing parties who are always very anti-illegal immigrant/anti-asylum seeker etc.

      I think of it as a kind of collaboration with the occupiers. Ally yourself with the all-powerful and suck up to them so that they don't persecute you as well.

      If they came right out and said it, sure. But this took a relationship that was years old before I was allowed to see that part of their personalities, and even now, they apologize when it slips out. But if they are in a group and you're the "minority", they will gladly let loose among themselves. You don't have to sit through too many dinners as the only white guy before you hear open and honest discussion. This was not impress me. This was them bitching about illegals coming over the boarder, robbing houses and cars and then heading back where they can't be found. They tell me this happens all the time and there is nothing they can do about it. The Feds won't do anything and local police are literally not allowed to. This is why AZ passed this law.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    172. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Unkyjar · · Score: 0

      Queue? Am I right in assuming you aren't American? I don't think I've ever heard a U.S. Citizen use queue to refer to a line, well, ever. Are you legal?

    173. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by md65536 · · Score: 1

      Law Enforcement has NEVER lied to make themselves look better.

      What?! Are you serious??? How on earth can you say this has never happened? Law enforcement has been around for a long, long time (decades, if not centuries). Do you really think that in all that time no one has ever lied to make themselves look better? Personally, I suspect that it has happened a few times... including probably fairly recently.

    174. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if 100% of them are Hispanic. You completely missed the problem with this law. It is discriminatory. And you were the one who assumed he was referring to a white guy. It could be a non-male cop with green skin.

    175. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      There's crimes and then there's crimes. Let's not compare a traffic ticket to killing someone.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    176. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Lots of Americans use the word "queue" to refer to a line of people waiting their turn for something. By "lots" I mean "dozens, possibly hundreds".

    177. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Have you read the law? you cannot enforce it based on race it has to be suspicion such as not having legal identification.

      So. you and all of the other AC's have decided that American is now the country of "Papers Please!"

      You cowards. Go move to north korea. In America, land of the free, we don't need no stinkin papers.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    178. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, the law makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. So yeah, probable cause == brown skin, even though the law explicitly disallows racial profiling.

      No probable cause for identifying illegal immigrants can be determined by skin color because legal immigrants fit that profile also.

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    179. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      When you develop software, you have to actually explain your thinking in detail -- something you failed to do.

      But I guess you might be good at writing comments!

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    180. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      All you've done is talk in circles around the fact that the law requires investigation of residency status in cases where it is entirely legal to not have any sort of ID.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    181. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Unkyjar · · Score: 2

      Sleeper agents for the British? I hear they're working on their accents so they can invade, rob and pillage only to disappear into the pasty white sea of middle america.

      I see...the whole law is Arizona getting a jump on the British invasion, very clever. I thought they were just insanely stupid for building their cities in the desert, but I guess it's because they know the British will be forced to wear pith helmets. That way they can be identified and removed from the country under the new law. Brilliant!

    182. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't see anyone being stopped citing SB1070 because it was never allowed to go into effect and it doesn't give cause for stopping anyone, only asking questions once they have been stopped for another offense.

    183. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they drive cars on the public highways? Without insurance?

    184. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2

      You are not required to present identification to a police officer. If you're driving, of course, that will lead to a rather quick arrest -- but you are still not required to do so. The only thing you are required to do is provide your name. And, for the record, a driver's license would not be sufficient proof. California, among other states, issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. "Drivers license please" is not equivalent to "drivers license and green card please" even if you accept a non-existant requirement to provide that identification.

      Do you honestly have any belief whatsoever that a white guy is going to be asked to prove his immigration status? I don't. Not even a white guy who is clearly not (natively) American. Nor, for that matter, are black people likely to be required to prove THEIR citizenship. It's a law targetting Latinos, pure and simple, and should be opposed for that reason alone. It's codified racial profiling, with a wink-wink-nod that technically it can happen to anybody. It won't. Am I, as a fat white American going to be hauled to the station because I'm not carrying my birth certificate with me? How about my friend Salvador? Which seems more likely to you? And more importantly, why are you okay with that?

      Of course it will be abused. It's the whole damn reason it was passed. Short of some sort of felony, in which case their immigration status will be found out awfully quickly anyway, the offenses under which somebody would be stopped pale compared to the offense they will be accused of next -- being an illegal immigrant. "You didn't come to a full stop back there and oh, you look pretty Mexican. Let's see your papers." No thanks. Not in this country.

      All your barking about how I don't know the law means nothing other than that you are naive enough to believe the law was not firmly intended to harass latinos in the hope--and oh please god, at least let this be their true motivation!--that they find some illegal immigrants along the way. Even law enforcement agencies within Arizona want nothing to do with this. They know it's going to cause much bigger problems than it solves. Not to mention their badged brethren outside the state who know the same thing. Frankly the only people who don't seem to know this are the Republicans, but hell, I guess harassing people who don't vote for you until they'll leave is probably good politics.

      "You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered," according to Lyndon Johnson. This is a law begging for abuse of a specific racial minority. Absent some SIGNIFICANT reason why this law is a great thing, so great to ignore all these issues and all the abuse that WILL, absolutely happen, I will stand opposed to it and I will call it out for what it is: Racism.

    185. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Lost+Race · · Score: 2

      Hating white ghetto boys but not black ghetto boys is racist. I'm not saying you hate based on the color of skin, but if you do (as your comment suggests you might) then you're racist.

    186. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by clarkn0va · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And according to Barbara Coloroso, disgust leads to contempt; contempt leads to a view of inferiority and objetification; bullying follows, and at some point any inhumanity can be justified, because after all, they're less than human. She claims this to be the path that has led up to every major genocide of this century.

      I'll stop there before somebody Godwins me, and I'm not trying to suggest that all disgust and contempt lead to genocide or even murder, but I do think it's a road best not travelled.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    187. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jd · · Score: 1

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Even if true (which it isn't), the criminal acts of one is not a justification of the criminal acts of another. And, yes, I regard authority figures going round demanding identification papers (something the US used to sneer at Russia over doing, I might add) as a criminal act. It is amusing, if ironic, that it is those who demand smaller government and greater freedom from interference that are also demanding that the government expands in order to do this. ...or did you expect these illegal immigrants to form neat lines at the nearest police station to hand themselves in? Perhaps, whilst the police are busy checking the papers, the thieves, muggers and drive-by shooters would like to take an ill-deserved lunch break. The added taxation would pay for the extra paperwork involved.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    188. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1
      yes, the US Judicial System exists. but think about this for a second: do you think every person wrongly pulled aside is going to have the resources to legally challenge state action? do you honestly believe the state-provided counsel is going to do an effective job?

      your post assumes that the courts will somehow magically step in and correct wrongs, when in reality a lot of people who can't afford halfway decent legal representation will get convicted or worse.

    189. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by futuresheep · · Score: 1

      Nice deflection there. Let's just ignore that your original post is factually incorrect, but does a great job of pointing out your biases and the "truth" you want people to hear.

    190. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever been here? I've seen it happen multiple times with Asians.

    191. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you really think Arizona is particularly more bigoted than any other state? I mean, really? Do you have evidence for this, or are you just saying it because you don't like red states?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    192. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Anti-Mexican is nothing new. Look at that poor country, if there ever was an example of third world heart breaking poverty, its just right South of our Borders. There is such poverty there, I feel most Americans look the other way in despair. What kills me is we will float mountains of money to overseas foreign countries that shit on us, attack our fleet, scream for our death in their streets, but we thumb our noses at our poor next door neighbor. Then we wonder why when they are starving they creep across our border desperate to find some kind of work to just LIVE and help those at home who are starving literally to death.

      With that said, the invasion has to stop. Yes, it is an invasion. The numbers involved demand one call it for what it is. Can one say that there is racism involved? I would agree, but there is much more nationalism involved. Even if it wasn't Hispanics, and were all blonde haired, blue eyed, big titted 21 year old girls desperate to give blow jobs, the shear numbers involved would warrant some attention and intervention. (not from me, I would be on the border screaming Viva la Mexico, but I digress)

      What we do need is a good work visa system. This is NOT going to be well received by those who exploit illegal laborers. But we can be heartless about the work visas as well and make it work for all sides. A proper work visa system would be a major boon to both sides of the border. What we seriously need to do is get our troops back from overseas as fast as fucking possible so we can address some serious homeland security issues that stem across our borders and theirs.

      We need to understand that there are some really great Mexican people. The vast majority of them are of warm heart, good and decent people. Just like here, there are some very bad apples there. We have built a prison industry to deal with our booming crops of bad apples.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    193. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by davester666 · · Score: 0

      >>Mexicans are a different race from Mexicans?

      >Mexican isn't a race.

      Exactly. It's more of a class. Or lack thereof. :-O

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    194. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      These people who are "targeted" are only targeted if they broke the law. Is the immigration law broke and in need of fixing? Hell yes. Does that make it "right" to just hop the border and do as you please? No. If you think it does, try to illegally immigrate to Mexico and see how that goes.

      But the problem is, they're targeting all non-whites (admittedly, primarily Latinos), using SB 1070 as a shield, under the name of fixing the "illegals" problem -- which is a fancy, modern, more socially acceptable version of a racial slur against Latinos. Believe the previous one was "wetback?" Maybe "beaner?" I'm not hip with bigot lingo, unfortunately.

      When you're stopped at a traffic stop because you happen to have brown skin, that's targeting. It's racial profiling, and it's wrong. SB 1070 just attempts to give them some form of legal cover for what is disgusting behavior.

      And that's the long and the short of it. For all the outcry about "illegals taking our jobs" (that would be the jobs they're finding in Georgia that they can't fill without illegals), for all the rage and fury that people who didn't have the good sense to be born the white decedents of previous immigrants, this law, and the culture behind it, is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

      Ethically, morally, intellectually. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      Worse still, it's a smokescreen, a scapegoat to try and pawn problems off on a socially soft target. A shell game for morally inadequate politicians, drunk on power and desperate to stay relevant.

      If these people were really interested in actually fixing the problem, they'd join with the Democratic Party and work on the real immigration reform they've been trying to get hammered out. They're not. It's too useful as a wedge issue to get the ignorant masses out and voting, and pawn serious problems off on an easy scapegoat.

      I suppose we should just be glad they're not talking about labor camps for illegals and the unemployed yet.

    195. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe "Bubba-Joe" is a reference to the star sheriff of Maricopa County, a quite solid argument exists that he is in fact, a dumbass. Oh and a racist as well.

      You are correct, police are not uniform, there are a lot of hispanic/latino members of the AZ law enforcement community, many who opposed the measure in question.

      You didn't prove shit, your epistemology is epically weak or you resort to hyperbole like an infant.

      You cannot be arrested for driving without a license, and typically not even for driving with an invalid license, they will tow your car.

      Yes "can" or "cannot" changes if someone has a gun and the intent to utilize force in a direct affront to the law. You can be pulled out of your office and shot in the street. The "can" of the poster was "under the color of law" yours is "hypothetically possible."

      dumbass.

    196. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wulfmans · · Score: 0

      Lemme guess they have no bank accounts, no car, no place to live. All of which require you to show proof of who you are to obtain. You are correct there has never been a requirement to carry ID if your walking down the street. But if you are driving a car you are REQUIRED to carry a drivers license and show proof of insurance. If you live in america and are stopped while driving and cannot produce a license, insurance paperwork and don't speak english its a good chance you are not here legally. And if you are walking down the street and are stopped all you are required to do is state your full name and where you live. If you have no ID and you are arrested no problem either, they will fingerprint you and determine your ID at the jail. If your illegal? you need to be DEPORTED.

    197. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      That was already the case before SB1070, I believe in every border state.

      So why did Arizona need a new law to enforce one already on the books?

      Read the law: It goes a lot further than what you just said. They can arrest you and throw you in jail if you can't prove with papers on you at that exact moment that you're not an illegal immigrant. There's a big difference for getting thrown in jail for not having your driver's license on you, versus them checking your status. The law puts the burden solely on you, the officer doesn't even have to check the system, and if he suspects that your documents may be fake he can still arrest you and throw you in jail just because he thinks you have a fake driver's license.

    198. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Boronx · · Score: 2

      I'm really curious. Legal immigrants, and citizens of Mexican descent sometimes don't have id on them, so what reasonable cause could there ever be?

    199. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, are you going to change your statement to read "Except that Sheriff Lupe-Jose has a history of..."? Why not?

      Because he is talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a police officer so corrupt that even Europeans like me have heard of him. I find it difficult to believe that you could live in Arizona and not understand this, which means you are probably one of his cronies engaging in some astroturfing.

    200. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      A cop going that far just to haul you in won't even bother tossing the license.

    201. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Boronx · · Score: 2

      Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever tried to ID yourself when you're in jail, and the jailers think you're someone else? Do people who aren't driving need to carry ID? Is it hard for illegal immigrants to get a driver license? Did the Spanish speaking communities that existed in Arizona before 1840 suddenly disappear? You are a disgrace to this great nation, and an embarrassment to anyone who's lived in it for more than 5 minutes.

    202. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "withdrawal" and it's temporary. Also, it's not as bad as you'd probably like to believe.

      The farmers will adapt, the local laborers will adapt, and the state will be much better for it.

    203. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The immigration system we have today is anti-immigrant. When becoming a legal immigrant means waiting 10 years in a country where blood-thirsty drug cartels will kidnap you and force you to fight in gladiator style battles against other kidnapees, being anti-illegal-immigrant is being anti-immigrant.

      If Arizona wanted legal immigration their politicians wouldn't be screaming "put up a fence", they would be screaming "fix our broken immigration system".

    204. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you missed the fact that GP was referring to a specific person: Sheriff Joe Arpaio. So "bubba-joe" is actually Joe, and not just a generic "john doe" hypothetical person. Hence referring to him as Lupe-Jose would not make sense and his race is actually not relevant.

    205. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      All you've done is talk in circles around the fact that the law requires investigation of residency status in cases where it is entirely legal to not have any sort of ID.

      How on Earth can a foreign national be a legal resident without any sort of ID? If they are here legally there is going to be a passport. If they are not a foreign national, they are going to have a driver's license. Apart from minors under 16 there isn't a reasonable example of someone who would be a legal resident without any sort of ID.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    206. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Do you really think Arizona is particularly more bigoted than any other state? I mean, really? Do you have evidence for this, or are you just saying it because you don't like red states?

      Why yes, I do have succinct and definitive evidence that Arizona is more bigoted than other states.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070

      Perhaps not all of them, but quite a few.

    207. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      To get work? Hell, here a policeman can stop you for no reason whatsoever and ask for your ID, and failing to present it he can arrest you if he has "reasonable doubt" (read: is bored enough) that you're who you pretend to be 'til your ID can be established.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    208. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      IIRC not carrying ID is still a misdemeanor in Germany. As it is in some other countries in Europe.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    209. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Except that this law, and the bigoted environment in Arizona, codify anti-latino racial profiling and harassment. You don't see Canadians or Koreans being stopped citing SB 1070. Because that's not what this law is about.

      Arizona has quite the problem with a large influx of Canadians immigrating illegally to the state, does it?

    210. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are like the definition of someone reinforcing his preconceived notions with his own ideas. Way to block out alternate views man, way to go.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    211. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      So I guess as soon as there are enough "illegal" immigrants and they take over the country from you, it's their right of conquest? Right? Right.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    212. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wulfmans · · Score: 1

      LOL you are an idiot.

    213. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was I supposed to see that as an abuse of authority...? From your account he was dealt with in a quite reasonable manner.

    214. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one? He can then beat the crap out of you the back of the car and charge you with resisting arrest. While you lay in the back of his car, bleeding, he can "find" that missing girl's body in your trunk and have you on death row for murder. Why are you not suggesting that we do away with cops?

      I do realize that. I would suggest doing away with cops. I'd rather take my chances with a psycho skull-f*cking me to death then have to try to live in the same world with the cops as they are today. F*ck the police.

    215. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by denebeim · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpio He's a real piece of work. Imagine Buford T Justice with a mean streak and a bunch of hirelings to do his bidding.

    216. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I see your drivers license, please?

    217. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wrook · · Score: 1

      Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?

      Because US citizens are not required to carry *any* identification. I haven't read the law in question, but I live in a country which seems to have a similar law (Japan). In Japan, if the police have occasion to ask me for my ID and I'm not carrying any, then as a non-citizen I can be sent to jail until it all gets sorted out. As a non-citizen, it doesn't bother me much. I have to carry around my "gaijin card" with me everywhere I go. It's part of the price of coming here.

      But if I were a citizen it would bother me plenty. Racial Japanese people will *never* be asked for proof of citizenship under any circumstances. If they look Japanese and speak Japanese fluently, then they are Japanese. But I know people here who have white skin, but are Japanese citizens (some for their entire lives). If a policeman has occasion to ask for ID and they don't produce it, then what? Especially if they speak Japanese with an accent, they risk going to jail. Thus, just like a non-citizen they have to carry proof that they belong everywhere they go.

      Again, I'm only going by what I read here in Slashdot, but it seems like this law is going to have similar problems. How does a police officer determine if a person is in the US illegally if they carry no ID? That in itself might be construed as evidence. If you couple it with certain racial characteristics and the inability to speak English, you might have a problem. Does this mean that hispanics must carry ID at all times, when white, Engish speaking people don't? This creates a disparity amongst race, even if the person isn't singled out solely on racial profiling.

      I guess the easier way to look at it is, you might not be profiling specifically on race/language, but if you are allowed to say, "He's obviously American because he's white and speaks English perfectly", even when they guy doesn't carry ID, they you have a huge problem. I suspect that this is the case.

    218. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever stop to think that there aren't any actual socialists in Congress or the White House and that the liberals and the conservatives both bend over for the corporations that give them a funding reach-around?

    219. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wrook · · Score: 1

      So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right? Given that they don't have one, is it reasonable to ask why they don't have it?

      Not all wrong-doings require a driver's license. What about jay-walking? What about being at the scene of a crime (you might be a suspect even if you aren't involved)? What about a domestic dispute? You're in a fight with your wife and it all gets a bit loud. The police come and, "Hey are you a citizen?". What about a group of teenagers who are drinking beer behind the bleachers when a policeman stumbles on them? Nobody has ID. Everybody gets away with a warning except that the hispanics must prove they are citizens.

      I'm not aware of the details of the law, but your characterisation of it being no problem at all bears a fair amount of scrutiny. There is serious potential for abuse.

    220. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Totally. We should have an immigration law like Mexico's. I mean, they let those Guatemalans just pour across the border!

    221. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      God you're so fucking giving! I for one don't really see any benefit to me as an American to letting poor people flood across the border, but I'm not as open minded and selfless as you are obviously. Personally I think you should let a poor family move in with you. I mean don't you feel a bit selfish owning a TV and computer when just across our border people are struggling to survive? Being the selfless person you are, I'm sure you can sell that shit you don't need (trappings of a modern life) and feed several families of poor farmers.

    222. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      There isn't any part. Some people have poor ego development and it makes them feel really good about themselves to imagine some other group of people as being evil "racists". Because if "they" are racists, that means "I" am a modern, progressive, sensitive soul and that makes me feel good about myself.

    223. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, trying immigrating to Mexico from Guatemala and see how far you get.

    224. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er - he's referring to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Perhaps you should check up on basic facts about AZ law enforcement before spouting off.

    225. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Because he's a lying retard.

    226. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by sheddd · · Score: 1

      IMO that's analogous to saying 'It's anti speeder. There's a difference. When you get a ticket for going .00001mph over the limit. Immigration laws have been poorly enforced, similar to speeding laws. There are so many laws most break one every day; maybe we can hire some immigrants to run the prisons when we start enforcing ALL the laws.

    227. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Your lie was busted, though anyone reading what you wrote would instantly know you were lying because the story is ridiculous. He had to...work! to...pay off his birth certificate! And he had to go uphill both ways to the prison work hall!

      What a buffoon.

    228. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Laughable. I'll tell you what - pick a random non-US country on the globe. Fly there without a passport or any kind of legal status and go get a job. Tell me how that works out with you and the local authorities.

      You self described enlightened people fucking crack me up because you're just so entirely full of shit.

    229. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "For the record, pulling someone over because based on looks is strictly forbidden in the law."

      Tell me: What is the penalty for violating that? And can you give a case where it has been applied?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    230. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      You're so anti-racist! That must really feel good, I bet you pat yourself on the back every night with how racist most people are compared to you.

      Fortunately nobody gives a shit about your opinion. I'm not racist (though I don't care if you call me one or not, knock yourself out), I just see that poor people of any race are a fucking drag on society. If Canada went tits up and a bunch of dirt poor Canadians swarmed down here and started spitting out little poor white kids in insane numbers and demanding to suck at the government teat I'd try to keep them out just as much.

      My interests for myself and my family lie in not allowing a bunch of poor people to swarm over the southern border into my state. Since I'm not some idiot little college kid or hipster douche I'm mature enough to know that looking out for my own interests and those of my family are my number one priority.

      We have a legal mechanism for immigration, they can follow it or they can be jailed and deported. What's funny is try the shit they get away with here down in Mexico, see how the Mexican government treats you if you're an illegal from South America in Mexico.

    231. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh?

    232. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wrook · · Score: 1

      What public offence makes a person removable from the Unites States (apart from being illegally in the US or some other serious crime - which I would hope would compel the person to produce documentation regardless of this law).

      This is precisely the point. Isn't illegal entry to the United States a public offence which makes them removable from the United States? How do you know if they had illegally entered the United States, except that they don't have the proper paperwork? Is a citizen of the United States required to carry papers proving that they are a citizen? If a person of Mexican origin who doesn't speak English (or speaks it with an accent) is involved in a minor offence, will the fact of their racial origins and their language ability be enough to suspect them of illegal entry to the US? Will a person who is white with perfect English ever be subject to the same suspicion?

      The potential for this law is to create two classes of citizens: one who does not normally have to carry or surrender ID on demand (except in limited situations like driving), and another who must carry their ID around with them at all times *just in case*. I believe this is specifically something that Americans pride themselves on not having. It is better to put up with some problems than to create a society of inequality. Or at least this is the PR us Canadians hear all the time ;-)

    233. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      God I'm so flabbergasted by what an amazing human being you are! Calling out wrongdoing by those evil racists everywhere around you. If you give me your address I will, and I'm dead serious, mail you a T-shirt you can wear that proclaims you're a Super Hero when it comes to fighting the massive population of evil white racists out to get the poor latinos. You can proudly puff up your chest while wearing it and tell everyone how you won it on the Internet for being such a crusader against that white sea of racists!

    234. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1
      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    235. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Anti-poor immigrant. I'm glad you caught on. Speaking for myself I can say I don't give a fuck one way or the other about race. It's poor people that will fuck you up. Now please explain how it is in our national interest to let a bunch of poor people stream, untracked, across the border and spit out 5 kids who suck up public services. I'm all ears.

      PS: I know someone in social services in AZ. They sock the _fuck_ up out of social services. Not only the illegals, but the children they have here.

    236. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by mandelbr0t · · Score: 2

      Actually reading the e-mails suggests there is a problem with specific officers, not the AZ police department as a whole. 500MB is a lot of documents to wade through, and I've only read the e-mails from the first couple of officers. So far, it's been a few minor isolated incidents attributable to very few, with a whole lot of nothing in between. On the other hand, the passwords still work, so the PD might want to get on that...

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    237. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      How on Earth can a foreign national be a legal resident without any sort of ID?

      Are you freaking kidding? Walking down the damn street does not require an ID yet there are hundreds of reasons for a cop to stop someone doing just that.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    238. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right? Given that they don't have one, is it reasonable to ask why they don't have it?

      The leaked e-mails include an incident where a car was impounded because his ID was suspected to be a fraudulent Mexican driver's license. When it turned out that the ID was genuine, there were still issues for the driver to get their vehicle back. Some officers are apparently very bad at doing the follow-up paperwork when a vehicle is impounded. Furthermore, there was at one point some confusion about when a car could be impounded. AZ state law requires that AZ has suspended the driver's license before the vehicle is impounded, not just that a person is driving without a license.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    239. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For knowing so much about the ethnic makeup of the police in Arizona, you don't know that the Sheriff of Maricopa county (the most populous in the state) is Sheriff Joe Arpaio, A guy with a notoriously polarizing image, hence the GP's reference to him as Sheriff Bubba-Joe.

    240. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record, pulling someone over because based on looks is strictly forbidden in the law.

      Lulz. I didn't pull you over for your looks, it was because of the sticker on your windscreen.
      Bombs dropped by air drones are not acts of war (unless terrorists use air drones) War is peace.
      Waterboarding is not torture (unless the person being waterboarded is an american citizen)
      Due process is codified into law, so let's keep our prisoners in Gitmo so we don't have to follow our own laws.
      Presidents are elected by the people so let's pretend money doesn't buy a precidency.

    241. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-whites do commit more crime, you fucking libtard. Niggers and spics commit more crime against Whites than vice versa, and it will only get worse, especially with morons like you around shitting on White heritage and promoting mandatory desegregation of humans and manimals. Either you're a White libtard, or you are a nigger or a spic yourself.

    242. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Nearly 40% of the police officers there consider themselves to be Hispanic.

      You just posted "Hispanics are some of the most racist people I've met towards other Hispanic." and now you assume that hispanic cops won't be racist towards other hispanics. Come on.

      And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one?

      It isn't illegal to drive without a license on your person, it is illegal to drive unlicensed.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    243. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really gonna defend Sheriff Joe?

      I just moved to Phoenix from the east coast, and I have NEVER seen a more racially charged place. Who gives a fuck if 40% of the cops identify as Hispanic? Doesn't seem to stop the deputies from being coyotes.

      I've WATCHED the racist attitudes of Scottsdale cops towards my own friends. I'm a blond haired blue eyed white guy, I can stumble all over old town drunk, but my mestizo roommate? One little double step and they're in his face, screaming at him.

      This is the most racist, backwards-ass town ever. Shame on you for trying to say that this place is even the LEAST bit tolerant. Sheriff Joe is a racist, bigot asshole, and the faster he's put behind bars, the better. Andrew Thompson, too. Fuck him. I work in the State Bar building, and I can't wait to go applaud his disbarment.

    244. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by julesh · · Score: 1

      You mean like when he gets pulled over and the police man asks for his driver's license? Yeah, that never happens to white people.

      The white person won't get a $100 fine for not being able to prove he's there legally.

    245. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      Yes the US was such a socialist haven in 1882 when it limited Chinese immigration. Or 1921 when Congress legislated immigration quotas for all immigrants. And of course, there were no cries against the drunk Irish immigrants taking all the jobs and leaving Americans unemployed in the late 1800s. Nope, none at all.

      So no, that's not the real issue and hasn't been at any point the last 200 years that this has been a perceived problem.

      Then again I suppose knowing American history makes one un-American, eh?

    246. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      How can they see a (former) Mexican is illegal before questioning them?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    247. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by m50d · · Score: 2

      Oh man you're right, look at Somalia they don't have any immigration problems.

      --
      I am trolling
    248. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Did you ever stop to think that if the socialists didn't keep trying to turn the country into a "Free Services R' Us" heaven, it wouldn't really matter who the fuck was in the country?

      "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
      Unless they're groups of people who are actualy poor and want to breath freely, ofcourse.
      The USA has fallen a long way since it's hopeful beginnings.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    249. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by IICV · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that Mexicans from more affluent areas, and more central areas in general, often are quite racist against Mexicans from border areas.

      Exactly! I am never going to meet my grandparents-in-law, because they are semi-legal* Mexican immigrants into California and would object to my dark skin (I'm from Brazil). My wife tells me that her grandmother insisted on her children marrying white, and wants the next generation to do the same.

      *they used a loophole that has since been closed; if they'd moved here a year or two later they would actually be illegal immigrants.

    250. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've summed up the disagreement of the two sides nicely. AZ believes it is anti illegal immigration while opponents claim the tactics they use are also anti-minority and therefore unconstitutional. For example the law that let AZ police demand to see proof of citizenship without true probable cause other than "hey the dude looked mexican" when they were stopping folks for other sometimes minor offenses was considered by AZ to be a reasonable approach to determining who should be here and how shouldn't and by opponents as racist.

      I personally think the truth is somewhere in the middle. AZ is desperate to fight illegal immigration for both legit and non legit reasons. They have unfortunately adopted cold war tactics and racist policies to accomplish this. Like all governments at some point ou have to learn that the ends don't justify the means and that exercising oppressive and unjust policy will eventually lead to backlash.

    251. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right?

      If by "traffic violation" you mean "walking around acting all Mexican".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    252. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

      In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war, as did most other places. There are plenty of ex-colony countries that became independent without war. The Nazis rise to power was a direct consequence of WWI and the situation we put Germany in after it (massive reparations, hyperinflation etc.) Communism... Well, you failed in Vietnam and the cold war ended why the USSR collapsed rather than when you defeated them militarily.

      So yeah, starting a war rarely improves the situation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    253. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There isn't much chance of that happening. People constantly wildly overestimate the number of non-natives in their country. In the UK polls typically show people think it is 30-40%, where as at the last census it was 4%. I imagine that will have gone up a bit, we are still waiting for the results of this year's census, but it won't be anything like 30%.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    254. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      In America, land of the free, we don't need no stinkin papers.

      Except if you want to get in or out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    255. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Those traffic stops are not implemented by Arizona, but by Border Patrol. They also occur in other border states, not just Arizona.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    256. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      I see US citizens doing that all over the world. You should try traveling before you make that statement. From nice expensive cities like London, Tokyo and Paris, to 3rd world nations.

    257. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in. No papers needed to go to international waters.

    258. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL you are an idiot.

      You are the one who said, "they will fingerprint you and determine your ID at the jail" as if every legal resident's fingerprints are in some database. Your casual dismissal of a basic American freedom makes you the idiot.

      Its assholes like you who are willing to sacrifice fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens for the sake of pandering to the enemy-of-the-day crowd who are the real idiots.

    259. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Mexico isn't a poor country though, it just has a terrible income equality ratio. The poor in Mexico are very poor while the rich are very rich.

      Many of the "Mexicans" coming to the US aren't actually from Mexico, but from farther south who are escaping through Mexico to get to the US, oh and the War on Drugs and Narco Gangs isn't helping.

      But it's not an invasion, calling it an invasion shows that you don't know what an invasion is.

      An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity. Until brigade sized units of the Ejercito Mexicano roll into Arizona, it's not an invasion.

    260. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it matter to the TV company if the money that buys a TV comes from the govt or from a guy with a job? Why can't govt create money to give directly to ppl, so there need be no poor anywhere?

    261. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      We didn't put Germany into the economic situation it was in following World War I, the United Kingdom, France and Italy did.

      In January 1921, the total sum due was decided by an Inter-Allied Reparations Commission and was set at 269 billion gold marks (the equivalent of around 100,000 tonnes of pure gold), about £13 billion or US$64 billion ($785 billion in 2011). The US pushed and pushed to lower the sum, first with the Dawes Plan and then with the Young Plan.

      Belgium, the United Kingdom, and certain British Dominions, France, and Japan all took German territories overseas while France, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Belgium and Czechoslovakia took German territory in Europe, the United States didn't take German territory, didn't steal German industry, the US rejected Versailles because Congress and the American public thought it was too harsh.

      Yes the US "lost" the Vietnam War, we bombed the North into a peace treaty with the US and South Vietnam, Congress stopping providing military aid to North Vietnam, then after the bulk of US forces had left South Vietnam the North invaded and overran the country. So a nation that wasn't defeated in any major battle, who had a peace treaty and didn't have forces there anymore "failed" when South Vietnam was over run.

    262. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by malsbert · · Score: 1

      Hi fractal type :)

      I was reading your stuff, and you leave wondering :/

      Everything was just fine, but then you go; "On the other hand, the passwords still work, so the PD might want to get on that..."

      So; now i am wondering, how do you know? you did not log in to them, right? :)

      --
      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
    263. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Farming labor in the US isn't restricted by minimum wage, so farmers in Georgia could hire documented migrant workers and pay them less than minimum wage still, but they won't they are trying to create an issue so there are still illegal workers they can pay even less and threaten them with deportation.

    264. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Googling a name someone gives you isn't legal identification in the US or anywhere else in the world.

    265. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      That could be cultural. Ethnic minorities may fear persecution, and therefore lie on the form / fail to return it.

      My parents are firmly in the belief that there are many UK cities which are now predominantly non-Caucasian. It doesn't seem to occur to them that many of those folk will be 2nd, 3rd, or further generation British-born and have an accent, mannerisms, and cultural tastes indistinguishable from any Caucasian local.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    266. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Indians are Americans, the rest is all illegal aliens.

    267. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, are you a member of the Navajo, Ak-Chin, Cocopah, etc, tribes? Because if not you're a just another hypocritical authoritarian on a bender. Sit down and shut up.

      No, my boy, it is you who needs to sit down and shut up.

      Sorry to shatter your delusional utopian peacenik bullshit, but the "native" American tribes were conquered by force of arms. By all international standards, the United States and her legal citizens are the rightful rulers of this domain.

    268. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And according to Barbara Coloroso, disgust leads to contempt; contempt leads to a view of inferiority and objetification; bullying follows, and at some point any inhumanity can be justified, because after all, they're less than human. She claims this to be the path that has led up to every major genocide of this century.

      How many major genocides has this century had?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    269. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by spiralx · · Score: 1

      Last time I read about it Coventry was the first city projected to become majority non-white, around 2040 or so. As of the census before last, the UK was still 92% white, as hard as that is to believe in parts of the large cities.

    270. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Civil War was not fought over slavery. This is a common misconception.

    271. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Of course the US is responsible for how WWI ended. It was fought to a standstill until we came in. If we had stayed out a more fair treaty would have been signed and Germany would not have been devastated.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    272. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 1

      Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status.

      So what? The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them. That it only happens in the context of some other event doesn't make it any more reasonable.

      Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?

      Well, that's illegal. The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing. At best they an ask for a person's name, but they can't demand ID.

      I wish that were still true here in Ohio, but thanks to the Ohio Patriot Act Sec. 2909.31, Law enforcement may demand Identification of anyone at anytime. Failure to comply, if you have legally issued ID, is a misdemeanor.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    273. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      When did Russia revert to communism?

    274. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Leicester is the only majority non-Caucasian city in the UK. Birmingham is getting there with about 40%.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    275. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I am from the UK, so when I say "we" I mean "we in the UK". That has nothing to do with the actual point though, which is that war rarely fixes anything.

      I think you will find that Vietman was more about fighting the Communists than about Vietnam itself.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    276. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Or there would have been a total breakthrough by the Allies and Germany would have been totally divided by France, Britain and Italy.

      The US entry into WWI is part of ending the war, however the US isn't responsable for post war German feeling, the break up of the German overseas empire or the post-war humiliation of Germany.

    277. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Nice cherry picking you are doing there. But, you lose on your very first comment. Try reading some of the comments and sigs on slashdot. You know, the ones that say the government is watching everyone all the time, the ones that say everyone is breaking a law all the time because that is why laws exist, the ones that say the U.S. government is the most oppressive of all time.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    278. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by flyneye · · Score: 1

      It's true, here in Kansas the Mexican people, born here, have NO sympathy for the wetbacks. They come, they live on both sides of the law and give ACTUAL (rather than the media or J.Jacksons definition) racists ammo to ridicule Mexicans in general. I don't blame them. Wets R bad, m'kay. They work for next to nothing, undercutting wages for local Mexicans and others, they steal what they want, they traffic meth. I know Mexican gangs in cities are a problem, staffed MOSTLY by wetbacks, Wets in rural areas are no better, just a different flavor of unwelcome.
      Hooray for Arizona, and all the states following with similar legislation.
                The ONLY people complaining are of course the Wetbacks and clueless liberals who just need their "cause du jour", the same people who feel "black guilt" and want to repay anyone with dark skin back for Great-great-grandaddy cracking a whip to get his cotton picked. The press of course is made up of those who threw away an opportunity for education in order to become journalist/activist/clueless zombies and keep the disinformation fuel flowing into the problem.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    279. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The Vietnam War was about stopping the spread of Communism in SE Asia by supporting the non-Communist government of the Republic of Vietnam.

      By spring 1973 the US, South Vietnam and North Vietnam signed a peace treaty, by spring of 1975 the peace was broken and North Vietnam rolled into the south.

      Communism did spread into Laos and for a little while into Cambodia before that all fell apart and unified Vietnam invaded them. But Communism didn't take hold in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines like people had feared it would.

      So really, in the short term the US loses (Vietnam united, Laos and Cambodia go Communist), but in the long run its a draw or US victory (Vietnam turning towards more open markets, Cambodia no longer Khmer Rouge). Now the US and Vietnam have annual defense talks and Vietnam is even considering allowing the US to base ships at Cam Ranh Bay again. Last year the US cruiser Hue City (named for a major battle in the Vietnam War) visited Vietnam and is captained by a South Vietnamese refuge.

      http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/18/3711167/vietnamese-protest-china-amid.html

      War often fixes things. Since WW2 there have been no massacres of Jews in Europe, no more Pogroms. The American Indian Wars ended tribal or tribal warfare, American Indian on white (Sioux uprising) and white on Indian attacks (Sand Creek). The American Civil War ended slavery in the United States and the defeat of the French occupation of Mexico, in the 1860s, ended European meddling in Central and South America.

    280. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "if your [sic] walking down the street [...] and don't speak english [sic] its [sic] [...]"

      Was that an intentional troll or was it unintentional lulz?

    281. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that he doesn't need probable cause, just "probable cause" as well. The law's author's went out of their way to avoid the phrase probable cause because that phrase has legal precedent attached, instead using a phrase that sounds like it should have a similar meaning but doesn't innately carry that meaning.

    282. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      You mean like when he gets pulled over and the police man asks for his driver's license? Yeah, that never happens to white people.

      Yes, constantly being pulled over for 'driving while white'.

    283. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The leaked e-mails include an incident where a car was impounded because his ID was suspected to be a fraudulent Mexican driver's license.

      You're allowed to drive in US border states with a valid Mexican license, as long as you leave when your permission to be here expires. Having a problem with a suspected fraudulent license is different from an immigration issue, no matter who issued the license.

    284. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      That's not what the law says.

    285. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So yeah, starting a war rarely improves the situation.

      Not responding to a war is usually even worse.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    286. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Throughout the world white people are the elite.

      Even in Brazil people treat people who are darker than them with contempt. A friend whose father is pretty damn dark calls anyone darker than he is "mono" (monkey.)

      In Latin America in general, those who look more Indio are the subject of racial prejudice.

      I'm lucky to be one of the tall, green-eyed, big-nosed Espinozas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    287. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by GoCoGi · · Score: 1

      Not carrying ID is perfectly legal. Not being in possession of (valid) ID is a misdemeanor in Germany.

    288. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed] for the (implicit, conveniently not mentioned) claim that AZ cops are legally empowered to detain you and ask for papers based on you "look[ing] foreign"?

      Yeah. I thought not.

      -Legal Troll (censored due to unpopularity of viewpoint)

    289. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Bengie · · Score: 2

      You're comparing yourself against illegal Mexicans. I like to compare the lazy people on welfare and getting food stamps.

      The other day I saw a lady with an iPhone using food stamps to purchase party supplies. I will gladly trade her for some hard working Mexicans.

      My wife's sister get's food stamps because she has a kid and is a single parent. She hits up the bar every other night, has tons of alcohol at home, smokes a pack a day, gets about $3000 more from her school grants than what it costs to go to school because she's a single mother even though she only goes to school 4hrs/week, trades food stamps for Vicodin, runs her house at 65f from the AC in mid summer while leaving the sliding Patio door open while she smokes, runs the house at 80f during the winter with the door open while she smokes, she leaves her lights and TV on 24/7, she has on average a $300 electric and a $250 gas bill(in a mild climate) which is about 3 times mine, which she gets out of paying because she's a single parent.

      My neighbors both have unlimited brand new Androids, purchased globs of ring tones, bought a $1.6k hunting rifle, over 4 months behind on rent, had a notice on their door from water & electric, got $10k back from their taxes because they have two kids, bought a $3k 60" plasma TV, spent the other $7k on random other crap, not a dollar towards their bills, literally spends over $100/month on energy drinks, and go out to eat almost every day, leave their lights on all day, leave their windows open all year, even with heat and AC running. The one goes to work, only to come back 30 minutes later in their work truck, and their work truck sits in the driveway for the next 7 hours, then drives away and they come back in their vehicle 30min later.

      yeah... Don't complain about illegal immigrants who are willing to work, when we got people like this who cost the economy much much more.

    290. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      I can think of six right off the top of my head in the last century, and I *know* I'm missing some.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    291. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a pointlessly stupid statement.

      I could sit here and say, here in the U.S. we managed to have a decent trade economy without waging war on China for our right to get peasants hooked on opium. We also managed to have diplomatic relations with African countries without trying to conquer the whole damn continent.

      Your random observation on the cause of WW2 does NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING to downplay the role of actual, fighting war in ENDING the conflict; nor does it show that the war could have been avoided entirely if not for the post-WW1 reparations; nor does the fact of the post-WW1 reparations somehow show that any fighting at any time was unnecessary.

      Not even sure what you want to illustrate by mentioning Vietnam, except to point out that it didn't go well for us. You're not even trying to make sense.

      Finally, if you think that the collapse of the USSR was not directly caused by the military pressure and threat mounted by the US and NATO, you are an idiot.

      In short, jesus christ, why is it that this sort of lunacy always comes out of the UK? Grow the hell up.

      -Legal Troll (censored due to unpopularity of viewpoint)

    292. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stewbee · · Score: 1

      To support your scenario, I actually have anecdotal evidence and that would be the case of my maternal grandmother. It starts off similar to how you described it; she was an infant when she was brought into the US from Canada in the 20's. I guess my great grandparents didn't do any paper work to get her to become a citizen, which I imagine would be slightly in ignorance since they too were immigrants from Europe. So after having lived in the US for about 60 years, she finally found out she was an illegal alien when she applied for a passport. Once they found out, the INS gave her citizenship rather quickly. I think she still had to go through the formalities though.

    293. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war

      It's almost as if you lost the colonies you imported slaves to that could handle fighting a war....

      There are plenty of ex-colony countries that became independent without war.

      How many colonies in the new world became independent without war prior to America's independence and subsequent exertion of power in the hemisphere?

    294. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by hey! · · Score: 1

      In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war, as did most other places.

      But the UK was a colonial power, so it's a bit like the US today reducing its carbon footprint by offshoring manufacturing to China. You guys had surplus labor from country folk robbed of their traditional rights by enclosure acts, working in conditions so bad many were anxious to give communism a go.

      Slavery was established in Colonial America by the British, and kept alive by laws which prohibited production of industrial goods like textiles in the colonies. When American colonies attempted to ban the importation of slaves (for economic reasons rather than moral ones), the British Privy Council vetoed those laws because Britain needed the cotton to feed its dark satanic mills.

      The point isn't that Britain was just as wicked as the Americas (or arguably more wicked at times). The point is that the end of slavery in Britain was an economic phenomenon and the *moral* case against it came much later. It goes way back to the Black Plague, which made villeinage impractical, and continued through the Enclosure Movement, which displaced lots of freemen to serve as laborers. In any case slavery is a very unsatisfactory labor force in an industrial economy. John Adams once wrote to his wife Abigail as he traveled in the South, marveling at a half dozen slaves plus an overseer struggling at a task a single free man working for himself could have done better and faster. The US founders (the anti-slavery ones at least) expected that freed from British economic restrictions, the former colonies would outgrow their dependency on slavery. The timeline was screwed up by the invention of the cotton gin, which shifted the production bottleneck to the fields, but even so slavery was doomed by the eventual mechanization of agriculture.

      What takes real moral balls is standing up for a principle when it hits you in the pocketbook. Show me a country that does that, and you'll be showing me a country that can boast moral superiority.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    295. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Raygun? Clever, but wrong. The USSR collapsed because: a) The USSR was bankrupted by Breshnev, was coasting on momentum, and nobody would loan them money; b) Hardline members of the Politburo tried to stage a coup in 1991, which went horribly wrong for them; and c) Boris Yeltsin, then President of Russia, used this as an opportunity to declare independence in partnership with Ukraine.

      Also, Russia is not presently Communist - it's a neo-Tsarist dictatorship supported and legitimized by the autocratic Byzantine Church.

      I can't understand what the rest of your incoherent blather means.

    296. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      innocent until proven guilty? no-cause traffic stops? this is the america arizona provides.

      THOSE BASTARDS! We better stop them from following US legal system before this trend catches on in other states!

    297. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Define "Lawful Contact". From everything I've read, that means you just got busted doing something illegal, they can then ask about your right to be in the country. It's no different than what is on the lawbooks at the Federal level, it's just that AZ puts in paper again to let the State police know they can do it, too.

    298. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Did the UK ever have slavery (in the sense that the US did)?

      Just because country A disposed of slavery without a war doesn't mean that the US could have. The south was determined to keep their cheap labor. Determined enough to kill for it. And yes, it took a war to end it.

      As for colonies, that may be in part due to the revolution. The empire might have changed its dealing with colonies. And over time, the character of the empire changed. It wasn't the same king dealing with India as the US. Different situations are different.

      The Nazi rise was a consequence of a few evil bastards taking advantage of a situation, followed by people who believed them and gave them power. Sure, the end of WW I should have been handled differently, but the blame for WW II lies squarely with the Axis powers. And it did indeed take a war to stop them.

      Evil men stop only when forced or bribed to stop. To see this more clearly we can look to WW II again. Weak men sold Poland to Germany in the hopes that they would be eaten last. The Nazis saw this weakness for what it was and kept going. A moment's strength after the annexation of the Sudetenland could have saved tens of millions of lives.

      The ending of WW I does not excuse what the Nazis did anymore than a woman wearing a revealing outfit excuses rape. The blame lies squarely on the perpetrator, not the victim.

      Your last sentence is the only one that makes sense. But in all but a few cases, it's the evil men that start the war and the good men have to stop it.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    299. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      More importantly, why is Arizona bringing this up in a conversation about federal authority?

    300. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      All criminals are not equal. Attitudes like yours are why our prison systems are overflowing. Plus I think the other post is correct...it's not a crime.

    301. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you failed in Vietnam and the cold war ended why the USSR collapsed rather than when you defeated them militarily.

      CIA, Afghanistan.

    302. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by smelch · · Score: 1

      If I were to visit Arizona, and some cop looks at me, he might decide that he has "probable cause" to ask for papers, because I look foreign.

      Well see, this is the problem. That is not probable cause. That would be illegal. I can make the same argument about traffic stops. Let me explain. A cop can pull me over because I look young and demand to see my papers, if I don't comply he can arrest me! How the FUCK is that constitutional?

      Every complaint against the Arizona law is based on the premise that "looking foreign" is probable cause, and it is explicitly NOT probable cause. Maybe if he saw you going North about a mile away from the border in the back of a truck with 6 or 7 other "foreign" looking people and none of you speak English, but that's a far cry from your example of just looking foreign and going to jail for not showing your papers.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    303. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with this dude.

      It is basically anti-mexican-looking.

    304. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Aside from the bit about communism his sig is spot on.

      The whole taxation/representation line is non-sequitur to the point of the sig.

      The part about taxing "these people" doesn't parse in English. If you're talking about illegals, they generally don't pay taxes. Which is part of why they are here and why we want them gone (at least some of us). They don't pay into the system so they keep more of what they earn. The people who hire them (who are worse, in my mind, than the illegals) don't pay taxes either and so, get cheap labor. So it's a double whammy.

      Immigrants, legal or not, don't get representation any more than tourists. If i'm in Paris on election day, i don't get to vote because... i'm not French, even though i am paying sales tax.

      That's perfectly fair. That's the deal. If i want to vote in French elections i should become French. Moreover, i should abide by their LAWS.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    305. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      I've heard this argument in several forms, but it's essentially "Well, the US won't just let everyone in, so they HAVE to sneak in!" Um, no, they don't. If you're not welcome, go somewhere else.

      The fact is that this is a feedback loop. The more people come in illegally, the less can be allowed legally. We can't allow the entirety of Mexico and the rest of Latin America to come here at will because they bring their culture and refuse to adopt ours in any meaningful way. The "hard-working grass cutter guy" is a shocking minority of the people who come here, and is only used for the emotional aspect of the pro-illegal argument. "Oh, see?! You're a bigot!"

      Yes, yes I am. Not against individuals, but against the culture of corruption and crime that is shot through nearly everything that happens there. My wife was born and raised in South America. Her country is going to shit along with nearly every other country down there because of self-serving, power-hungry politicians, crime cartels, and very little respect for rule of law. Let me tell you about her country.

      * You have to build 10 foot walls around your house in the average neighborhood, complete with glass shards on the top to dissuade the average criminal. It doesn't work, though, because they just throw a blanket over them and walk right along on top.

      * You have to have radios with the detachable face plates because your car WILL get robbed. Of course, now they'll just steal the body of the unit without the face plate. They also steal unprotected spare tires, and the engine computer. Why? Because things like radio bodies and engine computers are difficult to find, so you have to their black market flea markets go buy the parts back from the criminals who stole them! It's just an indirect way of robbing your wallet.

      * They dig up roads in rural areas and then charge you a "toll" to drive around the ditch they dug.

      * Strikers (who are seemingly always on strike, BTW) will destroy national infrastructure in order to get what they want. Typically, this means blockading or tearing up roads.

      * Her country has seen an influx of, yes, illegal immigrants from neighboring countries. Are they the "hardworking lawnmowing types?" Nope. They're gangs, gun runners, drug traffickers, and just about every other undesirable. What have they done? Secured their borders. They also have military checkpoints at random spots where yes, you need to show your papers. I, an American, was stopped at one of these by ten guys with machine guns, searched, and let go without incident. (No, I don't think this is a good solution in our country, but it shows that these South American countries are actively dealing with the same problems, and in ways that our "more sensitive" culture would find "racist." Some checkpoints are random, others every car must pass through.)

      * Her brother's business is relatively successful, and therefore is repeatedly *individually* targeted by both national and township taxes and regulations, despite the fact that he only operates in two towns and would still be considered a medium sized business by any standards. Why is he targeted? He's successful and doesn't play the political game. His competitors (and there are many) are not as successful, but DO play the political games, and use government as a weapon.

      * Cops take bribes on the street in broad daylight.

      These are just a few examples. The list goes on, and on, and on. That's just her country, and it's not even the worst country down there.

      When she came here she overstayed her visa and her English was... not great. She was sharing an apartment with another family of illegal immigrants from Colombia, who are a whole other story.

      (Side story: They eventually left for the socialist paradise, Canada, because of free health care and free houses (?!?!) In the preceding months when he was considering leaving, the husband quit the cash job he had as a painter and did nothing, assuming that he was going to go to Canada to be taken care of, while living

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    306. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by smelch · · Score: 1

      Some of us like the country we have made. Not everybody wants to just let the whole neighborhood in to the house, even if they don't have the right to choose what is on TV or for dinner, and especially if they don't have to clean up after themselves or pay rent. Do you really think immigration regulation is somehow wrong? If so, you're a complete fucking moron.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    307. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were to visit Arizona, and some cop looks at me, he might decide that he has "probable cause" to ask for papers, because I look foreign.

      No, he can't. From one of the law's authors, addressing that claim:

      The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

    308. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by lexsird · · Score: 1

      I shall defend my choice of terminology; the opening salvo is this: http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=invasion

      Please take note of 2. and 3..

      This is a mass exodus into our nation, and its a serious violation of the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I should know, I took this oath when I enlisted in the Army back in 1982. This same oath is sworn by all service men and women, all members of congress, and I am pretty sure the President of the United States does as well.

      We do not suffer invasion here.

      But alas we have. Take the "I can't say anything about this because I will be a racist" filters off your eyes. Take race all the way out of the equation. Think of everyone of these people as being the same as you in all aspects down to the color of your eyes and what tooth paste you like. Now factor that they are ignoring our borders criminally. Factor there are immigration procedures of ours that they don't respect, laws that we have agreed upon as a nation concerning this. They are saying "screw you and your way, I am here and I will get what I want in spite of what you want".

      This is NOT a small number of people. This is enough people that politicians are terrified of them. This is enough people that if they were armed, they could take this country back from us. Our military is NOT here, they are spread the fuck out in some God forsaken shit holes all to keep the price of oil high so some fat cats can get even fatter. Oh you think your fat ass is going to put up a fight? Playing X-Box Halo doesn't equate into a real time gun battle for starters, and what the fuck would you use for a weapon? Are you going to freeze your paint balls and shoot them with those? Seriously, the great old American "I have a fucking gun, I will shoot your goofy ass if you don't behave" culture has been emasculated decades ago. Who's going to stop them? Our Cops? That's a tall order all things considered. Take that however you want to, but its still the truth.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    309. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by threeseas · · Score: 1

      The real problem is at what motivates illegal entry and the hire of those. People have a natural right to do what they can to improve their sense of worth and value.

    310. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by rdbiker · · Score: 1

      Open borders!

      One world, one nation!

    311. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Some of us like the country we have made.

      "We?"

      "We have made?"

      What the fuck did you do to "make" this country, you miserable little pissant? You haven't made shit. You can barely make a living.

      You know who "made" this country? Immigrants, especially the ones who were brought here against their will. You're just leeching off the work that they did for free. And not doing such a good job of it either, from all accounts.

      Immigrant "regulation" is not wrong, unless its done just to be an asshole, like a law that targets everyone who has a certain color skin or the wrong kind of shoes. The Arizona law is the most despicable kind of anti-American bullshit law: The "show-me-your-papers-because-you-look-brown" law. Nobody from the real United States should spend a nickel in Arizona until this law is repealed and the bitter witch of a governor has been safely out of office for ten years, just to teach the citizens of Arizona a lesson about electing assholes.

      Oh, I'm still waiting to hear what you've done, smelch, to "make" this country.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    312. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Cool - so we're going to throw ourselves out of the country? After all, we did steal the land and kill the people who were here first, aside from the descendents of those here before us, we're all descendants of 100% illegal immigrants.

      I didn't steal anything or kill anyone. I might be descended from an anchor baby, but I'm here legally.

    313. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by CraftyJack · · Score: 1
      Right, because recent legislation is scaring off the usual labor.

      Nathan Deal, Georgia’s governor, who signed the immigration bill into law, came up with a novel solution on Tuesday: give the jobs—of which there are around 11,000, according to farmers who responded to a survey by Georgia’s agriculture department—to unemployed probationers. How that will work in practice remains unclear. Nobody can force farmers to hire felons. And people on probation must seek work but can decline job offers, such as those requiring hard physical labour in the sweltering midsummer. As for the departing workers, Bryan Tolar, who heads the Georgia Agribusiness Council, says, “I don’t know if they were legal. All I know is they were working.”

    314. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      What are you implying, that it's about time?

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    315. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot that clearly didn't read the law. You're no different than those talking heads on TV that are looking to just get people are worked up. Actually, you're worse because you actually believed all the BS that some media outlets were spewing.

      Appearance isn't probable cause of anything. The AZ law clearly states that in its text, along with the racial profiling being against both Federal and Arizona laws.

      Notice that the DOJ lawsuit against Arizona isn't about racial profiling. Its about Federal supremacy over Immigration laws. Since you've clearly never rear the Constitution, look up the section on enumerated rights.

      And btw, as a cop, I can tell you its easy to know when you've pulled over an illegal immigrant. They won't speak basic english and won't have a dirvers license or any valid form of state or federal ID (unless in NM, WA, or UT). A cop won't be able to get PC to arrest a US citizen for not having papers, as US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. And any cop dumb enough to try and arrest someone for not having "papers" simply because they look foreign will get their ass sued off in a hurry.

    316. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/royal_navy_article_01.shtml

      While there wasn't outright war, there were significant skirmishes between the Navy and slavers. Unless of course you believe that the Royal Navy were out handing cookies while being on patrol? It's naive to believe that slavery was given up without resistance.

    317. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Actually...its not even that.... its really about the money.

      There was a great story a while back, I need to find it, that investigated the origin of this law.... do you know who wrote it?

      It was written by people who...build private prisons. Why? Well simple, they get paid by the state per inmate, so they want to build and FILL their facilities. The idea was that deporation is federal. The feds drag their feet. So.... if state law incarcerates these people to be deported, and the feds drag their feet.... that means profit for the private prison industry!

      They wrote the bill, and convinced the AZ legislature to pass it AS IS. Thing is, they already built the new prison to handle all the new inmates before the bill was even law.

      Seriously.... all this immigration BS is a smoke screen and excuse for the private prison industry to bilk the people for tax dollars.

      I am a bit too busy to find a link now, but google it, it shouldn't be hard to find.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    318. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      That's right. You can easily tell the difference between American C coders and British ones. Americans always have a statement such as #define enqueue get_in_line in their header files.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    319. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you show him your driver's license and be on your way.

      The main problem, however, is Obama and his cronies, especially in California, aren't upholding our laws. When illegals are found, they just don't send them back. Ask Obama about his aunt, who was ordered to leave the country, but didn't, instead living off of OUR dime...funny, now that he became president, that she's got a green card.

      Illegals in California getting to go to college at in-state tuition rates, while us legal citizens and legal immigrants from out of state pay more....how f'ed up is that...

    320. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll. Awfully convenient quoting given the response by xantonin, where you clearly skipped over the lines (just a few earlier in the law!) that disagreed with your entire argument.

      It's worthless people like you that exacerbate this problem, and I doubt you're illegal. The ignorance and stupidity that go into making such posts that stir up false motivations against the law is just disgusting. Ultra-selectively quoting serves no one except liars and idiots.

      I can only assume that you must be both.

    321. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Bardwick · · Score: 1

      Legal contact has to occur first. Traffic stop, etc.. Say you get pulled over for a speeding ticket and provided your drivers license. Get your ticket and have a nice day, OR; Get pulled over for speeding, speak no english and unable to provide a drivers license... No one can just randomly start asking for papers (and restated in the bill), that's already illegal. The bill does not make it legal. The only argument I've seen against it is to assume that the police are racist, biggoted, homephobes who are going to ignore laws and procedures. Don't get me wrong, there is the possibility of abuse, but that can be said about any law.

    322. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by smelch · · Score: 1

      You can barely make a living.

      When you begin arguing in this fashion you've pretty much lost. You have no idea who I am or what kind of living I make, that is just an insult that is not relevant to the discussion. I have helped this country in numerous ways, including paying taxes, teaching students, and writing code that is exported to other countries as well as helps with our medical and IT infrastructure. Yeah, it's not much but it's something. However none of that is as important as the fact that I am here, I've lived here all my life, my parents lived here all of their lives, and their parents. What they have accomplished, the things they fought for, the programs they funded, and the charity they've given were important to them and are important to me. The social and justice systems and the rights we want to protect are products of their beliefs and their work. We can not just simply give those things away or the system will break down under its own weight. You seem to acknowledge that, why are you being so fucking aggressive and insulting?

      Now lets get to the real meat here. Arizona is their own state and should be able to enforce their border. I firmly believe that a state has the right to choose their own destiny and define the community they want. There is room in this country for states like California, and states like Arizona, states like Connecticut and states like Georgia. Different cultures, different beliefs, different ideas, different laws.

      Now go to this link and tell me which line is the "show-me-your-papers-because-you-look-brown" part: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf. Don't give me this bullshit where you are assuming "probable cause" means "brown". Because you and I both know that isn't true and has never been true. Show me the wording in the law you object to, otherwise just shut the hell up and stop running your ignorant little mouth.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    323. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      How is cheap labor such a problem for you people? I like my $10 a day builders, gardeners and cleaners.

    324. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Now, if the law would instead put employers in jail who hire illegal immigrants knowingly, I'd be all for it. That's the problem anyway. If they couldn't get jobs here, the US wouldn't be worth the enormous risk they take crossing the border.

      That's not the only goal for illegal immigrants. We also have to get rid of citizenship by birth regardless of the parents' status... this was apparently introduced to deal with legal issues of post-slavery children... today it is unnecessary and counterproductive.

    325. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Isn't crossing the border illegally a crime?

      So being an illegal immigrant is not a crime by itself (it shouldn't be a crime to exist), but it is irrefutable evidence that a crime was committed?

    326. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The US only requires a passport to enter, not to leave. It's the other country (the one you're entering) that requires a passport when you enter their country.

    327. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 1
      The key phrase is, "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien." This does not mean the Police will be asking everyone who 'looks kinda Mexican' for papers... Behavior and body language will provide probable cause. Illegals get really scared at the prospect of getting caught, whereas a legal immigrant has nothing to fear.

      We have a serious illegal immigration problem in this country and if we don't have the ability to even check someones immigration status, we'll never be able to fight it.

    328. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Umm, but that's all done on purpose. And the reason we're anti-illegal-immigrant is that illegal immigrants subvert that purpose. Is it that complicated??

    329. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war, "

      so what, and in the US it was ended by war because people who wanted it stay took up arms, whats you point.

      "The Nazis rise to power was a direct consequence of WWI and the situation "

      so what, and the war ended it. Whats your point?

      "Communism... Well, you failed in Vietnam"

      well, you failed in Vietnam first, I recall US picked up pieces from the Europeans fighting there when Europeans got scared and did not want to fight anymore, thus turning over the entire region to communists. Instead of whining you should have helped.

      "the cold war ended why the USSR collapsed"

      yes, yes, it collapsed on its own, for no reason whatsoever, there is Bart Simpson joke somewhere there (the episode where Homer got hired by a terrorist organization), LOL..

    330. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off the majority of TFB deals with employers of illegal immigrants, see pages 5-15 of the 16 page bill.

      Secondly, the controversial part of the bill, Article 8, has the basic intent of making it possible for police officers AFTER arresting someone for a violation of the law to with reasonable probable cause to ask for identification which proves the residency and citizenship status of the arrested individual. The only truly controversial part of the law that I can identify is Article 8 Section E which states,
                                                                                37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
                                                                                38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
                                                                                39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
      As this could be construed by a court to allow for the arrest of individuals under the presumption that they are indeed trespassing in the United States as illegal immigrants. However, before we condemn the law of this merit it would be useful to see how that provision holds up in court as precedent has held that racial profiling is not sufficient for justification of probable cause, and would most likely result in the offending officer being reprimanded and the offending city playing court fees to the plaintiff. This is of course like all legal matter in the United States massively costly in matters of time and money.

      Instead of bashing laws that only allow for local enforcement of federal laws on record, why don't we put our efforts towards meaningful tort reform.

      Thirdly, who the hell thinks our government gives a shit about the constitution that it was founded on anyway, they pretty much have decided that it exists to server there purposes and screw the citizens that think it protects them.

    331. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      Are you freaking kidding? Walking down the damn street does not require an ID yet there are hundreds of reasons for a cop to stop someone doing just that.

      Actually, if you are a foreign national here legally, then you are required to carry ID. That is federally mandated. What you are worried about is if you are a US citizen, then no you don't need to carry an ID. However the police do have the right to detain you on suspicion of wrong doing. If you as a citizen don't wish to carry your ID, then don't be upset when they detain you for a crime and force you to jump through hoops to provide it later.

      The law itself is not racist. The police could abuse it, but that is no different than many of the laws on the books. If it happens, it will come out in the court of law.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    332. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Civil war was not primarily about slavery! Sure, the north may have used slavery as an excuse but it was really a fight of federalism vs. statism. Had the south won, the U.S. states would be more like the countries over in Europe -- each having it's own autonomy and the U.S. might now function more like the EU. Thinking the war was all about slavery is one of the most common mis-conceptions and proves that the north succeeded in a great degree with its propaganda. Slavery would have ended in the south with or without the war.

    333. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

      In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war, as did most other places. There are plenty of ex-colony countries that became independent without war. The Nazis rise to power was a direct consequence of WWI and the situation we put Germany in after it (massive reparations, hyperinflation etc.) Communism... Well, you failed in Vietnam and the cold war ended why the USSR collapsed rather than when you defeated them militarily.

      So yeah, starting a war rarely improves the situation.

      Are you really arguing that the UK goes around NOT making war? The UK has historically sent its military all over the world, moreso than any other country on earth.
      BTW, the American Civil War wasn't meant to end slavery. That's a recent historical addition.

    334. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by WNight · · Score: 1

      Awesomely good. When you get home-invaded, father-raped, and killed, I'll be sure to tell people it was a legitimate transfer of power.

      What's your address? I'll help you file to expedite the process.

    335. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      because states request manpower from federal agencies. The number of boarder patrol agents in Arizona is heavily influenced by Arizona, even if the agents themselves are from a federal agency.

    336. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you don't live in Arizona, let me explain. They CAN'T just ask for your papers. That is as illegal as you think it is. The law clearly states, since you havent read it, that if during the course of a traffic stop or investigation into some other offense, and the officer suspects they are here illegally, then the officer can ask them for their immigration status. Your response will be that the traffic stops will be racially motivated, but their has to be a reason for the officer to pull them over, not just the color of their skin.

      When I get pulled over, the officer, by law, ask me for my drivers license, proof of registration, and insurance. If an illegal has these, and in many cases even if they don't, the officer doesn't have a probable cause to ask about immigration status.

      Posting anonymously for various reasons.

    337. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by dnormant · · Score: 1

      I go to Mexico, from AZ, a few times a year. When I cross the border I show them my Passport, buy their Visa and "Push-The-Button". I never feel racially profiled.

    338. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      The Arizona law does not require probable cause. It lowers the bar to reasonable suspicion. They're different.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    339. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "How the FUCK is that constitutional?"
      It's not.

      You're whole argument rests on the fact that some racist asshole won't invent probably cause just to confirm that brown person is legal.
      This could be a complaint from a shop keeper that you 'look suspicious', or a complaint you are loitering.

      Lets not even get into the fact that employers want to avoid hiring anyone brown because competitors might invent probably cause and give them a large and expensive legal hassle. And eVerify, at best, has a 3 percent rate of failure: meaning 3 out of every 100 Americans who want to gt employed can't be.

      So 6 brown people hanging out together is probably cause? How is that not racist?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    340. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ah yes, the 'anchor baby' fallacy.

      I'm sure fox news enjoys your drooling commitment to spread their fallacious arguments.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    341. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by russotto · · Score: 1

      I've heard this argument in several forms, but it's essentially "Well, the US won't just let everyone in, so they HAVE to sneak in!" Um, no, they don't. If you're not welcome, go somewhere else.

      That's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that it is disingenuous to claim you're against illegal immigration but not immigration in general, when legal immigration is essentially unavailable. If your answer to that is "go away", you're simply anti-immigration in general.

    342. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hey, Arizona goes no about states rights, fine. Pull all the feds.

      Whats' that, they don't want to do that? well them stop pretending immigration was ever a state issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    343. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You mean lie when Americans flee to Canada or Mexico?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    344. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      The military is certainly a good way for a foreigner to become an American, but it's not appropriate for everyone. Would you deny entrance to someone who can make proficient use of farm equipment or expertly maintain a campus, but who isn't medically viable for military service? A person who has some minor permanent injury to a leg, or an incurable, non-contagious disease such as Type I Diabetes can still do all sorts of work, but doesn't meet the requirements of health our armed services have imposed. Why would we deny a man citizenship on that criteria?

    345. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain is a racist ugly barbaric place. You get your tracked every day of your life. THEY created slavery in America. THEY invaded India. America isnt the best of all places but its much better than the home of the devils children. BRITAIN. So euro dont talk smack if your country is the scourge of the earth.

    346. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you would have to to be 'stopped', 'detained' or 'arrested' by an officer enforcing 'other laws or ordinances' before he could ask you for your papers. And if he found out you were illegal he would be required to report it to federal immigration agents but he is not required to turn you over to them.

      All of this stuff he is allowed to do already. The difference is under SB1070 this would be a requirement not an option. So if you commit a crime and he thinks you are illegal, than he MUST check your status with the feds vs. every other state in the U.S. where if a cop thinks you are illegal he MAY check your status with the feds.

    347. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by the_hellspawn · · Score: 0

      You illegal get the fuck off my slashdot!

      --
      "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    348. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by eigenstates · · Score: 1

      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.


      There is still slavery.
      There are still Nazis.
      American independence is far from secure.

      So that's that then. War is just a brutish, stupid way of stating one's opinion.
      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    349. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, needing a vague term will stop any abuse.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    350. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with Joe Arpio's tactics. If you don't want to be forced to wear pink underwear, then don't do the crime. Yes, he is harsh, but he does provide the necessities for living; food, shelter and clothing. The chain gangs give the inmates something constructive to do. The idea that we should treat inmates with respect is asinine. When they decided to do the crime, they showed dis-respect for society. I have never seen a study, but it would be interesting to know how many repeat offenders there are in Maricopa county compared to say, LA county in California or Bronx county in New York. It's just speculation on my part, but I would imagine the percentage of repeat offender is much less in Maricopa county.

      We need more Joe Arpios in this world

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    351. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it was only a coincidence that the Confederacy's own equivalent of a constitution mentioned slavery as a God-given right ten billion fucking times.

    352. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      IF someone comes to the US illegally, that most likely, means they are fleeing from authorities, and this a criminal. That makes them more dangerous then most immigrants from Mexico, who just want to work hard, pay taxes, and not get shot in the street.

      And contrary to the Neo-Con lies, the vast majority illegal immigrants pay taxes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    353. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No taxation without representation" was not important to the revolution of the US. You don't know history. That little catch phrase became popular from a Charlie Brown special. The early settlers were mad about quartering British troops, so they rebelled. And they didn't mind the forced labor as long as it was their servants doing the labor.

    354. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      None of that was a lie though. Sure, there were other factors involved, but other than the one or two details I already discussed when I cited my sources, nothing I said was at all incorrect. He was still considered guilty until he proved himself innocent. If he can order a copy of his birth certificate from the state, the state should be able to confirm that he is in fact a citizen.

    355. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by radtea · · Score: 1

      So yeah, starting a war rarely improves the situation.

      And don't forget that the Germans started WWII for the purpose of creating an agrarian empire in Eastern Europe so Germany would have food security (see the book "Hitler's Empire" for the details.)

      Even granted that the problem of food security was real, the Germans had several choices: invest in agricultural research to improve German yields, pursue a diversity of trading relationships to ensure food imports against future shortages, or kill everyone and invade Poland. By choosing the latter, Germany found itself six years later without one brick on top of another, proving just what a great solution war was to their perceived problem.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    356. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that people tend to narrow the scope of the debate. I used to be anti-illegal immigrant, until I spent some time researching the history of immigration in the US. I live in AZ, we've had drop houses in the neighborhood I used to live in.

      Now I say open the borders. It would be good for the US and the US economy. You'll hear different, but if you dig deep enough and put any preconceived ideas aside, I bet you'll agree.

      Question everything.

    357. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget Korea. That one went really well.

    358. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Since I'm not some idiot little college kid or hipster douche I'm mature enough to know that looking out for my own interests and those of my family are my number one priority."
      A, that's simply an ad hom. I am older, have kids, and hate this law.
      Also, the families that come here are simply looking out for their family. So you can't really blame them without being a hypocrite.

      Poor people are a boon to your family. Food costs are down, services jobs are cheaper, and the pay taxes, without nearly the same benefits as legal citizens.

      If you are truly looking out for your family, then you should welcome illegal immigrants.

      America is generally an awesome country, this law will not stop people who come here. It will drive them deeper underground, because that is still better for there family.

      Immigration pre-Reagan was they way to do it. Immigrants would come here, work the fields, and then go back to Mexico during the off season. Once it because too difficult to return, that would just stay.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    359. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      You haven't read the law. A cop can't "look at you" and demand proof of citizenship or proof of valid entry. They must have stopped you for some other offense, and during the course of gathering information about that offense found probable cause to think you might be in the country illegally - and when hauled before a judge, must be able to enumerate a list of reasons other than "I don't like the color of their skin."

      Most departments here aren't even going to allow cops to enforce the law until they've had training on it. And the judges will be watching this like a hawk, and any cop that steps out of line and abuses this is going to get spanked, hard, in court.

    360. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Saying something doesn't make it true. The law requires probable cause, not just "looking at someone".

    361. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      No, there's lots of other illegals here, too. Hispanic illegal immigrants are certainly the largest group, but there's plenty of white Europeans and Indians who have overstayed visas to work here. And, although they were not illegal, the September 11 hijackers attended flight school in Arizona, and there's concern about increasing Islamic fundamentalist presence in Arizona.

    362. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by toadlife · · Score: 1

      +1 The truth

      I have neighbors like this in the semi-affluent neighborhood that I live in. Rednecks with cushy state prison jobs. They've got a ridiculous amount of "toys" in their driveway.

      But of course they rent their house. I'm guessing they used their previous house as an ATM and walked away from the mortgage.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    363. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. There are many liberals and conservatives who bend over for the corporations that give them a funding reach around.

      There is, however, one declared Socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and the corporations want nothing to do with him.

      Not that I agree with him, I'm a Republican conservative myself, but I respect Rep. Sanders because he's a fundamentally honest guy and shames us into doing better when so many self-professed "conservatives" are actually corporate whores looking for any excuse to shovel taxpayer money or government power towards their pet megacorp.

    364. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Are you clever all day like that or just in the morning? You're really stretching it dude, especially on the Nazi thing. But hey, you made a point, so ++slashdot score?

    365. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      It's funny. Mexico is SUING Arizona over SB1070, which makes it a state misdemeanor to be in the country illegally. They claim racism.

      But, if you are an illegal immigrant in Mexico and you're WHITE, you get your ass thrown in jail for a period of time, and charged with a felony. And God help you if you're HISPANIC in Mexico - if you're from Guadamola or some other Hispanic country, and are there illegally, they will throw your ass in a darker, danker cell, and you will be there for a longer period of time than the white guy.

      It's such hypocrisy.

    366. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't read SB1070.

    367. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by ideaz · · Score: 1

      "You mean like when he gets pulled over and the police man asks for his driver's license?"

      And also being asked for immigration documents and passport. Does that also happen to white people?

    368. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

      I think the wiggle room there is the word "solely". Sure, you can't arrest a guy for being brown, but if he's brown AND hispanic, well there ya go.

      Also, it does not mention accent. So, if a guy has a Mexican accent, that can be interpreted as probably cause.

    369. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If you as a citizen don't wish to carry your ID, then don't be upset when they detain you for a crime and force you to jump through hoops to provide it later.

      That's pretty much the definition of a bootlicker right there. With that attitude, you don't deserve to live in the land of the free.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    370. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No that verbiage doesn't exist, but for all practical reason it does.

      The burden of employers is so high, that it wold be a very poor business decision to hire anyone 'Mexican' looking.
      You need to show proof if you want to live anywhere.

      So I guess it's more of an ANTI poor people bill.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    371. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      there is a sizeable portion of poor LEGAL american citizens who have no form of ID, since when are we required to carry ID with us at all times to prove our innocence?

      We aren't. If a person is driving, then they need to produce a drivers' license. If a cop stops anyone with probable cause, then that person must give their name and address. The officer can take reasonable steps to ensure the person's reported identity. If one has a drivers' license, it's not required to produce it, but it can certainly help the identification process if the cop has reasonable suspicion in the first place. I'm anti-big-brother-government and I don't particularly like these kinds of overarching laws, so if I lived in AZ I'd be fighting against it. I'm saying that this kind of IDing process can happen to anyone of any ethnicity and has happened for decades.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    372. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Evidently I should have included a translation for the first part to have it's context understood.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    373. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jnaujok · · Score: 1

      You do realize "The New Colossus" wasn't added to the Statue of Liberty until 1903, right? And that the Statue itself wasn't put there until 1886? That's 110 years *after* the beginning of the country.

      You also realize that there's no legal meaning to the poem as well, right? And that every immigrant who sailed beneath Lady Liberty on the way to Ellis Island (including all of my forbears) had to be sponsored to enter the country. In other words, they couldn't come here unless they had a person already in the country who was going to put them up in housing, ensure they had food, basic supplies, and a work position available?

      Yes, the poem, which in excerpt, says:

      "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
      With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


      Which, more correctly, is interpreted as an admonishment to other, older nations, who saw their poor as a burden. In contrast, this new nation would take them and set them free to allow them to become all that they could, rather than continue to suppress them with their ingrained class systems and the wasteful pomp of the nobility. America was founded on the idea that the individual, given the opportunity to succeed when given responsibility for themselves, would do so to great levels as a whole. No individual was guaranteed any outcome, merely the opportunity for any outcome. This allowed the outstanding individuals to shine - to rise as far as their ability would carry them. The poem says she lifts her lamp, "beside the golden door!" It's up to the individual to open the door. It's not going to opened for you. At least, that was the real intent of the founding of the nation.

      But the important part is self-responsibility. You were welcomed with open arms, so long as you were willing to play by the rules. That has always been the American way. Those who live within the law are guaranteed freedom to do what they will.

      You cannot, therefore, embrace the American Ideal if your first act in the country is to enter it illegally. "The New Colossus" does not say, "Give me your sneaky bastards who cut the fence at midnight to get in and ignore the laws."

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    374. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Saying something doesn't make it true. The law requires probable cause, not just "looking at someone".

      Wooosh!

      "Looking at somone" is the means not the cause.

      I can't believe how many closet fascists have come out in support of this thing. The illegal immigration hysteria is amazingly powerful.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    375. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it improves the situation dramatically for the wealthy few who started the war to benefit themselves...

      the suckers who want to go to community college and end up getting shot by friendly fire in afghanistan aren't seeing the gains the first group sees.

    376. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Arpaio is an abusive prick who routinely made a career of arresting his political opponents on trumped-up charges.

      I support SB1070, but I will not defend Arpaio. I support the right of his office to do anti-illegal immigration sweeps, but I don't support the man himself. He's a blustering opportunist.

    377. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "Lawful Contact". From everything I've read, that means you just got busted doing something illegal, they can then ask about your right to be in the country. It's no different than what is on the lawbooks at the Federal level, it's just that AZ puts in paper again to let the State police know they can do it, too.

      We all know that if a cop wants to, he can pull you over for pretty much anything. That's the "lawful contact", then he starts trying to determine your immigration status. I don't think there's much doubt that this will lead to harassment of legal immigrants & US citizens, mostly Hispanic. From the way the bill was presented, I don't think that's an accident. I don't live in AZ, so I could be mistaken about this, but I have read a reasonable amount about it.

    378. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      So, basically, you're saying that no nation on earth has the right to give its police officers the right to determine if a person is in a country illegally?

      Go tell that to Mexico, where it's a felony not to show evidence of being in the country legally upon demand by any government officer.

    379. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Pulled over in the car he's driving and asked for a driver's license? Maybe not the same thing.

      Also, generally they're not pulling people over for "having a reasonable suspicion that they don't have a drivers license". They're pulled over for breaking the law.

    380. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Arpaio isn't a racist. He's a blustering, arrogant, abusive, power-hungry prick who I have publicly denounced on his home turf in the past, but the man is not racist. He is after power, not persecuting people just because they're brown or some other color. He truly doesn't give a damn about what skin color a person has, although if you're Italian you will get to hear him share Italian jokes with you...he's actually got some good ones.

    381. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whites in AZ are 73% (57.8% Non-Hispanic White), Hispanics of any race are 29%. The perception that "brown skin is the majority" is perhaps part of the problem, with the majority population perceiving themselves as a threatened minority.

    382. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I just got a copy of my birth certificate; the private company that had been outsourced to handle all documents in my birth state charged me $50 -- of course, only about $20 of it was for the certificate, the rest was for shipping and handling fees. Gotta make a profit somewhere, obviously.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    383. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Scottsdale cops are getting better. They have never quite recovered from the image of being a joke of a department after they botched the Bob Crane case. Scottsdale still has some cowboy cops who are arrogant punks.

      Most other AZ cops are pretty good. The rank and file MCSO deputies are usually ok (and I'm speaking as someone who was arrested on trumped-up charges by one many years ago), the upper management Sheriff Joe flunkies are corrupt as hell.

      Bad AZ cops usually wind up getting in trouble sooner or later. I have noticed, too, traveling to other states, our AZ cops seem to be more polite and respectful than cops in other states - I really think it helps that the cops know that a ton of people here are packing heat themselves and the AZ cops don't go looking for a fight.

      As for Andrew Thomas, he's no racist. I think he bought too much into Joe's bullshit and got in over his head, and screwed up his legal and political career beyond repair due to his abuses of power. However, given that he is very devoted to his very Hispanic wife, calling him a racist doesn't jibe.

    384. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

      There are some who were brought in as children by their parents. The children didn't commit a crime, their parents did. Yet, they are still "illegal immigrants".

      I realize that's a small percentage, but when you say "every single one" you are talking in absolutes.

    385. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and SB1070 does make it a crime to employ illegal immigrants knowingly and makes it mandatory to e-verify status before hiring.

    386. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't, if you don't get charged with trespassing by a private landowner whose property you cross. And many "illegal immigrants" came here with valid visas and simply never went home. There's a reason all the lawyers say "undocumented immigrants" instead of "illegal immigrants," and it's because they know that the actual law against it is a low-level civil issue and dealing with it is not only far more expensive than what it could be worth, but these immigrants are productive.

      Just ask Georgia's farmers if they like being 11,000 hands short because Georgia adopted a deport-the-wogs law like Arizona's. Good luck finding a peach or a blueberry on the East Coast for a reasonable price this summer.

    387. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Again, no offense, but you are unaware of Arizona law. Seat belt use is a "secondary offense" in Arizona; a police officer cannot pull you over if he sees you driving without a seat belt (unlike most other states). They may ONLY cite you for a seat belt violation if they have pulled you over for a different offense. Of course, this is no defense against the stereotypical rogue cop who smashes your taillight with his baton and says, "your tail light is out, let me see your license", but the same can be said for any law.

    388. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with Joe Arpio's tactics. If you don't want to be forced to wear pink underwear, then don't do the crime.

      I don't care about the pink underwear, but I do care about the fact that he engages in mass round-ups of people with little regard for whether they are guilty of a crime, just so he can get his name in the papers. I also blame the voters who keep re-electing him based on these tactics. Basically, he doesn't follow due process before putting people on the chain gang, which is the part that makes him evil.

    389. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by greeze · · Score: 1

      Do you really think in a state where brown skin is the majority that cops will waste their time bugging everyone who is brown skinned? We in AZ are aware there are a lot of legal Hispanics here, don't insult us with your assumptions.

      Where do you see that AZ is majority non-white? Census numbers from 2010 show that Arizona is 73% white. Did I just read your post wrong?

      http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

    390. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm lucky to be one of the tall, green-eyed, big-nosed Espinozas.

      HAHA you have a big nose!

    391. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Except... lots of people get paid under the table, bypassing all government oversight.

      There's a bit of a "don't ask" mentality when it comes to many small businesses' and farms' hiring practices, especially the ones who pay everyone cash under the table, and people who need a handyman or whatever don't always check them out. I've known of entire companies that don't legally exist, and I've met plenty of farm workers who would tell you off the record that this is true. This problem is NOT exclusive to AZ.

    392. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by geekoid · · Score: 1

      All those tribe regularly took lands, goods, people and lives from each other. So don't get holier then thou

      The "white me" did the exact same thing that the native' were doing to their neighbor' tribes. They 'white man' just did it better and more efficiently.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    393. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because the only ones streaming across the border are the hard working ones, right? I know someone who works in the AZ social services field. There are a ton of them coming across the border and spitting out 4-5 kids they abuse and neglect and suck from Uncle Sam's teat to support. It's unsustainable. So I will bitch about illegals. I'll also bitch about the people you describe, but there's nothing we can do about them but clean up our entitlement system.

      I have no problem with letting plenty of hard working people from Mexico into the country, legally, so they can work and support their families. That's a win-win situation. I have a problem with this mentality of "ohhh, the poor people from Mexico, let's let them all in so they can crash at our place, you racists!". It's laughably stupid.

    394. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      No you don't, and you're lying.

    395. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      I usually just look for the old using Color or Colour in their variable declaration. But that wouldn't be as funny in the current discussion, because then you wouldn't be mixing a discussion about use of the English language with use of a programming language.

    396. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I have helped this country in numerous ways, including paying taxes, teaching students, and writing code that is exported to other countries as well as helps with our medical and IT infrastructure.

      "Illegal immigrants" do all those things and more. They pay taxes, they produce an enormous amount of wealth for our society (otherwise, the border would have been closed long ago). They provide the most fundamental part of any economy which is labor. As you may know if you've ever taken an economics course, labor always precedes capital.

      So you can just as easily say that the "illegal immigrants" have "made" this country every bit as much as you have.

      Don't give me this bullshit where you are assuming "probable cause" means "brown". Because you and I both know that isn't true and has never been true.

      Now you're just lying. Goodbye.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    397. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

      Even if true (which it isn't), ...

      I suggest you read the bill. Most of the commentators have not. The documentation requirement is part of the trespassing part of the law, which reads:

      A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH: 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE. 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

      The actual requirements are in section 1304(e). They are specified by federal law.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    398. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are a ton of military units there.

      If our metric are total forces within say 200 miles of the border, then we have the 1800 border guards, 35,000 at Fort Bliss - El Paso TX, 3000 at MCAS Yuma AZ, 35,000 at various Marine Corps and Navy bases in San Diego, 5500 at Fort Irwin CA, 35,000 at Camp Pendleton CA and 4,000 at 29 Palms.

      119,3000 within 200 miles of the Mexican border, a country who we are not at war with and haven't been since 1917. Of those - 38,000 directly touch the border (Yuma and Fort Bliss) and those troops are not allowed to carry out law enforcement because of the Posse Commitatus Act of 1877.

      Now I never said I was going to fight anyone, I'm in Alaska, my arms are for defense against bears, meth heads and rogue moose. Personally I think the best thing we could do would be to legalize all the illegals in the US, give them Social Security Numbers and start withholding payroll taxes.

      The only reason this is an issue is because they have the same skin color as American Indians and most of them vote Democrat in the first generation. They are almost all Catholic, have big families, don't like abortion and tend to serve in the military, and trend toward manual labor or small business ownership when they are citizens, if the GOP came out in favor of naturalization 40% would vote Republican right off the bat.

      Note - you had a decent argument until you went to the personal insults, took a B+ post down to a C-, might want to work on that.

    399. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at the AZ law at all? It makes it *illegal* to racially profile. The press would have you believe they're all a bunch of crazy racist white supremacist gun toters. But what if - just what if - they actually did something sensible? Take the old media-blinders off and give yer own eyes a try.

    400. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Umm, but that's all done on purpose. And the reason we're anti-illegal-immigrant is that illegal immigrants subvert that purpose. Is it that complicated??

      The purpose being to keep out ALL immigrants: my point was that the laws are anti-immigrant, not just anti-illegal immigrant. It was that simple. You might not like the illegals, but you're trying to keep the number of legals to damn near zero, the laws are against immigrants in general.

    401. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by your own logic war improves the situation 50% of the time

    402. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by cavreader · · Score: 1

      It was just a suggestion for fast tracking citizenship and no I don't expect this would or could apply to everyone. It would most likely only apply to a small minority due to age requirements and educational background. The military does have education requirements. And with the US drawing down the number of deployed soldiers now would be a good time to go the military route and not have to worry about being thrown into combat. There are also ways to smooth out the citizenship process for people with certain skills and aptitudes. This option usually helps those with tech or science related background and education. Companies are more than willing to sponsor and pay for someones citizenship process in return for gaining a good employee. For the people who don't fall into these categories the process is lengthy and can be expensive as well but that should not justify entering the country illegally. The whole discussion on this thread has been somewhat distorted by those supporting the anti and pro extremes. The whole ID thing is not out of line with the requirements in other countries. As a US citizen I am required to carry my passport whenever I am in a foreign country. This is not an unreasonable burden. In the US itself I am required to produce ID if I get pulled over driving or if I get detained by the police investigating a possible crime. Maybe there should be some type of fast track temporary visa for those coming into the country looking for work. The requirement would be they would need to prove they have a job and they would have to register at the border crossing. They would be required to provide immigration officials with updates to their status if they move or take another job. Maybe in the future this type of visa classifcation can be used to fast track the citizenship process because the person would have documented evidence the immigration officials could use to determine if the person is eleigible for citizenship. Say anyone who has been working for 3 years without any problems qualifies for an upgrade in status without a significant cost.

    403. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1
      I meant to be speaking in absolutes. Their continued presence in the United States is still a crime. Why are their parents encouraging them to commit a crime rather than have the family immigrate the legal way?

      By definition, anyone who is an illegal immigrant has committed at least one crime. Otherwise, they wouldn't be illegal immigrants, now would they?

    404. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      I'm currently working in Saudi Arabia. I haven't seen any US citizens here working illegally, but if you'd like to fly us both to India, Korea, London, Tokyo, Paris, Nepal, New Zealand I will gladly point them out to you. Americans are very honest to point out that they're working illegally in other countries at least to non-natives.

    405. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by smelch · · Score: 1

      Thank you for pointing that out. That phrase slipped past me when reading the law (I guess I read reasonable suspicion as probable cause). I will need to look in to that further. Thank you for making sense on a subject that is so hotly politicized. And you didn't imply I or the people of Arizona were racist. Double points!

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    406. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the cop can't use your ethinicity or race as probably cause to investigate, nor can he/she "ask for your papers". The law specifically forbids it, which you would know if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about. The cop also couldn't just stop you on the street for this, you have to have been arrested for another reason entirely for this law to come into effect. But thanks for your "input" anyways.

    407. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... And since American independence was founded on no taxation without representation, taxing these people whilst prohibiting them from enjoying any rights whatsoever is clearly a complete destruction of what American independence actually is.

      In short, you're not just a fool, you're a damn fool.

      Or, unless you were being sarcastic, you should pick up a damn history book.

    408. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by toadlife · · Score: 1

      . I have never seen a study, but it would be interesting to know how many repeat offenders there are in Maricopa county compared to say, LA county in California or Bronx county in New York. It's just speculation on my part, but I would imagine the percentage of repeat offender is much less in Maricopa county.

      Comparing recidivism rates between Maricopa country and other areas of the country wouldn't provide any useful information on the effectiveness of Arpiao's policies. What you would want is a comparison of recidivism rates in the same area before and after the policies were put into place.

      Luckily for you such a study was done, and according to it Sheriff Joe's tent prisons have done nothing to reduce recidivism.

      source

      If you really want a comparison of Maricopa county with other locales, here is an interesting one:

      "New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston, for example, collectively housed more than 61,000 inmates per day last year. From 2004 through November of this year, these same county jails had a combined 43 prison-conditions lawsuits filed against them in federal courts.

      In the very same three-year time frame, despite housing a mere 9,200 prisoners per day, Sheriff Arpaio was the target of a staggering 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts."

      SOURCE

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    409. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Yup, you're right, the UN declaration is only valid if you've signed it. IIRC, the US hasn't signed the one about the rights of the child. Small wonder.

    410. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by unitron · · Score: 1

      Non sequitur.

      More like sarcasm.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    411. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a white American, and if a cop was to come up to me and ask to see my ID, I'd show it to him with no reservations. If I'm abiding by the law, I have nothing to fear and nothing to hide, and 99% of the time, I'd be given my license back and let go. So would you. I'd happily allow police to do that if it meant they'd make a difference in crime.

      My problem is it's a Band-Aid solution, something thrown on the problem to make it appear like the problem is being addressed without actually doing anything about it. Illegal immigration is a disease, and like a disease, there is more money in treating it than there is in curing it. Simple as that.

    412. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by unitron · · Score: 1

      The AC to whom I replied implied that all of the illegals were coming here to get on welfare because they're lazy, I was pointing out that a not-inconsiderable number were, by forces beyond their control, for which we bear some of the blame, forced to come here as a matter of survival to seek the kind of job where their illegal status will result in low pay and difficult conditions.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    413. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction ,
      They became independent BECAUSE OF war. Not without a war.

    414. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Are you really sure? So you're saying if like ten thousand Mexicans lined up at the border and just marched into the country they wouldn't even be arrested, because it's not a crime, just a little old civil issue? I guess it's a failure of the law then. Coming into the country improperly should be a crime. I think many people feel that way. It's certainly the popular perception. The law has to catch up I suppose.

      Anyway about cheap farm workers, they said the same thing about slavery. When you have the illusion of cheap labor, people tend to resist spending money for technological industrial solutions that are cheaper and more productive in the long run. It's no coincidence that the North had no slaves, and in every industry from logging to weapons manufacturing they strove to use automation, machinery, and technology as much as possible. Meanwhile the South was content to use "free labor" to inefficiently harvest crops. Oh you have more crops to harvest... just buy/breed more slaves! That will work forever!

      I really don't care if peaches and blueberries are more expensive in the short term. And who knows what other solutions there are waiting to be found. I live in North Carolina and I would love it if community agriculture took off. Imagine that, cities planned with enough space to let people grow their own food and share with the community.

    415. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by stdarg · · Score: 1

      It's now a fallacy to make an argument that you don't have a good answer for? Convenient. Ah yes, the "'anchor baby' fallacy" fallacy, I'm sure La Raza appreciates you maintaining your constant vigil for fallaciously fallacious arguments.

    416. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by WNight · · Score: 1

      Exactly. What went around is coming around.

      I see nothing wrong with the influx, merely the (current) natives who insist they've got some sort of right to be here.

    417. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      So, basically, you're saying that no nation on earth has the right to give its police officers the right to determine if a person is in a country illegally?

      Go tell that to Mexico, where it's a felony not to show evidence of being in the country legally upon demand by any government officer.

      Do you realise that you are now advocating that the US abandon its founding principles in order to be more like Mexico? You have not made a persuasive argument.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    418. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      No, I am saying it is the height of hypocrisy that a racist, exploitative, oppressive barbaric regime like Mexico is suing us in Federal court over the relatively mild requirements of SB1070.

    419. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war wasn't over slavery, it was over states rights man.
      Come on.

    420. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's illegal. The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing. At best they an ask for a person's name, but they can't demand ID.

      Sure they can, ever hear of stop and identify laws? They have been held constitutional. This holds especially true if you are operating a motor vehicle.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes#Obligation_to_identify

    421. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope it isn't, but given that there are numerous articles about him with pictures, I'd say it's a good start. Ask yourself if it's standard procedure to lock people up for three days because they were walking on a deserted road? I wouldn't have thought so, at least not unless you look Cuban.

    422. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality check, these checkpoints are not only in Arizona.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints

    423. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Well, that's nice and all but isn't even a shadow of a rebuttal to the post you were responding to.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    424. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by rhook · · Score: 1

      You are full of shit and your story is full of holes. For one thing you do not get your birth certificate from the federal government, you get it from the court house in the county you were born in. Not to mention that anyone over 18 most likely has a state issued identification card, which you need your birth certificate in order to get. Go troll somewhere else.

    425. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      That really seems to me to be a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that, if one opposes illegal immigration that one also opposes legal immigration simply because the legal caps are lower than one would like. It ignores the main thrust of being anti-illegal immigration: supporting the influx of legal immigrants. I think I see what you're saying -- that if certain people aren't allowed in and I don't want them to come illegally, then I'm against them coming. Well, true, I'm against them coming "illegally," but if the government were to raise those caps to a reasonable limit and allow them in legally using appropriate background/health checks, I wouldn't be against it.

      The key difference is the solution. Some would say, as many do, that they then have no choice but to come illegally, when the correct solution is to respect the laws of your new home and wait for a diplomatic solution. That's why these things exist. To break the laws of the country from the word "go" puts you on the wrong foot to begin with, and makes any kind of success very difficult to achieve.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    426. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fail. illegal immigrants are still wholly and entirely capable of appealing to law enforcement against forced labor. if they choose not to appeal (because they are here ILLEGALLY) that is their prerogative, but that does not render them "incapable"...
      and since you are running off on tangents, let me try one... if american independence was founded on no taxation without representation why am i paying school taxes when i have no children? i have no recourse should your rugrats fail to perform to my scholastic expectations...

      regarding fools, i could say it takes one to know one...

    427. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by russotto · · Score: 1

      That really seems to me to be a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that, if one opposes illegal immigration that one also opposes legal immigration simply because the legal caps are lower than one would like.

      The legal caps are not merely "lower than one would like". They are so low to almost forbid legal immigration. The priority dates for a Mexican coming here with family sponsorship range from 10 to 20 years ago. Legal immigration without family sponsorship for a Mexican citizen is basically impossible, unless he manages to qualify for an H-1B (not likely). Under these conditions, claiming one is against illegal immigration but not against legal immigration, while supporting harsh measures against illegal immigrants, is disingenuous. To be against illegal immigration when legal immigration is next to impossible, without supporting a change in that situation, is to be against immigration.

      Some would say, as many do, that they then have no choice but to come illegally, when the correct solution is to respect the laws of your new home and wait for a diplomatic solution.

      One could die of old age waiting for a diplomatic solution.

      To break the laws of the country from the word "go" puts you on the wrong foot to begin with, and makes any kind of success very difficult to achieve.

      But from the illegals' point of view, the answer to this is twofold:
      1) Success as an illegal is difficult to achieve... but likely not more difficult than success in Mexico.
      2) One's children have a better chance of success if born as American citizens.

      That second one, of course, is why many of these supposed anti-illegal-immigration activists want to repeal or ignore that part of the 14th Amendment. Some of them clothe it in "anchor baby" terms, others are more up front about not wanting the children of illegal immigrants to be citizens. Which again, exposes the stuff about being against "illegal" immigration to be nonsense. If the problem is merely that the illegal immigrants have violated the law, why object to their children (who are 100% legal)?

    428. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add that this differentiation violates established equal-protection rights.

    429. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, here's the problem, you are assuming that they'll ask for your citizenship documents just because you're brown. Generally speaking they have to have a REASON to suspect that you're illegal. You know, like you don't speak the fucking language, you don't understand what the cop is saying to you, you've done something that a normal citizen would know better than to do. Have you actually BEEN to Arizona? EVERYBODY is pretty much brown. If they required citizenship papers from everybody that looks latino, they'd be so buried in paperwork they'd never write another ticket in their lives.

      Also, this racial profiling crap is just that: crap. Everyone racially profiles, the difference is, it isn't your JOB to do so. It is theirs. Grow the fuck up and stop reading your ACLU newsletter so god damned much.

    430. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights. We sold it to the Europeans as being about slavery to try to influence their position on it - the North didn't want England or France joining on the South's side.

    431. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PROTIP: If you're in America, and are not a redskin*, you're a illegal immigrant.

      Funny how the victims seemingly always turn into the offenders.

      Like in Israel, where the former victims now do things to Palestinians (who did their share of shit too, of course**), that must remind their grandparents of the Nazis. I wonder how they feel about this. :(

      * Don't know how this translates, but in my native language, this is not a offensive word. More like a "proud heritage" one.
      ** Again, I know some people are prejudiced in away that makes them react in a knee-jerk way to any non-one-sided critisism involving this conflict. Leave it at home, please. Most people in that area, no matter on what "side", are awesome and nice people.

    432. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by wwphx · · Score: 1

      I lived in AZ for over 40 years, moved away 6 years ago to NM. I remember when "Sheriff Joe" was doing a crackdown in one of the Eastern Phoenix valley towns, I don't recall if it was Guadalupe or Chandler or where. A Hispanic woman was pulled over, the officer addressed her in Spanish. She was a bilingual legal American, so she answered him in Spanish. For that she was detained for over 4 hours while they tried to prove she was an illegal.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    433. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      I believe we are chiefly in agreement. I believe the system you propose would be well worth further consideration, and would go a long way to preventing the illegal immigration of people who would otherwise be good immigrants. We'd still need to do something about those immigrants who would have qualified, but are already here. I believe they should be given opportunity to enroll in such a system as you suggest, and proper judgments can be made from there.

      When the commission of crime is the only reason remaining to immigrate illegally, then we can deal with illegal immigration more harshly.

      I still believe that we need to help Mexico solve their problems, however, because their problems flow North, to us. Helping Mexico to solve their problems could help us as much or more in the long run, than any new immigration policy or system. Treating the symptoms of a disease is no cure. Only by getting down to the root cause, will we solve anything.

    434. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The problem with helping Mexico is that the US is constantly being accused of imperialism whenever they engage with other countries. These complaints have helped push the US political climate and general public towards a more isolationist and hands off foreign policy except for threats that directly effect the US. The current immigration issues are just the first sign of this new foreign policy. I can't see any politician who would support helping Mexico just to solve the immigration problem. I really can't see any citizens who would agree with spending any money to help Mexico. Mexico is going to have to suck it up and help themselves. One thing that really irritates me is when the Mexican president tries to interfere in US immigration policies instead of dealing with his own problems and ask himself why so many people are desperately fleeing his country.

    435. Re:AZ isn't anti-immigrant by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      Even if we didn't have the social services, we'd still have to deal with "They took our jobs!"

  2. Lol they arent against anything by Drake_Casanova · · Score: 1

    We all know they claim they are against anything that their little scripts can penetrate. I really doubt anti-social surbuban white teens have interest in anti-immigration laws.

    1. Re:Lol they arent against anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially UK based ones like the chavs here

    2. Re:Lol they arent against anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course anti-social suburban white teenagers have an interest in fighting anti-immigration laws. Who do you think they get their pot from? It's obvious. Spicks that jump the border with 10 pounds of hooch shoved up their ass.

    3. Re:Lol they arent against anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist against white people?

    4. Re:Lol they arent against anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course anti-social suburban white teenagers have an interest in fighting anti-immigration laws. Who do you think they get their pot from? It's obvious. Spicks that jump the border with 10 pounds of hooch shoved up their ass.

      Maybe the broke ass ones. I prefer to hit up the white kid down the street who has the home-grown killer.

    5. Re:Lol they arent against anything by Wandering+Fire · · Score: 0

      They can penetrate anything. If they can hack the senate, what's safe?

    6. Re:Lol they arent against anything by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Of course anti-social suburban white teenagers have an interest in fighting anti-immigration laws. Who do you think they get their pot from? It's obvious. Spicks that jump the border with 10 pounds of hooch shoved up their ass.

      Maybe the broke ass ones. I prefer to hit up the white kid down the street who has the home-grown killer.

      FYI: he shoves it up there too to match the foreign flavor.

    7. Re:Lol they arent against anything by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      You can only go so far as a script-kiddie. The fact that you might or not might not like them isn't enough to call them script kiddies. Try if you can get that far only with premade tools without being caught one hour after.
      You don't need to be ideologically/socially sound or "correct" to write software, nor you need to be extremely competent.

  3. Who knew? by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A state mirroring federal law, is anti-immigrant. I mean seriously here. You have the feds who refuse to enforce the law, you have a state creating a law that mirrors it, and they're anti-immigrant? Hardly. Anti-illegal immigrant indeed and I have no problems with that.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Who knew? by bennett000 · · Score: 1

      Anti-illegal immigrant indeed and I have no problems with that.

      you do realize the US is dependent upon illegal immigration to fill low paying jobs like picking fruit, landscaping, and general cheap day labour?

    2. Re:Who knew? by bmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You'd have to read it to know if it mirrors federal law or not.

      It doesn't, and you haven't read it.

      And after trying to discuss certain issues like whether bus or taxi drivers run afoul of AZ's sb1070 on AZCentral (by "transporting" them), I've determined that people in favor of it are thick and stupid.

      SB1070 is bad law badly written.

      Also, explain to me what an illegal immigrant looks like, because the last one I saw was German and overstayed her visa.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Who knew? by shellster_dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have a problem with continuing a process that allows a whole sub-culture of people to be treated like slaves, paid almost nothing, worked in unsafe environments, and have no representation because you don't want to pay a buck fifty more for you produce?...what a disgusting position. I think you'd have been more in comfortable in the 1800's in the south.

    4. Re:Who knew? by xantonin · · Score: 1

      Anti-illegal immigrant indeed and I have no problems with that.

      you do realize the US is dependent upon illegal immigration to fill low paying jobs like picking fruit, landscaping, and general cheap day labour?

      You do realize the US has a high unemployment rate and a LOT of Americans would actually be happy to get any job at all? You do ALSO realize those people you claim we "depend" on don't pay taxes to do those cheap jobs? In fact, your taxes go to most of them who go on welfare and other government benefits, but they don't contribute shit.

    5. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize there is a free market and that wages might actually rise to the point that Americans want the jobs, right?

    6. Re:Who knew? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      So you have no problem with native-born citizens being imprisoned for months, where they are forced to work for $1/day to earn the money to purchase a copy of their birth certificate from the federal government? Because that is happening under federal law.

    7. Re:Who knew? by geekforhire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bingo. People that support illegal immigration just cant seem to grasp that they are supporting a system that exploits people that have no protection under the law. Also..dont give me that 'jobs you wont do' crap. I will happily pay more for fruit if the worker that picked it was making at least minimum wage and I know a ton of people without jobs that will take *anything* at this point.

    8. Re:Who knew? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Unproven assertion. Those jobs might be filled by legal immigrants or American citizens if the employers were willing to raise wages. People who don't want to live in firetraps or rusting trailers or fourteen to an apartment need better pay before they will consider those often back-breaking jobs. They want disability insurance (or at least to be able to afford it) in case they fall off a roof and literally break their back. They want the laws of supply and demand to work in their favor for a change; if legal labor is in short supply, raising wages is supposed to be the answer, not bringing in illegal labor.

    9. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. has become a country that rewards criminalism. Being here illegally is a federal crime, yet not only does the government do little nothing about it, at the cost to citizens (perspective non-criminals) it basically pays them to coninue to do so. Border Patrol is smoke and mirrors to make you think they care...

    10. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-illegal immigrant indeed and I have no problems with that.

      you do realize the US is dependent upon illegal immigration to fill low paying jobs like picking fruit, landscaping, and general cheap day labour?

      If you put a stop to that, the jobs would pay more and unemployment would drop.

      A cynic might observe that the same politicians that support illegal immigration also tend to be the ones that benefit from keeping people dependent on collecting unemployment rather than being able to provide for themselves.

    11. Re:Who knew? by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      Not true. Businesses have become dependent on illegals for that stuff, not the US.

      Arizona doesn't even let kids deliver newspapers anymore because they want to give the low paying jobs to adults who need work- not just whoever wants some extra cash.

      There is no reason the US should be supporting Mexico financially when the US is in the financial shape it is in. Illegal immigrants work here, get paid in US dollars and take it back to Mexico to spend. That's not helping.

      I'm an AZ resident, and I have found myself in the position of being unemployed and being THANKFUL that an illegal got deported because it opened up a job opportunity for me. The business wasn't thrilled to lose a trained worker, but it ended up being a good summer job for me. Would I want to do that job now? Not really. But at the time it was the difference between working and not working, and I got some decent training on welding/big engine repair while I was there.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    12. Re:Who knew? by scubamage · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I will happily pay more for fruit if the worker that picked it was making at least minimum wage and I know a ton of people without jobs that will take *anything* at this point.

      So, you'd trade one exploited group of people for another - so long as they're American? So, what you're saying is you're not racist, you're a xenophobe. Ah, thanks for clearing that up. For once I really wish one of you white people would realize that YOU are immigrants and the progeny of immigrants. GTFO of OUR land and stop acting like you own the place or have any goddamn right to say who can and cannot enter. Want to think you have a problem because of "illegals?" Try walking a trail of tears you selfish fucks. Oh, I should note I'm 100% Cherokee.

    13. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I realize that businesses are using inexpensive labor to further their profits while reducing their capital outlay and investments.

      If cheap labor is not available then some combination of the following two things is likely to happen:
      1) the pay rate will go up and labor will then be available
      2) someone will invest money into automating the thing that required cheap labor

      Illegal immigration is an artificial pressure relief valve that allows businesses to defer their costs onto society at large by paying a below-market wage with no benefits while at the same time circumventing the natural progression of investment that spurs innovation and increases production efficiency.

    14. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're just anti-anything-that-isn't-white, my friend. It's a disease called being American.

    15. Re:Who knew? by Lysander7 · · Score: 1

      Smoke and mirrors? I live in Texas, and have crossed the border to deal with clients in Mexico, and the LAST thing the border is, is smoke and mirrors. I suggest if you speak as though you know what you're talking about, you actually know what you're talking about.

    16. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realize the US is dependent upon illegal immigration to fill low paying jobs like picking fruit, landscaping, and general cheap day labour?

      Not "the US" and not "dependent upon", but the landowners can get richer by importing illegal immigrants and breaking any labour law that stands in the way of a higher profit, because illegals cannot go to the police when labour laws are violated. If every work site that used illegal immigrant labour was raided tomorrow, the landowners would bus in the tens of millions of unemployed from the cities.

    17. Re:Who knew? by aevan · · Score: 1

      So you immigrated earlier. Don't recall anywhere (scientific) claiming humans originated in North America.

    18. Re:Who knew? by Lysander7 · · Score: 1

      Way to combat allegedly being a bigot with being one yourself.

    19. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you'd trade one exploited group of people for another - so long as they're American? So, what you're saying is you're not racist, you're a xenophobe. Ah, thanks for clearing that up. For once I really wish one of you white people would realize that YOU are immigrants and the progeny of immigrants. GTFO of OUR land and stop acting like you own the place or have any goddamn right to say who can and cannot enter. Want to think you have a problem because of "illegals?" Try walking a trail of tears you selfish fucks. Oh, I should note I'm 100% Cherokee.

      I have to follow these laws, so does everyone else who came here. Why should people who aren't citizens in the U.S. be granted amnesty from the laws the rest of us who chose to emigrate legally have to follow?

    20. Re:Who knew? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      You would pay $5 a Banana or Apple so that "american" workers can do it?

      Would you pay $5 for a glass of O.J.?

      If the answer is no then you no you won't pay more. Putting legal jobs there would quadruple the costs of picked food(not everything can be done by machine)

      What people fail to realize is that American's don't do so many jobs because you can't live off them. 2 people living together each working 60 hours a week on minimum wage jobs can't afford a cheap apartment in something like 80% of the country(by population, not land area). Separated that way because the majority of minimum wage jobs are located in populated areas. If your earning minimum wage your by definition poor, have no health care at all(medicare won't cover you, minimum wage jobs don't have it, Even if they did you couldn't afford the $1000(average cost of health insurance for those earning under $30,000 a year) a month payments.

      Remember This is America Only the rich get things like health care, homes, everyone else can fuck off.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:Who knew? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was listening to NPR today, and Terri Gross was interviewing some mayor in Georgia where they recently passed a no-illegal-worker law, and he was whining about crops rotting in the fields because no migrant workers showed up to pick. So they tried to send in parolees and people serving community service sentences to do the work (instead of paying a decent wage; they were probably cheaper than the migrants [the comserve people were slaves]), and the workers complained that it was too hard, so the mayor concluded that no americans would do the work (for less than minimum wage). If the oil industry were found to employ illegals, they'd be slapped down pretty quickly.

    22. Re:Who knew? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      So, you'd trade one exploited group of people for another - so long as they're American?

      No, he said he doesn't support the creation and entrenchment of an underclass that exists without the labor law protections. What are you smoking?

      Oh, I should note I'm 100% Cherokee.

      That's alright, nobody's perfect.

    23. Re:Who knew? by magarity · · Score: 1

      you do realize the US is dependent upon illegal immigration to fill low paying jobs like picking fruit, landscaping, and general cheap day labour?

      Not dependent upon it, trapped by it. This is a problem in game theory. If employer A is able to undercut the price to market for a good or service by hiring under the table then employer B who hires aboveboard will go out of business. Even if employer A is caught, the fines are insignificant compared to the problems caused to competitors using legitimate labor. Thus, employer B is forced to do the same. This is a properly functioning market process because the source of the problem is political. If legal workers were not bound by a variety of political requirements (minimum wage, payroll taxes, etc) then the illegal workers would not be hired.

    24. Re:Who knew? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      No it isn't, because the federal government does not hold birth certificates.

      Moreover, I dare you to cite a single actual case.

    25. Re:Who knew? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Bingo. People that support illegal immigration just cant seem to grasp that they are supporting a system that exploits people that have no protection under the law.

      Baloney. The problem is that almost all of the people who are anti-illegal immigration have no intention of improving the lives of those immigrants. They come here willingly. They know the score and they still come because life where they come from is even worse.

      Unless they support amnesty for all, which is essentially "open borders," the people who are anti-illegal immigration are at best just as supportive of abuse and suffering as the people who are pro-illegal immigration.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    26. Re:Who knew? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I have to follow these laws, so does everyone else who came here. Why should people who aren't citizens in the U.S. be granted amnesty from the laws the rest of us who chose to emigrate legally have to follow?

      Because the laws are arbitrary and discriminating.
      "It is contrary to our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to our conscience." - Gandhi.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    27. Re:Who knew? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Already have:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2264760&cid=36549794

      And as I mentioned in that post, I was mistaken about federal vs. state government and a couple other details, but the main facts of the story are correct.

    28. Re:Who knew? by mrnobo1024 · · Score: 1

      You would pay $5 a Banana or Apple so that "american" workers can do it?

      Do you really think a person can only pick two fruits per hour? Because that's what would be necessary for prices to have to go up that high as a result of paying the fruit pickers the legal minimum wage. Seriously, do the math.

    29. Re:Who knew? by shinehead · · Score: 1

      We have a lot of hidden costs associated with illegal immigration. What is the current cost of a glass of O.J. if you factor in the welfare, crime, and all of the negatives associated with illegal immigration. Not to mention that these costs will be compounded in the future because of the high birthrate of illegals. It may be that we would be better off paying more for the food. Remember, agribusiness is like any other corporation, they privatize profits and socialize costs. If we are going to have immigration we need to skim the best and brightest of the rest of the world, not the opposite.

    30. Re:Who knew? by westlake · · Score: 2

      I will happily pay more for fruit if the worker that picked it was making at least minimum wage and I know a ton of people without jobs that will take *anything* at this point.

      The farmer needs someone who knows how to pick fruit quickly and efficiently without damage.

      It is not easy as it looks.

      These jobs are traditionally piece work and you have to be damn good at them to make any real money,

    31. Re:Who knew? by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 1

      You would pay $5 a Banana or Apple so that "american" workers can do it? Would you pay $5 for a glass of O.J.?

      Just like your cheap Chinese DVD... USians never want to pay the real cost of anything. They'd rather have distorted markets and live in a bubble.

      What people fail to realize is that American's don't do so many jobs because you can't live off them. 2 people living together each working 60 hours a week on minimum wage jobs can't afford a cheap apartment in something like 80% of the country(by population, not land area). Separated that way because the majority of minimum wage jobs are located in populated areas. If your earning minimum wage your by definition poor, have no health care at all(medicare won't cover you, minimum wage jobs don't have it, Even if they did you couldn't afford the $1000(average cost of health insurance for those earning under $30,000 a year) a month payments.

      Give it enough time and prices will come inline with reality. No government bailouts for realtors, bankers, or anybody else. Once again, market distortions are what got us to this point. Gas *should* be five dollars a gallon, food should be more expensive, etc.

      I know quite a few out of work assholes who whine about it while they have both a Dish television description AND cable being piped to their 46" flat panel.

      The free ride is up USA. We're in for a hard, long ride. Time to actually do work and earn our keep, and no, we're not special snow flakes above back breaking work or paying what food actually costs at LEGAL wages.

    32. Re:Who knew? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      You do realize the US has a high unemployment rate and a LOT of Americans would actually be happy to get any job at all?

      False. Gainful employment would end unemployment benefits. The jobs filled by these "illegal" residents are available to legal ones. Why don't they apply?

      You do ALSO realize those people you claim we "depend" on don't pay taxes to do those cheap jobs?

      True. But then neither does anyone else making poverty wages. The US tax rate for those living below the poverty line is $0.

      In fact, your taxes go to most of them who go on welfare and other government benefits, but they don't contribute shit.

      Partly true. The same however, is true for anyone else making poverty wages. In fact it's much easier and common for legal residents who pay no taxes to acquire these government benefits.

      You have a lot of hate the anger, but you have little understanding about the topic you rage about.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    33. Re:Who knew? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2

      A state mirroring federal law, is anti-immigrant. I mean seriously here. You have the feds who refuse to enforce the law, you have a state creating a law that mirrors it, and they're anti-immigrant? Hardly. Anti-illegal immigrant indeed and I have no problems with that.

      Close! Actually, The Obama Administration has reduced the number of illegals for the first time in 20 years. Contrast to the Bush Regime, which was openly attacked by members of the rabid right for not being hatemongery enough.

      Oh, and the Dems re-introduced comprehensive immigration reform, but don't worry, the Republicans will kill it again, under the "No, we'll need that wedge issue in 2016" theory of government.

    34. Re:Who knew? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Anti-illegal immigrant indeed and I have no problems with that.

      you do realize the US is dependent upon illegal immigration to fill low paying jobs like picking fruit, landscaping, and general cheap day labour?

      Nah, what you can do instead is hire violent ex cons to fill in the gap. Because I really love finding razor blades in my apples, don't you?

      (The violent ex cons thing is a direct result of a SB 1070-alike passed in Georgia. Whoops!)

      Not that the cons are willing to do the work more than a day or two before quitting. There's a reason these jobs are taken by people with actual work ethic. They're shit work for shit pay in shit conditions and no one wants to do them, but everyone wants cheap fruit and veggies.

      *shrug*

    35. Re:Who knew? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Bingo. People that support illegal immigration just cant seem to grasp that they are supporting a system that exploits people that have no protection under the law. Also..dont give me that 'jobs you wont do' crap. I will happily pay more for fruit if the worker that picked it was making at least minimum wage and I know a ton of people without jobs that will take *anything* at this point.

      So if we don't support racial profiling, we support illegal immigration?

      Black doesn't equal not White, Geekforhire. Some of us support the Dem's comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that the Republicans won't let pass because letting bigoted southerners get riled up is too useful for votes in Election years.

    36. Re:Who knew? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      You do realize the US has a high unemployment rate and a LOT of Americans would actually be happy to get any job at all?

      You do ALSO realize those people you claim we "depend" on don't pay taxes to do those cheap jobs?

      In fact, your taxes go to most of them who go on welfare and other government benefits, but they don't contribute shit.

      Would they be willing to work for the less than minimum wage, under the table money that the illegals at the Apple Warehouses and Orchards back in my old stomping grounds (Yakima, Washington) worked for?

      No?

      How about 60-100 hour work weeks in 105 degree sun, bending over and picking fruit and veggies without a break?

      No?

      How about in blatantly unsafe, illegal working conditions that are only kept up because our society literally places the value of a cheap glass of orange juice over the value of a human life?

      No?

      Well, how bout that.

      And as for taxes and welfare, I'm much more concerned with how the top 10% don't pay any taxes at all, and how Bush and his cronies got us into two unending wars, the cost of which was absolutely DWARFED by the obscene tax cut he gave said top 10%.

      How about instead of going after these illegals, we go after the companies that keep hiring them and making bank paying what amounts to slave labor? Oh, sorry, that's Unamerican, I forgot -- most of those companies are owned by White people, after all.

    37. Re:Who knew? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Too bad I'm half-japanese, and the other half is german. I guess that shits on your 'anything that isn't white' parade.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    38. Re:Who knew? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Really? And you know I haven't read it how. Damn amazing telepathy going on there. Actually it does, and it includes the relevant parts of case law surrounding the federal law. In turn, meaning that it's a mirror of the federal law, with updated case law changes.

      I'm pretty sure that if you walk away from your talking points you'd be the wise for it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    39. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Opposing laws which inherently encourage racial profiling is not the same as "supporting" illegal immigration, any more than opposing the Iraq war implies a person is "pro-terrorism." this is a distinction a ten year old is capable of making.

    40. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citations of this would be awesome. I am not strictly doubting this could and may be happening, but I'd like to have instances backed up (on both sides) when claims are being made. Makes it easier to suss out the BS from things resembling facts.

    41. Re:Who knew? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Gas at $5 a gallon shuts down the entire US shipping industry and with it the majority of the economy.

      WE live in a world where it is cheaper to build far away and ship it around the world before it gets to you. This is done with every thing from computers, to your morning cup of coffee to that banana you picked up at the gas station that was picked in the last week.

      Now how many cups of coffee would you drink if it cost $5 a cup at home?

      Think about this yes the USA needs a price correction in order to fix it's problems. The thing is we have to destroy at least one generation to do it as it will take 20 years to recover from it. This isn't an easy fix you move one piece to far out of place and the entire house of cards comes down. Since half the world economy depends on the USA they all fall down too. You think the recession of the last 5 years was tough? Do you think the great depression was tough? What you propose will be worse by far. You are talking about a total (but necessary) reboot of our entire economy. With that will come the gangs, and violence of the Depression as well. Are you really ready for 20 years of Anarchy?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    42. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just asking for Godwin invocation :-) And yes the 1940s Germans did consider Japanese as honorary whites, but not the Poles/Russians (!).

    43. Re:Who knew? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      ooooooh kaaaay...... where to start... First, I descend from a line that did walk the trail of tears (not full blood, but its part of who i am.) But I'm a little sideways on your trail of tears reference. If you are going to correlate todays illegal immigration to that event, where people who had been in a place for years where displaced and killed by a group coming from somewhere else it would seem that you'd be on the 'anti-illegal-immigration' side. Yes, the trail of tears never should have happened, Yes, the USA has a long history of fucking up every interaction with the first peoples, but give it a goddamn rest. You cannot, at this stage, expect three hundred four million people to stand up, and walk off the continent, gifting it back to the two and a half million who claim it was theirs to begin with.

      Now, as for the 'trade one exploited group of people for another - so long as they're American' bit;
      At least in my case, Hell Yes. It is my firm belief that any job is better than no job. as of a report from may this year, there are 13.9 million unemployed people in the US. If there are crops rotting in the fields in GA, its because people are to goddamn lazy to go pick the fucking plants. I'd rather one of those 13.9 million people, who is willing to work for a living, take the job of picking crops, at shit wages, than hand that same job off to someone who did not enter this country legally. If no American citizen will take that job (which makes 13.9 million people all goddamn morons) then give the job to someone who entered the country legally, but don't tell me we simply MUST allow people to enter and work illegally, when there is a force of nearly 14 million people who should be able to fill those spaces.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    44. Re:Who knew? by bennett000 · · Score: 1

      You don't have a problem with continuing a process that allows a whole sub-culture of people to be treated like slaves, paid almost nothing, worked in unsafe environments, and have no representation because you don't want to pay a buck fifty more for you produce?...what a disgusting position.

      So you're not writing this on a computer then, manufactured in an overseas factory, produced by cheap labour and unsafe environments? I assume also that all the garments you wear were all fabricated by people paid living wages.... I'm well aware of the problem.

      I think you'd have been more in comfortable in the 1800's in the south.

      No I wouldn't, I never said I supported illegal-migrant work, I just said that the US is dependent upon it, I never said I condoned it, I have a hard time condoning some Western working conditions present day.

    45. Re:Who knew? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I'm white, but I love to bring that up any time someone tries to be anti-illegal-immigrant.

      I know a lot of lazy people who get school grants, and food stamps, all because they waste so much money, they can't afford anything. I see them buying a pack of cigs every day, always going to bars. But nope, gotta kick out the hard working immigrants.

      I read a story about some guy who was up in his years, was a WW2 vet who was part of the Invasion of Normandy. He went to find out why is Social Security stopped coming in and it turned out that he was actually an illegal immigrant from when his mom brought him over at a few months old. He was scheduled to be deported back to Mexico, and only spoke English.. Really.. W..T..F..

    46. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't in all respects. I was taking Immigration Law when the 1070 court decision came out so I've gone over the high points. I'm not going to bother and repeat what the judge said, but he disagrees with you that it is merely a "mirror" and struck part of it down.

      I'm not really big into immigration law, but if I remember correctly, one of the problems was that 1070 criminalizes an illegal immigrant taking a job. Congress has examined this and specifically refrained from making it a crime. Therefore AZ cannot institute this law because of field preemption.

    47. Re:Who knew? by wmbetts · · Score: 1

      The IRS owes me some money from several years ago then.

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    48. Re:Who knew? by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      I would indeed pay $5 for an apple if it meant that the workers made a living wage and were protected by safety regulations.

    49. Re:Who knew? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Tomato pickers in pennsylvania make $16/hour on average. The problem isn't the pay, it's the fact that it is temporary. The immegrents doing those jobs fairly consistently do signifigently better than minimum wage, then they move hundreds of miles and do some other seasonal job.

      Americans in general don't want to work that hard, but the bigger issue is that they don't want to live wandering around following the work.

      In restaurante and domestic work immegrents make less than minimum wage, often to get something in the filler time between the decent paying work.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    50. Re:Who knew? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      i guess if there were no illegal immigration, obesity levels would fall dramatically due to the increased (ie proper market value) food prices.

      sounds like a win-win

    51. Re:Who knew? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      you're a fucking idiot.

      exploited american citizens at least have the protection of the law. illegal immigrants have no such protection.

      the only way to fix that particular situation is to allow a basic set of legal rights to illegal immigrants, or completely close the borders and leave the law as it is. or continue with the status quo. i know what is most likely to happen.

    52. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, great job on the economy and creative bookkeeping, Obama Administration.

    53. Re:Who knew? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Believe me that with all the social problems associated with illegal immigration, those cheap bananas and apples are costing you far more than $5. Just because you pay migrant workers next to nothing doesn't mean that you are getting a good deal. It's called "hidden economic cost".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    54. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the feds who refuse to enforce the law

      This is about the most retarded argument the rabid illegal immigration bone heads use. Border security and enforcement has been on an ever increasing spending and hiring binge and deportations of arrested illegal immigrants have been increasing significantly since the 1990s.

      Let me show how this argument is a clear sign of a mental midget...

      Murder is illegal, there are about 5 murders for every 100,000 people in the United States. Property crimes such as breaking and entering or grand theft auto are illegal, there are over 3,000 property crimes for every 100,000 people in the United States. Even though these actions are illegal they still occur, obviously the State and Federal enforcement officials are not enforcing the laws and are allowing murderers to get away with murder and thieves to rob the public blind. Sound about right? Yeah, didn't think so.

    55. Re:Who knew? by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      The new part that people are up in outrage about is that it requires that you have your papers on you at all times, and it is up to the officer's sole discretion and suspicion as to whether believe that those papers are real or not.

      Honestly, if the office just says 'I thought his ID was fake" the law says that there is no possible restitution even though you had a valid driver's license on you. Too bad, you get to spend at least a night cooling your heels in jail with no means afterwards to try and correct the system.

    56. Re:Who knew? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There has even be a time when these people were forcefully imported against their will...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re:Who knew? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As someone who lives in a country that is also plagued by illegal immigration (and hence sub-minimum wage jobs filled by those people) I can with some certainty claim that this will simply not happen. Given our legal system, the chances are higher that you'll be pressed into accepting such a job if you're unemployed. Germany already has something similar in place, where people are forced to accept jobs that don't even pay minimum wage, with the unemployment money pushing their income to the margin of subsistence.

      So if you're unemployed, don't hope that getting rid of illegal immigrants improves your situation. Chances are that it would make it worse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    58. Re:Who knew? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. We could easily extend legal work visas to fill those jobs. Isn't your whole line of argument just something stupid people say to fit in with their trendy, hipster friends?

    59. Re:Who knew? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Harvesting labor is one of the smallest components of the final price of produce at the market. You could literally quintuple the pay for laborers doing the harvesting and it would only necessitate something like a 15-25% increase in the cost of produce at the store. Of course, people in the supply chain would use it as an excuse to jack prices up, but the fact is that farm labor is not a major component in the final price at market.

      I won't pay $5 for a banana that I currently pay about 40 cents for, but I sure wouldn't have a problem paying 50 or 60 cents for one if it meant that people would make a living wage picking 'em, which would be closer to the actual necessary cost increase.

      As for the whole "american" worker thing - I don't really care what nationality the people doing it are as long as they are treated well and paid fairly for it.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    60. Re:Who knew? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Most vice crimes fit that category as well. The main problems associated with gambling, drugs, and prostitution exist because they are illegal and don't have access to courts to settle disputes so people are force to take the law into their own hands.

      I had what I think is a simple immigration plan. It is based on solving the following problems. We have to acknowledge that farms in the US need non seasonal labor and many people who want this work are from outside the US that don't want to be US citizens. We also want to make sure that if there are Americans that want this work that they get preference. Also we want to prevent the exploitation of people and allow them access to our courts and services and tax them to help them pay for these services. Also we want to prevent criminals from coming in. Finally those what want to be citizens should be given an easy open way to do so. I propose the following.

      If you want to be a migrant worker there would be a few rules. Set up an instant background check like the FBI has for firearm purchases. If you clear this than you automatically get a green card. No quotas, proving you have a sponcer or anything like that. You can come and go as you want you just have to show you ID when you enter. If you get convicted of any felony you lose your green card for 10 years. Also you would have a special minimum wage that is 2X the federal one. This easily gives Americans job priority. You also pay a federal flat tax of 50% on all earnings while here and you pay state and local taxes as well.

      To become a citizen you would need to have a green card for 5 years and pay $10,000. That's it. No quotas.

      This would allow any honest hardworking law-abiding person easy access to this country through legal channels. Therefore anyone sneaking across the border can be assumed to be a real criminals. Making life easier for good people let's them filter themselves away from the criminals and makes enforcement easier.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    61. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, wtf? $8 * 60 hours * 4 weeks * 2 people is $3840. "can't afford a cheap apartment in something like 80% of the country"? Seriously, wtf?

    62. Re:Who knew? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You're pretty ignorant.

      There are farms with crops that rot in the ground because they can't get anyone local to pick then? 15 an hour plus benefits.

      " I will happily pay more for fruit if the worker that picked it was making at least minimum wage and I know a ton of people without jobs that will take *anything* at this point."
      no, they don't. If they did they would be doing the same work as an illegal immigrant right now. The fact of the matter is, they don't.

      So, give the protection.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    63. Re:Who knew? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ". I'd rather one of those 13.9 million people, who is willing to work for a living, take the job of picking crops, at shit wages, than hand that same job off to someone who did not enter this country legally."

      Farmer would like that to, but it doesn't happen. No matter how much you think it should happen doesn't change reality. It doesn't happen and pretending it does helps no one.

      My big issue is that it's all emotional. No one looks at the facts. Looks at the data. No one calls out when a politician makes shit up because what they say 'seems right'..

      IF there are jobs no american will do then, yes, we must get labor from someplace. It sued to be they would come in for the season, and the return to Mexico. Things worked really damn well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    64. Re:Who knew? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Germany already has something similar in place, where people are forced to accept jobs that don't even pay minimum wage, with the unemployment money pushing their income to the margin of subsistence.

      So, it sounds like what they've got is essentially a minimum-wage job that is partially subsidized by the government? That may not be ideal, but it's a heck of a lot better than having the government pay people to sit on their butts.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    65. Re:Who knew? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      People that support illegal immigration just cant seem to grasp that they are supporting a system that exploits people that have no protection under the law.

      Wait, wait, wait.

      People who support illegal immigration? Who are those people? Who's getting up and saying we need more illegal immigrants? I'm sure you'll be able to find loonies out there somewhere that might have this position, but they're loonies.

      You're being intellectually dishonest by painting everyone who's against *demonizing* illegal immigrants and against *bad* immigration laws as being "pro illegal immigration." But then, I guess it's standard practice to characterize the opposition in the most unreasonable way possible these days.

      Fucking racist.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    66. Re:Who knew? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not really, since the government STILL pays almost all the wage with the main benefit going to a company that gets not only almost free workforce but tax benefits for it, too.

      And sorry, I'm not really fond of the idea of me paying (by means of tax) to fund the workforce for a company that could easily afford it but prefers to pump the money into the bonus payments of its managers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. I dont mind by Drake_Casanova · · Score: 1

    as long as they don't loiter around everywhere or destroy my rental property lol.

  5. illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody seems to ever bring this up, but by supporting illegal immigration you are supporting modern day slavery. Illegal immigrants don't make a proper wage and dont receive any of the protections that their legal immigrant friends enjoy. Stop pretending that this is a human rights issue, its not, its simply a channel to allow businesses to abuse workers. And now I will sit back while people that don't live near the border chime in and tell us that do what the facts really are....

    1. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by leromarinvit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't fix slavery with a law that punishes the slaves instead of the slaveowners.

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    2. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody seems to ever bring this up, but by supporting illegal immigration you are supporting modern day slavery. Illegal immigrants don't make a proper wage and dont receive any of the protections that their legal immigrant friends enjoy.

      Ah, that explains why they keep on comin'.

    3. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you can prove that Mexico is cooperating with the US to force immigrants over, then illegal immigration is no more slavery than illegal prostitution is.

    4. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by geekforhire · · Score: 2

      But of course, the businesses should be punished heavily, but that does not mean that we should not make an effort to stop illegal immigration. We have a process to become a US citizen, if you don't like it don't and take a chance at breaking federal law don't cry to me when you get sent home. Of course with sanctuary cities that never happens here in CA...

    5. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by John3 · · Score: 1

      I don't support illegal immigration but I certainly don't think the solution is "Show me your papers" mentality.

      And I'm from NY, so I guess since I'm not near the border. Obviously all those illegal immigrants plop right down after they cross the border because I never hear of any illegal immigrants up here in the northeast, so this issue doesn't affect me. It especially won't affect me because I will not set foot in AZ while this law is in effect.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    6. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by vux984 · · Score: 1

      illegal immigration = modern slavery

      Except that its illegal to be a slave, and legal to be a slave owner? That seems a bit backwards don't you think?

      Perhaps the laws should be targeting the "businesses who abuse the workers"?

      Perhaps the workers should be extended some rights and protections so that they aren't as easy to abuse?

      And of course thy think laws targeting the abused workers as criminals and in the process dragging legitimate innocent legal citizens into constant scrutiny where they have to demonstrate they are here legally at law enforcements whim is a rights issue.

    7. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by xantonin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why not?

      If there's no slaves anymore, where's the slavery problem?

      This is like a law saying it's illegal to own a slave. So what do you do when you find a slave? Set them free - in the country they were from where they have rights.

    8. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, what explains that is that wages and work conditions are even worse where they come from. If you want them to stop coming, then you fine the crap out of businesses that fail to properly identify that their employees have their documentation and those that fail to obey the legal requirements regarding workplace safety.

    9. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say it's a law that punishes immigrants instead of those who take advantage of them is an outright lie
      Here, read it yourself. Most of it has to do with employers and those who assist in transporting illegal immigrants
      PDF http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf

    10. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shush, you. The Internet Law-and-Order Brigade just cares that SOMEONE gets punished for this travesty, and it's much easier to punish the powerless.

    11. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's silly. I support amnesty and forcing business owners to pay all people regardless of citizenship status minimum wage. That eliminates the competitive advantage illegals have.

    12. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      And then they come back into the country, again, because they'd rather get a semblance of pay as illegal than get rights and no job back home.

    13. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slaves don't vote. Slaveowners do.

    14. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where i live, both are. If you get caught employing illegals, you get fined and the illegals are sent back home.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    15. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizen please produce your papers.

      Thank you citizen. Be ever vigilant!

      No I think that way sucks for everyone involved. The real way is to make it even easier for them to immigrate here. Then fine the hell out of anyone who abuses them. You know using existing laws.

      That way they pay taxes just like the rest of us. They actually contribute. Instead of behind the scenes money under the table, and intimidation.

      Make it ridiculously easy to be on the road to being a citizen. Instead of a lottery with a small number making it.

    16. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The root of the problem is we've never seriously tried to keep illegal immigrants out so we have a ballooning problem and all this talk of amnesty will just make breaking our laws more important. We must look out for our citizens first and let Mexico handle theirs.

      On the other hand, maybe some of the never-ending stream of 'nation-building' money should have gone to a poor country that shares a border with us.

    17. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should have picked a better example, because most prostitutes in the world are not volunteers.

    18. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Back in the early days of America, there were laws prohibiting slaves from running away, because slaves were running away. These new slaves run _to_ the slaveowners, and the owners are ignoring the current laws about "hiring" them, just like the slaves are ignoring the laws about being in this country without going through the immigration process.

    19. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by pclminion · · Score: 2

      No, what explains that is that wages and work conditions are even worse where they come from. If you want them to stop coming...

      So you want to reconfigure the situation so that these people remain in Circumstance A rather than a somewhat better Circumstance B. You want to do this for... humanitarian concerns?

    20. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop pretending that this is a human rights issue, its not, its simply a channel to allow businesses to abuse workers.

      ...And by cutting off the supply by actually securing our borders and enforcing our laws, businesses won't be able to exploit these poor, innocent souls who apparently have no choice in deciding to illegally enter our nation.

    21. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      The ONLY strategy shown to work (by Arizona incidentally) is to crack down on business owners using an illegal workforce.

      *That* is the bogus strain of all these laws and crackdowns that no one talks about. No new laws are required... all that is needed is that the government actually enforces and fines businesses. But these people are paying millions to lobbyist firms and election campaigns, so nothing is ever enforced. If these businesses need to break the law to make money then their business model is wrong. Again, we've got a "debate" that isn't actually a debate... put sanctions against these companies on the table and forget about the raids.

    22. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Nobody is forcing those people to either skip the border or remain there. The US government kindly offers free transport home to any such "slave" and it even offers armed protection from the slavers.

    23. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. I would much rather prevent the children of these illegal immigrants from getting a quality education. I would much rather see these families lives insufferable lives back in Mexico with no hope, no future for their children. I would much rather see them get caught up in the drug trade.

      You know it's funny, I'd be willing to bet that you are a descendant of an immigrant family. I'm willing to bet that you enjoy a reasonably comfortable life as citizen of the country where you now reside. I'm also willing to bet that your immigrant ancestors lived a seemingly cruel life relative to what you now enjoy and they chose to do that so that their children, and their children's children would have a better life. I wonder what might be going through the minds of these "illegal" immigrants?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    24. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Well first and foremost it's a question of enforcement. There are probably an order of magnitude more "slaves" than "slave owners", and the owners tend to be easier to find and have more to lose.

      Republicans love trying to catch the slaves though, because it allows them to give cushy state/federal vigilante jobs to their voting base, largely uneducated, relatively unskilled whites whilst still ostensibly being "fiscally conservative" and it helps out the rich people who finance the Republican campaigns because scared illegal immigrants are much less likely to report abuse/non-payment etc.

    25. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can fix slavery by telling people that they can't choose to be slaves.

    26. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a good number of illegal immigrants and many of them are even better off than many citizens I know (not through illegal means but by working). The issue is when employers start discriminating against illegal immigrants, and then they can't even get a proper job. Sure the employers are right in not hiring illegals, but the fundamental issue is that there should be no distinction between immigrants. If a company hires ANYONE be they illegal immigrants or not, that company should be punished for treating them as "slaves."

    27. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot to mention that the 21st century slavers don't really like the competition from 20th century slavery.

    28. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where i live, both are. If you get caught employing illegals, you get fined and the illegals are sent back home.

      I used to work in Apple Warehouses in Yakima Washington.

      One day I noticed a few trucks from the warehouse down the road filled to the brim with Latino workers. They were driving out towards the orchards, away from the other warehouse, which looked absolutely deserted.

      I asked my father, who still works as a forklift foreman at the warehouse, what that was about.

      "Oh, Evans is getting a surprise inpsection, so they're moving all the illegals out to the field for the rest of the week. They'll have the legals work at the warehouse until the inspectors leave."

      "Wait, but isn't it a surprise inspection?"

      "Yeah, but they warn them a day or two ahead of time so they don't get caught."

    29. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Hmm. That's interesting. I wonder why they keep hiring these "illegals" then?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    30. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine being opposed to slavery in the 1800's and having everyone scream at you that you're a racist.

    31. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Zigbigadoorlue · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Additionally it is our economic policies that have driven so many to our borders. Farm subsidies plus free trade agreements have destroyed much of the central and south american agricultural markets as small farmers have no way of competing with the cheap corn and other commodities flooding their markets. They don't want to leave their homes and families but economically many have little choice.

    32. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put it in context, Arizona has a large problem with violence related to drug smuggling and human trafficking across the US/Mexico border. What this has to do with illegal immigrants I'm not sure, but it does explain why so many Arizona residents are willing to support drastic measures of some kind. Illegal immigrants may just be a convenient punching bag for people to blame, with little ability to speak up or defend themselves. As a legal immigrant I will avoid Arizona while this law is in effect. The prospect of my family and I getting stuck in jail while we retrieve papers that I'm not legally required to carry except when getting stopped by law enforcement personnel in Arizona and then waiting for local law enforcement agencies verify those papers doesn't thrill me one tiny bit.

    33. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose huge fines for the businesses and citizenship provided to those who report the infringing business.

    34. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the state will collapse into a sinkhole due to your refusal to visit. Without checking papers, just how are we supposed to determine who is illegal? Or maybe we should look the other way when people steal and murder as well. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.

    35. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Eil · · Score: 2

      Nobody seems to ever bring this up, but by supporting illegal immigration you are supporting modern day slavery. Illegal immigrants don't make a proper wage and dont receive any of the protections that their legal immigrant friends enjoy.

      By casting illegal immigrants as slaves, you diminish the tragedy of actual slavery. Real slaves don't get paid. Real slaves can't escape their captors or they will face death if they try.

      Illegal immigrants make a choice to cross over the border because they can (or at least believe they can) make a better living for themselves and/or their family. Even if it means making a fraction of what a citizen can, evading the law, and enduring harassment and physical violence from their neighbors, they still made a choice and generally have the ability to cross the border again should they so choose.

      Unless they are being held against their will, they cannot, by definition, be slaves.

    36. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it's exactly the same thing. All those poor Mexican immigrants being kidnapped and dragged away from their families and forced to work in chains is a complete tragedy.

      Or was it that the Africans crossed into the US willingly in pursuit of more money to support their families? I can't remember.

    37. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shoot the slave owners, take away their property. That's what Lincoln did :)

    38. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I don't see any problem with that. Tolerating that sort of abuse in the US hardly does anything for anybody living elsewhere. The jobs ultimately need to be filled, and rationalizing it based upon people using the jobs to move themselves from complete destitution to near complete destitution does nothing for the well being of workers.

      If anything, our willingness to race to the bottom is making things even worse as folks in developing countries have to keep their wages even lower or allow them to rise more slowly so as to keep getting jobs produced.

    39. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but their children do.

      http://newstaco.com/2011/06/23/white-babies-in-minority-latinos-growing-on-both-coasts/

    40. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Discopete · · Score: 1

      To some degree I can agree with you, however there are a number of illegals who are here to escape persecution in their native country. While most are here for the jobs, some are fleeing something much worse than a jail cell in the US.

    41. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is brought up over and over again but some people have no problems with creating a police state to provide them with a false sense of security. SB1070 can be used to locate and deport illegal immigrants but part of the cost is harassment of United States citizens who happen to meet some unspecified profiling criteria and may not have proof of citizenship on them 24/7.

      P.S. Don't even start on the "but Federal law requires immigrants to carry papers" bullshit. If you are a legal resident with a green card or visa then yes, you must carry your papers at all times. If you are a citizen or naturalized citizen there are no Federal laws that require you to carry citizenship papers at all times and prove on the spot that you are a citizen or face immediate arrest.

    42. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Discopete · · Score: 2

      Have you read the amended version of the law? The one that the Governor signed? The "Papers Please" provision was removed due the to fact that they determined that there was no way they could enforce it, nor would most law enforcement in the state actually follow it.

    43. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by jd · · Score: 2

      Naturally. It's far cheaper to lower everyone's standards of living than to raise them Oh, and chocolate rations are going up tomorrow to half of what they were yesterday.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    44. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be in our best interest to ensure that Mexico's economy does better and their standards of living increase? Israel managed to create a strong economy with our money in the desert and we get doodley squat in return (unless you count the ire of the Muslim world).

      At least if we invested in Mexico then:

      1. It would decrease illegal immigration
      2. It would help the Mexican government stick it to the cartels, which helps us (crime)
      3. It would make NAFTA more useful, like it is with Canada (Canada is our #1 trade partner and Mexico has ~3x the population . . .that's backwards). If more Mexicans had money then more Mexicans would buy American goods.
      4. Concerning humanitarianism, it's good to help our neighbors and there is a possibility that creating a quality economy in Mexico could spread the fortunes down to Latin America and so on. It would be in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, looking out for everyone on the hemisphere.
      5. Americans would be able to vacation in Mexico without going to ultra-lavish spots without concern for their health/welfare

      Basically, there's no way to stop illegal immigration without making Mexico a decent place to live. A place with low crime, quality education, available jobs, and enough clean water for all. But what am I thinking? We can't even do those things for ourselves, it just looks like we're doing a good job when we compare ourselves to Mexico. No wonder so few Americans pay attention to Canada . . . we are to Canada what Mexico is to us (poor health, poor education, high crime). It's embarrassing.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    45. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we do this so the they don't turn Circumstance B into a copy of Circumstance A.

      It's not our job to fix the entire world. If their country is so horrible they need to collectively rise up and change things.

    46. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The system of employee identification is kinda jacked up, and broken, most employers may not know they have illegals. Ever look at the requirements? As an employer i ask for a drivers license and a social security card, i document those on a I-9 form that i file away for 4 years. Thats it. Thats the verification process. Supposedly one day a federal agent will come to my door and ask to see those I-9 forms, as long as i have them all my job is done.

    47. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, illegal immigrants are not slaves.
      There are similarities, but you're all taking the metaphor way past the point that it broke. They come of their own volition, they find jobs, and the employers employ them. There's no coercion involved. Just like another black market, the drug trade, it is undistilled capitalism.

      If the government made it easier for Mexicans (yes, we can speak that word) to cross the border and work with visas; this problem wouldn't exist.

      Black markets only exist where there is supply and demand. In this case there is both supply (Mexicans who want to work) and demand (Americans who want to pay them).

    48. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      That it's OK to outright disregard the rule of law in a foreign country in order to have those things, because if they are remotely careful they probably won't get caught?

      No reasonable person is "anti-immigrant", nearly all of us are descended from immigrants. There exists a legal route for immigration though, one that, again, most of us are descended from someone who dealt with.

    49. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As contrived as this story seems, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. I worked at a Subway Sandwich Shop and the store would receive word from the health inspectors that they were due for a visit within a certain time period (a few days to a week) and there would be a mad dash to clean up all the institutionalized violations around the store. Specifically, all the out-of-date food would be thrown out.

      Management would try to make us serve the out-of-date food, sometimes even food that was clearly spoiled. The official rules were that we were to throw out any food which was passed expiration, but in practice we were encouraged to remove the old stickers and put new ones on. Sometimes when the inspectors were coming, they wouldn't even throw out the old food; they'd just replace all the stickers. I can remember nights where lower level management would spend an hour or two changing the stickers at night.

      I've even been verbally reprimanded for refusing to serve spoiled food, specifically tomatoes.

    50. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon (give it about a thousand years) the whiteman will be snuffed out of existence, followed shortly by the blacks. The Human Race will still have a few contenders left. The chinese, hispanics, indians and middle easterners.

      Who will survive? Who will prevail? Who will push the others down? Find out, on the next installment of mother natures channel Survivor!!

    51. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from NY, so I guess since I'm not near the border. Obviously all those illegal immigrants plop right down after they cross the border because I never hear of any illegal immigrants up here in the northeast, so this issue doesn't affect me.

      It will. Indianapolis and other midwest cities are seeing increasing numbers of illegals. Why do McDonalds managers have to be bilingual (English/Spanish)? Because all kitchen staff speaks no English. And it's not just McDonalds or all the other fast food places; two friends of mine are chefs, and they say kitchen staff everywhere is being replaced by illegals. The illegals might be otherwise law-abiding, but they're taking the jobs of citizens who often have shady pasts and might be pushed back into crime to survive.

    52. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      It's far from the same process. Back then there was nothing for you to do but show up in a boat and maybe go through quarantine, or simply walk across the border. Now there are multi-year queues, cost prohibitive application fees, quotas based upon nationality, etc.. Everything is stacked against anyone that isn't a European, or of European decent that already enjoys at least a middle-class life in the first place. The more money you have and the whiter your skin the more streamlined and rubber stamped the process becomes.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    53. Re:illegal immigration = modern slavery by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Tolerating that sort of abuse in the US hardly does anything for anybody living elsewhere. The jobs ultimately need to be filled, and rationalizing it based upon people using the jobs to move themselves from complete destitution to near complete destitution does nothing for the well being of workers.

      I don't dispute that. What I'm doing is calling bullshit on the "we're doing it for their own sake" argument.

  6. Not for public distribution? by tantaliz3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not for public distribution should be illegal in a free democratic society. Democracy fails if the voters don't have a clear and complete perspective.

    1. Re:Not for public distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm okay if the names of people who report crimes to the police under condition of anonymity are considered 'not for public distribution'. Ditto victims of crimes, addresses of domestic violence shelters and abuse or harassment victims, etc.

      I'm okay with the police protecting some information. This blanket statement sounds all principled, but you're going to want to be more specific / nuanced if you want me to take you seriously.

      Note: I'm very pro-filming-police-in-public-and-on-duty. I just think your hard and fast rule is silly.

    2. Re:Not for public distribution? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Well except when it's an ongoing investigation or sources are in danger if they are revealed or it's the home addresses of undercover agents or jurors or information regarding people in a witness protection program or ...

      You get the picture.

    3. Re:Not for public distribution? by thunderclap · · Score: 0

      Um, the USA isn't a democracy. Its a republic. Democracy is American Idol.

    4. Re:Not for public distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

      Oh, I didn't know this. The people in your society really don't have any power.

    5. Re:Not for public distribution? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1, Redundant

      What free democratic country are you talking about? I didn't know those existed anywhere other than fantasy land.

      I live in the U.S., a republic. You know, the electoral college? The House of Representatives selected Thomas Jefferson as president over Aaron Burr when the college tied (as the Constitution demands). The Supreme Court arbitrarily chose George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 (I've never received a sufficient explanation for that one). A Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. State legislatures draw out congressional districts to get the results they want. The Patriot Act. Judges can make up laws by way of 'precedent' (isn't it ironic that every judge thinks the Constitution agrees with their worldview and this changes every couple generations?). The 3/5ths compromise. Any idiot can become a police officer and abuse their fellow citizens' civil liberties. A police officer's testimony is assumed true in the court of law regardless of any actual evidence. The Ron Paul/Barney Frank bill to end the federal criminalization of marijuana won't even be debated in the House because ONE congressman who leads the Judiciary Committee opposes it. Is any of that free and democratic?

      Even if you take the popular vote into consideration, or maybe congress, only like 40% of the population votes.

      I'm all for openness, freedom, and blah blah blah but only AFTER something is done about education in this country. I don't give a damn about the will of the majority until the majority knows what the fuck they're talking about. Like, when people actually know what form of government the country currently has - A REPUBLIC. Talking about a free democratic nation is as absurd as talking about a harmonious communist nation. Reality is never ideal.

      So don't talk about "Democracy fails if such and such happens." Democracy never worked to begin with.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    6. Re:Not for public distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wait. That is only half of the government. It also has the house of representatives which is the democratic body.

    7. Re:Not for public distribution? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your statement is wise. I demand to see the names of every under-cover agent in the country, and also the name of every female rape victim. It's a DEMOCRACY god damn it!

      Fucking twit.

    8. Re:Not for public distribution? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Well except when it's an ongoing investigation or sources are in danger if they are revealed or it's the home addresses of undercover agents or jurors or information regarding people in a witness protection program or ...

      Without proper oversight any secrecy is likely to be used to protect criminal, corrupt and inept police officers.

    9. Re:Not for public distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me? Why do you think under cover agents, law enforcement agencies and governments are necessary? And why would I want to know the names of female rape victims?

    10. Re:Not for public distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, I see you're a complete nitwit. I now regret engaging, please ignore and disregard.

    11. Re:Not for public distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So reports of suspected criminals and evidence gathered should be immediately posted publicly so that they can get away/know who to kill? You don't think there might be some reason for police work to be kept out of the public during investigations? anarchist.

    12. Re:Not for public distribution? by tantaliz3 · · Score: 1
      No, this should apply to all information outside ongoing sensitive investigations and operations.

      Ultimately though, even the need for sensitive investigations would end with this policy, because it would end the need for secrecy.

  7. Worthless and Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    First of all, these documents are not classified at all. FTA: "The documents classified as “law enforcement sensitive”, “not for public distribution”, and “for official use only” " Big press for

    Secondly, this is a stupid target. Why isn't this group targeting openly oppressive governments? I know USA is evil and blah blah blah but compared to a number of other countries, the USA is nothing. Why not target Iran? There are plenty of people there trying to start a revolution but can't manage to make a dent in the oppressive regime.

    1. Re:Worthless and Stupid by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the lulzsec members are US citizens, and they are sick of watching the police operate in secrecy?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Worthless and Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think they are US citizens but even if they were, I hope they would realize that police operations are much worse elsewhere in the world and people could really use their skills to help a real movement that would benefit lives. I haven't yet seen any work by lulzsec that I feel really benefited anyone.

    3. Re:Worthless and Stupid by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

      You do realize that the US government is targeting its own citizens for assassination attempts without due process, eavesdropping on its citizens communications without warrants, sending out NSLs with gag orders, starting wars based on lies, starting wars without Congressional approval, ruthlessly pursuing anyone who blows the whistle on wasteful government spending, locking people up with the Material Witness statute with no intent on ever calling them as a witness, kidnapping foreign nationals and sending them to other countries to be tortured, torturing foreign nationals to death, denying them any kind of due process to prove their innocence, locking them in cages for years without any evidence, expanding the powers of the "Patriot" act so that can target people without any suspicion at all...

      The list goes on and on. Just because the US does not oppress you, specifically, does not mean the US isn't an openly oppressive government. Perhaps if you lived in one of those multiple Muslim countries that we drop bombs on...perhaps if it was your family that was dying while our journalists write about government strikes that "killed militants"...you might feel differently.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    4. Re:Worthless and Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't give a shit about multiple Muslim countries or condemn the government efforts on eliminating some ass hat US citizen living in another country issuing death threats on a daily basis. The entire world does nothing but bitch and moan about the US causing all their problems instead of facing the fact that they have created their own problems and blaming it on others just ensures the problems will escalate. It's taken about 10 years of constant irrational hate targeted at the US and it's citizens to erode any sense of sympathy or understanding I might have had for the welfare of others around the world. It's time to attend to our own problems first and let everyone else do the same.

  8. The feds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep the phentenol out of the heroin and you can come over and get weapons and take them back.

  9. So.. by scubamage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret. Just like trying to push a large boulder up a mountain - like Sisyphus. And eventually they're going to trip up, and that boulder will come tumbling back down. We're watching it happen. And I, for one, am enjoying nom'ing on some popcorn while it happens.

    1. Re:So.. by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      ah Sisyphus I knew him well....

    2. Re:So.. by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Information's natural state is to be free

      wtf does that even mean?

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    3. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please "liberate" your bank account number by posting it here.

    4. Re:So.. by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret.

      And yet I notice that you are posting this under a pseudonym.

    5. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your next post, please provide all of your personal statistics, as well as account information and authentication credentials for your phone, email, bank, pharmacy, medical provider, and schooling, etc., pictures of your house key, garage door opener code, wife's measurements and preferred positions, your full sexual history, any transgressions (criminal or otherwise)...

      I mean, after all, that information wants to be free.

    6. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So . . . what's your social security number?

    7. Re:So.. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      It means that ideas and knowledge that are any good and useful have a tendency to spread incredibly cheaply from one brain to the next. It takes real effort and legal controls for it to be otherwise. And to shut down the spreading of information entirely - forget it.

      For example, in the 1950's there was a very well-funded and politically powerful effort to completely eliminate the idea of Communism from the American population. What happened? Well, a mere 20 years later, you had all sorts of hippies forming communes and talking about the value of sharing goods and services freely with each other.

      Or In Soviet Russia, there was a very well-funded and politically powerful effort to completely eliminate any ideas that weren't part of the Communist Party orthodoxy. What happened? Well, the ideas spread anyways via samizdat and private conversation.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret.

      Your post got cut off right before all of your personal banking information, can you resend?

      Thanks

    9. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy.

      Being anarcho-geek is one thing. Being anti-civilization is completely different, and that's how LulzSec is acting. If Anonymous and other such underground groups don't keep LulzSec in line, the consequences will be less freedom and more human misery for everyone else.

    10. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't these guys try to release personal information of the cartels - management, leaders, workers - as well? Why not target Russian government or Iranian government sites? Fear?

    11. Re:So.. by scubamage · · Score: 1

      You'll also notice I never once mentioned that there was anything WRONG with trying to secure information. I simply stated that its not a natural state, and therefore you rely on anything propping it up to an artificial state. The roof is only as strong as its pillars. I have some fairly good pillars built regarding my security online, but I know they're not infallible. If you were obsessed with finding out my identity, you most likely could.

  10. Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by darien.train · · Score: 2

    The info released isn't funny in any obvious context. The press release is certainly not funny and doesn't even try to be. The ASCII gun graphic and the content of the information and press release look like classic anarchist material. Not sure if it's intentional or what but none of this seems directly connected to the personality on Twitter.

    Maybe this is the result of the Anonymous/Lulzsec partnership. Maybe Lulzsec is under new management. Maybe the false flag operation has kicked into high gear.

    Something has changed. You can tell by the dejavu.

    --
    I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
    1. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by scubamage · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that they got access to a machine and did a snatch and run. They're just throwing it together in an archive and sending it out. The fact that there are image files, videos, etc all thrown together would tell me they got into a documents folder somewhere. Probably someone who brought a work computer home and got it compromised?

    2. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by carlosap · · Score: 1

      yes isnt funny, and its pretty serious, it have names, family pictures and a lot of things that could be used by "narco" groups to track that people and they could be in serious danger. So I dont think they are the same lulzsec.

    3. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We are in no way affiliated with Lulzsec.

      They do not wish to be affiliated with us. We have slightly similar motis operandi, but their targets are chosen for lulz. Ours are chosen by the greatest detectable stench of corruption.

      And as to the recent Lulzsec attacks on Anonymous, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/06/lulzsec-anonymous-cyber-fight.html , whether true or not, someone within either organization wants the two groups to be and appear separate. We are fine with this separation.

      Expect Us.

    4. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone who signs up for that kind of work (drug enforcement) knows they are taking on that kind of risk. If that is not something that society wants -- if we don't want to put families in danger as part of the "war on drugs" -- the answer is to reevaluate our policy on drugs, not to spend even more energy trying to keep the identities of our drug enforcement personnel secret.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of lulzsec's members (topiary) got doxed. He was the one respopnsible for the twitter account and media relations. Now he is hiding out. The main head hacker, @anonymouSabu, has taken over the lulzsec twitter in the meantime.

    6. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaand once again someone fails to do their homework before making a painfully obvious statement.

      https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/84075440024719361

    7. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember Timothy McVay had help of whom I suppose was never found out. This is not related, guessing, except to say that there's shit going down that we can't possibly know. And because the tools that we use every day for day to day communication are also supporting terrorism. Its a real mess of highly secrative communications protecting them now. Damn, that just can't last forever. Lulzsec has to be classified as a terror organization in a time of war.

    8. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by darien.train · · Score: 1

      And once again someone fails to check the time stamps on the two posts.

      --
      I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
    9. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. If you read LulzSec's twitter feed, they openly admit that (at least) the press release was done by someone else:

      "In response to the unusual style of our press release... this one was written by an anonymous allied ship, not The Lulz Boat. :)"

    10. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Maybe Lulzsec is under new management.

      They have management??

    11. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Terranex · · Score: 1

      They already addressed this on their twitter http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/84075440024719361 The press release wasn't written by them.

    12. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find ironic is that something so lame and self-righteous could possibly come out of a group of individuals as racist as "Anonymous."

    13. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by foma84 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome the fact that the Lulz are not just a buch of common vandals, but in fact are a bunch if libertarians or, at least, anti-racists.
      Until now I didn't actually fancy their actions, but mere techincal ability, but now I see there's more to it.

      I'm curious what's the next move.

    14. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the epitome of an idiot. I can only hope you have not had any children and infected the gene pool with your inbred idiocy.

    15. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1
      LulzSec said on Twitter that it was Anonymous who wrote the release:

      In response to the unusual style of our press release... this one was written by an anonymous allied ship, not The Lulz Boat. :)

    16. Re:Doesn't Anyone Notice Something Strange Here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lulzsec is a false flag honeypot operation of the NSA meant to hoover up Anonymous...

      So is /b/
      (at least since September 2010 anyway)

  11. US History... by econolog · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else think this is a little odd considering the US was built from immigrants? If they are concerned about supporting new citizens on welfare, SS, etc. prospective immigrants could be given voting rights/citizenship but wouldn't qualify for government funded benefit programs. It eliminates the burden that the gov would be liable for while providing a motivated workforce and allowing immigrants an opportunity raise their children in a better place, live in a relatively safer place, get payed more, and enjoy freedom among other things.

    1. Re:US History... by Shados · · Score: 1

      There's no problem immigrating to the US via legal channels. Unless you're talking about a specific subset of immigrants who don't give a shit about anything, any laws, and will do whatever regardless of what anyone else says.

      Not too sure I want that specific subset around. If they do care and are desperate enough, just marry a citizen or something. Problem solved. Thats what I did :) (though not for immigration reasons =P)

    2. Re:US History... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone else think this is a little odd considering the US was built from immigrants?

      Oh, it's that meaningless old line again.

      Being founded by immigrants and the descendants of immigrants doesn't mean that a nation should accept everyone who wants to immigrate. Do you have a valid argument as to why it would?

  12. Mhmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://lulzsecurity.com/releases/chinga_la_migra_1.txt
    annon help

  13. No Problem by d'fim · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's OK. As long as the state didn't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about.

    --
    Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
    1. Re:No Problem by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      No, no that's only for citizens.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:No Problem by cheeks5965 · · Score: 1

      here is a woosh card. it's for you!

      --
      -- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
    3. Re:No Problem by blair1q · · Score: 2

      In America, the Citizens are the Government.

    4. Re:No Problem by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I don't feel a breeze. Do you feel a breeze?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    5. Re:No Problem by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In America, the Lobbyists are the Government!

      Wake up and smell the coffee. You're living in the past.

    6. Re:No Problem by cheeks5965 · · Score: 1

      are you turning my own woosh back on me?

      --
      -- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
    7. Re:No Problem by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      In Soviet America the Government is the Citizens!!!!!! ...ok let me get back to you on that.

    8. Re:No Problem by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      Oh dear god, run for your life!

      (jk, somewhat)

    9. Re:No Problem by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      In America, the Lobbyists are the Government!

      Wake up and smell the coffee. You're living in the past.

      This would imply that Lobbyists aren't citizens. I suspect that in most cases this is not a true statement.

    10. Re:No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod +10 fucking hilarious.

    11. Re:No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK. As long as the state didn't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about.

      Excellently said.

      If the those in power can't be trusted to act lawfully they have no real right to impose their will on others. As police are in the rare position of getting to investigate themselves, it is of little surprise that they seldom take strong measures against their own members when they act in a criminal manner.

      Anyone who doubts this only has to search youtube for terms such as "police abuse" or similar, and see the deceit and non-punishment that occurs when police misconduct is allowed to be investigated by those same police.

      I'm no anarchist, but exposing corruption can only be a good thing IMO, and especially when the corruption is so often ignored by those put in charge of dealing with such things...

  14. Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

    Are illegal immigrants somehow less human than their legal counterparts, and therefore less worthy of our concern and support? You are an asshole if you think so. And don't give me some "they broke the law" bullshit. Everyone breaks the law every day. At least they did it because they were trying to earn a living for themselves and their families. An unjust law is unworthy of the name.

    1. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they break the law to come here, but then they come to use our health care, which we are required (by law) to provide for them, even if they cannot afford to pay it. do you know who does pay for it? you. the american tax payer. citizens. legal immigrants. if they are here illegally and do not contribute to our society, outside of whatever job they manage to get, they do not deserve to reap the benefits of membership in our society.

    2. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULLSHIT. I am a white 4th generation US citizen, and I can't get free health care. Illegal immigrants don't magically get it either.

    3. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but they have no right to be in the US they need to go through the proper channels otherwise no the only right they have is to be sent back and receive the rights that THEIR country and where they are a LEGAL citizen. Otherwise no they broke the law, so send them back THEN give their rights.

    4. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are illegal immigrants somehow less human than their legal counterparts, and therefore less worthy of our concern and support? You are an asshole if you think so. And don't give me some "they broke the law" bullshit. Everyone breaks the law every day. At least they did it because they were trying to earn a living for themselves and their families. An unjust law is unworthy of the name.

      So you would have no problem if someone broke into your house and stole your crap if they did it to feed their families, right? Because if you do, you're a hypocrite. Are illegal immigrants somehow more special than their legal counterparts, and therefore more worthy of getting a free pass while those who come through legal channels have to pay a small fortune for the whole process to become citizens?

      After lawyers, filling fees, biometric fees and travel, I could have bought a luxury sedan with the money I have paid for my process and my wife's. I considered it an investment because it means I get to earn a living for myself and my family. Are you saying I'm a sucker? Should I have kept the money and just break the law?

      Give me a break. There's a reason the thinking organ is the brain and not the heart.

    5. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So enforcing the law is somehow inhumane?

    6. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

      You know, illegal immigrants didn't write the laws and create all this bullshit. It seems kind of silly to hold them responsible for it. So they live in a corrupt pseudo dictatorship where they can't get by. Obviously they can't afford a lawyer because they have no money. And even if they did, there are quotas on the number of people from each country who can legally immigrate to the US. That basically means that if you're mexican and you want to move to the US, you are boned.

      It seems that unthinking people often point them and essentially blame them for the problem even though they were born into it and are powerless to change it (except by coming to the US, illegally, of course, but you have a problem with that for some reason). In fact, the law is what is broken and wrong, not these "illegal" people who have no legal means to better their situation.

      "So you would have no problem if someone broke into your house and stole your crap if they did it to feed their families, right?"

      This question is disgusting to me. I would rather loose my laptop or my car than let a whole family starve to death. Who wouldn't? I mean, really?!

    7. Re:Does it fucking matter? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 0

      Hey man I'll cut your grass if you let me smoke pot all day and not pay any taxes. Illegals have it pretty damn sweet - none of the bullshit the rest of us have to put up with. I pay a fuckload of money to live in the USA. If they are willing to do the same, then I dig them. Otherwise, STFU.

      Haha, nice sarcasm.

      Or deluded ramblings... either way, there's no way you're serious.

      Why? Two problems with your statement. "Illegal" immigrants pay almost as much in tax as legal ones, because in the USA, taxes are split between purchase tax/property tax and income tax. So they're still paying taxes, more or less, depending on which state they're in. Second of all, the US tax rate is crazy, CRAZY low. You may think your taxes are high, but that's only because you havn't bothered to look and see that in the rest of the civilized world, folks pay 3-4x more than you ... happily. Why? Because their governments don't suck, mostly.

    8. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

      Yes, enforcing an unjust law is unjust. Obviously.

    9. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

      I don't give a fuck what the law says on the matter, because it is unjust. I believe I was pretty clear about that.

    10. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to follow the law and apply for H1B? Like you know others do? The country will decide if your skills are required in the country. The fact that you happen to live just next door does not make you better comparing to people who live a bit farther.
      Illegal immigrants are 11% of prison population in CA costing 970m a year. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2

    11. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

      Once agin, I don't care what the law says because it is unjust and lacks moral authority as a result. Laws are easy to change, turning upside-down the lives of millions of people to suite a law that is wrong is like turning a building upside down because the architect drafted it that way. If the paper is wrong, you should change that, not things that are real, and certainly not something as important as the lives of millions of people.

    12. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Hey man I'll cut your grass if you let me smoke pot all day and not pay any taxes.

      Many people here "illegally" pay taxes. And they avoid petty crimes because of being busted can get the deported.

      So, the "lazy illegal" stereotype? Bullshit.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, allowing all foreigners to come to your country won't really help them. Note: this is not a position I like to take. I think we're all humans and all deserve good lives. I just feel reality doesn't make it so easy.

      Looking at the USA:
      - Each country can only support a limited number of people. There's only that much space and resources to share. It's generous to offer to let everyone in, but it won't work so well. Once the USA allow to many immigrants in, most likely people in the USA will start moving to Canada. As much as Canada building a huge fence to keep Americans out would be comical, should the USA make the mistake of letting to many people in, this will have consequences for other countries too.

      - Countries people run away from won't get better if people can run away. Americans fought for their rights and freedom, it did not just happen on its own. They faced problems and dealt with them in order to make the USA what it is today.
      If Mexicans aren't happy with their country, they need to fight to change it. You're thinking of helping Mexicans who manage to cross the border, but what about those who fail to get in the USA? The old and weak stay behind in Mexico because they're not strong enough to spend hours hidden in a tight space in a truck, with no food or water, under a blazing sun. Even if the US let all Mexicans in, many Mexicans still wouldn't be able to make the trip. These people would be left behind in a country that is in a bad shape.

      - The USA aren't much better than Mexico anyway. Civil rights are seriously threatened in these times, poverty is rampant, crime is high, laws are strict (1% of the population behind bars - and many more who have a criminal record). A lot of Mexicans go there hoping for the American Dream Hollywood is making them fantasize about. Not sure they're really happy to be in the USA once they realize what it's like.

      - Health care. Immigrants don't usually get great jobs. A lot end up unemployed. Thus, they don't produce anything useful to society. It's not their fault, it's only an observation. Now, when you invest in people who produce nothing, you lose out. Health care for everyone won't be possible if too many people get it but don't help build society in any way. It's important to find jobs for immigrants, and giving them legal rights to work doesn't help much - they need education and qualification for jobs.

    14. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 0

      Um, pass me some of that shit you are smoking. I pay the same damn sales tax plus about 1/3 of my income to various things such as Social Security which they do not pay. Plus its the little annoyances which come with being legal - doing things the legit way. Its a total drag and hassle and i resent the fuck out of some people bypassing all that shit and thinking they are the same as me. Its the fundamental fallacy of the whole thing and nobody talks about it. They have a very sweet deal here.

    15. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know you are right. Im gonna go rob a bank, because hey, as long as its for my family...

      and i'

    16. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should post less anonymously. For the purpose of to have been modded up.

    17. Re:Does it fucking matter? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "Civil rights are seriously threatened" And which civil rights are threatened? Most people making this claim are under the false impression that Anarchy is a civil right and it is not. Civil rights have always had to balance the good of the individual against the good of the society as a whole. Just because you can't do anything you like in all situations doesn't mean your rights are being violated. Your comparison between the US and Mexico is absurd. If you are going to argue a position at least include a little reality in your statements. Besides if the US and Mexico are the same why don't we have 1000's of people rushing into Mexico since things can't get be any worse than they are here so they might want to try something new?

    18. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 0

      It really no longer surprises me that my non-offensive, purely just an opinion posts, are modded into oblivion regularly here on Slashthink. Look at this thread for god's sake. It aint the hackers of my generation that are doing LulzSec/Anonymous/wikileaks shit. Lost cause. All you kids have turned into a bunch of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Twas ever thus. Search your heart and you will know i'm right :)

    19. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give a fuck what you say, because you're a moron, am I clear enough about that?

    20. Re:Does it fucking matter? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, shut the fuck up. This is idiocy. I'll tell you what - how about if you're so concerned you let a family of 10 (the mother and her 9 poor children) move in with you, asshole? It's easy to be the sensitive soul on the Internet when it doesn't cost you anything.

      But my guess is you'll continue to live an affluent life (since you're posting here, it's affluent compared to the dirt poor) with a bunch of shit you don't need that could feed 30 people in Mexico, all the while ranting about the evil white racists not letting a flood of poor people stream across the border and wreck the state (and country). You're like that fat fucking pig Oprah, so concerned about the plight of the poor while she eats $500 meals and bathes in $1000 sparkling water baths.

      I avoid that hypocrisy by admitting I'd rather have a 65" plasma TV and a bunch of electronic shit I don't need than feeding a family of poor people in Mexico (or somewhere else). Your kind avoid that truth or tapdance around it, all the while pretending to be holier than thou.

      Here are the simple facts. As an American citizen it is not in my interest for a flood of poor, illegal immigrants to flood across the border. If they want to come in an organized way and work, hell yeah - I'm all for that. Give out more work visas.

      In conclusion, sell all your shit you don't need (food, housing, clothing) and give the money to save some starving lives, or shut the fuck up, hypocrite.

      .

    21. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you should give everything to the poor, so I don't know why you branded me with that. But certainly you shouldn't cut them out of opportunities to find ways to provide for themselves, right? I don't think I'm off-base with that assertion.

      It's hardly reasonable to expect people to respect laws that prevent them from earning a living. People will do what it takes to survive, and setting laws in opposition to that is setting yourself up for failure. The reality of illegal immigration is a testament to the truth of what I'm saying here. These laws are pointless and absurd in the face of reality.

    22. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      3-4x the overall US tax rate is up into the 99-120% rates, I've lived overseas and taxes weren't that high.

      US - Income Tax 0–35% (federal) 0–10.55% (states) - note I now live in a 0% state, its really nice.
      US - Payroll Tax - 15.3–2.9%
      US - Sales Tax - 0-10.25% (states and local) - note I live in a 0% state and city, really nice
      US - top bracket in highest tax area would be 60.25%, lowest employed person will be 2.9%

      I paid something like 19-20% with Federal, misc taxes and fuel tax in 2010.

      US taxation as GDP is 26.9%, Denmark is the most taxed country in the world with a tax-to-GDP ratio of 48.9%

    23. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that looks bad except you left out a little thing call tax refunds. This is where the citizen files yearly tax forms containing a whole lot of rules and loop holes where you can recoup the money you paid during the year. This year it showed that nealry 70% of all US workers paid $0 in taxes and in some cases actually made money. I have a mid 6 figure income and I only paid .2% of my income in taxes.

    24. Re:Does it fucking matter? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You think you aren't racist, be keep using examples that clearly are racist.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Does it fucking matter? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      False.
      They pay sales tax. All the same taxes come out of there paycheck that comes out of yours.

      A) Many get employment with a fake ID, so all taxes are taking out
      B) Many are self employed, and pay taxes. If they don't they risk the IRS looking into them
      C) The few that get paid 'Cash on the barrel head' make so little money they wouldn't pay federal taxes anyways.

      The means that, yes, in fact they do pay SS. As an added bonus, they aren't like to ever draw from SS. So it's a value add for you.

      "thinking they are the same as me."
      ah, the truth comes out. If you think you aren't being racist, you might want to think again.

      " They have a very sweet deal here."
      Compared to Mexico? yes. Compared to legal citizens? no.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Does it fucking matter? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      how do you get from 19-20% to 99-120%

      I make over 75K and I paid 7% federal taxes, all said and done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Does it fucking matter? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      And what example would that be? First maybe we should define racist. If racist is thinking people are genetically inferior then that's just ridiculous, and no educated person thinks such a thing.

      Generally "racist" these days is just something people label other people so they can feel better about themselves. I think they imagine themselves as a bunch of fucking multi-colored paper cutouts holding hands across the globe feeling really cultural and sensitive and whatnot. It's especially amusing in the immigration debate. I'm sure Arizona is addressing the problem the way it is because they hate dark skinned people. I mean it's so worth it because of that, we all decided we need to kick them out because we don't like their skin tones.

      I'm tired of the whole thing, frankly. Unless you're burning crosses or physically assaulting someone I don't care if you're racist, sexist, classist, heightist, weightist, attractiveness...ist. Whatever floats your boat, I don't need to make myself feel better by focusing on how much more enlightened I am than you.

    28. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "This year it showed that nealry 70% of all US workers paid $0 in taxes and in some cases actually made money."

      No, a percentage of US citizens paid $0 in Federal Income Tax and some actually paid $0 and got a rebate.

      Unless someone lives in a no sales tax, no state income tax state, doesn't own property, doesn't have a phone or cable TV, doesn't own a car, doesn't buy fuel, they are going to pay taxes.

    29. Re:Does it fucking matter? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Poster I replied to said people overseas pay 3-4 times US rates, that just isn't true.

      Average American pays 20.4% Federal Taxes, plus another 10.1% in State taxes
      http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.html
      http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/05/11/165367/exxon-pays-less-taxes/

      Which at 3-4 times would be 91.5 to 122%

    30. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It's racist to assume that if mexicans we're allowed to freely live and work in the US, it would somehow ruin the country. You probably wouldn't say the same about Europeans, but even if you would, you'd be wrong. In the past, the US has let Europeans immigrate in precisely the manner you've described, it didn't ruin the country. It makes no sense to think a larger workforce would hinder our nations prosperity. That is counter intuitive, and it contradicts the historical record.

    31. Re:Does it fucking matter? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Ahh.. no. What will ruin the country is an influx of people at the bottom of the economic ladder who then proceed to spit out a bunch of kids, all the while the whole family gets various social and welfare services. I live here - and this is the real problem, not honest day laborers.

      Able bodied workers coming across in an organized way is absolutely fine. What will ruin the country is an exponentially growing group of poor people voting themselves money from Uncle Sam.

    32. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I don't think mexicans are any more prone to doing that than anybody else would be. And you saying that is the reason people are calling you racist. I don't know anyone who really wants to be on welfare. The people I know who advocate social services the most are all middle-class, voting out of a guilty conscience because the want to believe they can help people just by checking a box. I don't often hear poor people talk about voting for social services. Most of the homeless people I know actually hate the government and want nothing to do with it. All the illegal immigrants I know just wish they were legal so they'd have an easier time finding a job.

      I suppose the way to look at it is this. Imagine the kind of person who wants to live on welfare. Are they the kind of person who would get off their ass to vote (the polls say that people on welfare basically don't vote)? Are they the kind of person who would move to another country? No, they lack the motivation to do any of that, that's why they are willing to settle for doing nothing all day long. All they probably want to do is get high and watch television. It's hardly something to be worried about (unless you are legitimately concerned for their welfare, of course).

      If you are worried about social services bankrupting the country, it's the middle class voter who should be keeping you up at night. It's their retirement funds that the government just took on 2 trillion dollars of debt to sure up. It's their cushy union jobs the government saved by bailing out GM. They want a lot more than the poor do, and they have the motivation and desire to try and get it from Uncle Sam.

    33. Re:Does it fucking matter? by rhook · · Score: 1

      Sure you can, go down the the ER when you need medical care. They cannot turn you away.

    34. Re:Does it fucking matter? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight. Poor Mexicans (a nationality, btw, not a race) are not more prone to coming across the border and spitting out anchor babies? That's amazing news. I'll tell my friend those leaches she has to deal with in the ghettos are actually Canadians!

      It's not about race, it's about poor people. No sane person wants poor people flooding across the border.

      And fuck yes I'm worried about the "middle class" too. You get the double whammy there. They want their free shit when they get older, and they feel guilty so they vote money for the poor too.

    35. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem. You're citing this anchor-baby thing as though it is a real thing, and all the studies I've seen say it's not, which matches my personal experience as well. It's hypothetical and it has no basis in reality.

      The same goes for the assertion that illegals want to gain access to social services. They do not, they want jobs. I've never met an illegal immigrant who came here to get free services. These ideas you are spouting about the intentions of illegal immigrants are not based in reality.

      It's true that when they come here they are poor, and so they live in slums. But that's not where they want to live, and that's not why they came here. They came here because they want to work to build better lives for themselves. And everyone stands to benefit from that kind of construction. They do not need to profit at your expense.

      And if you'd sit down and think about it for one second, you'd realize that unmotivated people who benefit from social services do not have what it takes to move to another country. Think about it. They aren't motivated to work even by the need to eat. Moving to a different country is 100 times harder than working a job.

        If you have a problem with social services, you need to work to stop the people who are actually promoting them. The whole illegal immigrant thing is just a distraction. And by making broad, unrealistic claims about the makeup of mexicans who wish to move the the US, you are essentially working to push those immigrants into the arms of people who advocate social services. Because you are wrong, you are a racist. It's not an unfair label to apply to someone who makes broad, unfounded, unrealistic, fear-based claims about another group of people. You need to get your head strait, and arm yourself with some real information, otherwise you are just going to be part of the problem.

      And I don't need to tell you that the way things are headed, the US is in for a financial cluster fuck of unimaginable proportions. You need to stop being part of the status-quo if you intend to deflect it from that course. If you can't pull your head out of your ass and do that, the liberals have already won, and we've all lost.

    36. Re:Does it fucking matter? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      The same goes for the assertion that illegals want to gain access to social services. They do not, they want jobs. I've never met an illegal immigrant who came here to get free services. These ideas you are spouting about the intentions of illegal immigrants are not based in reality.

      You don't know what you're talking about, so your claims of racism mean less than they would coming from someone who does - which also means 0. You're effectively asserting that simple, provable facts are "racist". Go to a school in a poor neighborhood in Phoenix and figure out how many kids are children of illegals. Go follow someone from CPS around and find out how many illegal parents are receiving services for their kids. Illegals don't get services directly, they get them for their children. That's what an "anchor baby" is - the kid is a US citizen so can get a bunch of services.

      Unmotivated people? Really I just don't know what the hell you're all on about. Are you from Connecticut or Oregon or something? A lot of them come to work, that's cool. Fine them and give them legal status. The rest need a boot up the ass.

      Sure - it's not the biggest problem facing the country by any stretch in the near term or even mid-term, but it's one of the biggest in the long term.

      In short, you have the clueless bleeding heart's perspective. Oh, the romantic illegals, coming here because they want to just better themselves and their families. How wonderful... 80% of them do indeed, it's that 20% that will fuck you. And frankly I don't give a shit about the 80% either unless it's in our best interests. Sometimes it is - so issue more work visas.

    37. Re:Does it fucking matter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I know illegal immigrants, and I have read the statistics. I know what I'm talking about. This isn't a bleeding heart's perspective. It's a pragmatic, reasonable viewpoint to take. The anti-immigration stance is the one statistics and reality don't support, and that's the side you are on.

      so issue more work visas.

      I don't have that authority, or else, obviously, I would. Actually, I'd issue citizenship. No sense sending skilled workers back home.

      80% of them do indeed, it's that 20% that will fuck you

      This is a strange form of accounting you are employing. Say you are going to make an investment in seeds, and you know that 20% of the seeds won't grow when you plant them. So you say, "I don't care about the 80% that will grow, it's the 20% that won't that will fuck you". This is truly a silly thing. And it's not like a visa program will somehow sort the 20% from the 80%. There's no way to tell who's a worker and who's a freeloader. So pay the worker, fire the freeloader. If you have a problem with social programs, don't take it out on people who are just trying to scratch out a living for themselves. That is a separate issue.

  15. Read first, judge after by poity · · Score: 1
    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:Read first, judge after by xantonin · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link. I found this:

      Page 1, 30-34

      A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the united states or arizona constitution

      How is that racist?

    2. Re:Read first, judge after by owski · · Score: 1

      Well, it leaves open considering race AND suspicious eye movements.

      Do you seriously think that this section would actually prevent considering these things? It's like a judge telling the jury to "disregard" something that a lawyer said. Genie out of the bottle and all that.

    3. Re:Read first, judge after by owski · · Score: 2

      Also, it allows them to consider language use, accent, clothing, music and food choices, distance from bottom of car to road surface, proximity to known immigrants (illegal or otherwise), and myriad other things. This is what happens when you choose to ignore the well known standards of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause."

  16. poop by Drake_Casanova · · Score: 1

    Last I checked we did not have a population problem where we need to open up to immigrants let alone offer them free land like the colonists lol. We can barely sustain ourselves yet alone illegal immigrants. I dislike when people speak like you.

    1. Re:poop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      “My grandfather did not travel across 4,000 miles of the Atlantic Ocean to see this country overrun by immigrants. He did it because he killed a man back in Ireland.”

      “As we’ve heard this morning, America’s farms are presently far too dependent on immigrant labor to pick our fruits and vegetables. Now, the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables. And, if you look at the recent obesity statistics, you’ll see that many Americans have already started. Unfortunately, my gastroenterologist, Dr. Eichler, has informed me, in no uncertain terms, that they are a necessary source of roughage. As evidence, I would like to submit a video of my colonoscopy into the congressional record.”

      “We all know there is a long tradition of great nations importing foreign workers to do their farm work. After all, it was the ancient Israelites who built the first food pyramids.”

      “This is America. I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan and served by a Venezuelan in spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian.”

  17. This is truly stupid. by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is truly a stupid thing you've written here. Do you honestly believe that most people who support illegal immigration wouldn't rather be supporting legal immigration? Do you know what comprehensive immigration reform is? It's first admitting that the existing system is wrong and then trying to fix it. That is what supporters of illegal immigration support. They by no means wish to keep it illegal.

  18. Spot on by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Especially since we are talking about law enforcement agencies. These are people who are given the legal authority to deprive other people of their rights -- that is the last group of people that I want operating in secret.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mind you, some of the PDF's in this dump are APBs, homicide reports and so on; with full names, photos and license plate numbers. It would not do well for the people to have suspects informed of every new turn in an investigation.

    2. Re:Spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should publicly distribute all law enforcement sensitive documents, so I know when they're on to me. Really, dude? There are legitimate reasons to keep secrets in a free society.

    3. Re:Spot on by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      that is the last group of people that I want operating in secret.

      You are so right. There should be some sort of web site where the names, home addresses, and family profiles of under-cover cops are listed. Also, all investigations and pending busts should be announced before hand, so that criminals can modify their behavior and hide evidence before things get ugly for them. All in-progress rape investigationss or child abuse cases should be listed publicly, with names of everyone involved, of course, with all related police activity on public display so you can go about your day better informed. And definitely, when the police have a lead on a potential bank robbery or a group of people who are planning a mass murder, they should never be allowed to operate covertly to gather information about those involved, or to take non-public steps to prepare for arrests of those involved. And definitely all procedures related to things like security details and travel plans for people like governors (with police protection details) should be made public, with everything about the detail's members, parking arrangements, timing, etc., announced online before each event.

      And, of course, all investigations of white collar crime should include advance notice and public display of every lead and the daily activities of every investigator who is following up on a suspect's money laundering, tax evasion, extortion, etc ... this has to happen BEFORE an arrest, of course, so that you can be comfortable that they're handling each step of the case correctly. Hopefully the bad guy who is trafficking in underage sex slaves, laundering money from the sale of stolen pain meds, and similarly civic-minded activities will be too busy to notice the information you're saying should be public. You really should run for office so that your fine ideas can get a better public hearing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since we are talking about law enforcement agencies. These are people who are given the legal authority to deprive other people of their rights -- that is the last group of people that I want operating in secret.

      Yup, I agree. They should post on their websites the names of all their informants, what undercover operations are going on (including pics and descriptions of the officers involved) and any upcoming raids on illegal 'businesses'.

    5. Re:Spot on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding right? Are you really that naive? You want documents related to ongoing investigations into Mexican drug cartels, organized crime, homicide investigations all made public so that the suspects can be fully aware of the identities of informants, undercover officers, and methods being used to investigate them. I don't know what fantasy world you live in.

    6. Re:Spot on by tantaliz3 · · Score: 1

      Are you free if you have a secret?

  19. Proof Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep... Just look what your ancestor's piss poor immigration policies got you. You speak English and live in the white man's land. That's what Arizona is protecting.

  20. Re:scrub the names ? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that's the point. Give them a taste of their own medicine, so to speak.

  21. Clearly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is LulzSec a government operation? These so called hackers are doing a great job marketing themselves and hurting a lot of innocent people. While congress is currently debating the Cybersecurity Act. And now they attack Arizona for pursuing legislation which the Federal Gov. had warned them not to pursue.

  22. You're a criminal. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    Do you ever speed? J-Walk? Ever run a stop-sign? If you answer "Yes" to any of those questions (or similar questions) you are as much a "Criminal" as they are. If you claim to be able to answer "No" to all such questions, then you're a LIAR!

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:You're a criminal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't drive, it's pretty easy to answer two of your three questions with a no, and I do use crosswalks, so I guess that's three no's for me.

    2. Re:You're a criminal. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Speed or jaywalk, get a ticket. Come here illegally and get booted the fuck out. Nobody's saying they should be hanged.

    3. Re:You're a criminal. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

      Before you blame another for the speck in his eye, first deal with the plank in your own.

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  23. You are incredibly naive by gbutler69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fine for the employer is a simple cost of doing business. Save $100,000.00 per month on wages, pay an $10,000.00 fine now and then. Getting sent back to their "Home Country" is life-devastating for the "Criminal Brown People". Not the same thing at all.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:You are incredibly naive by Discopete · · Score: 4, Informative

      In AZ if you get caught knowingly hiring illegals and you lose your license to do business in the state. Many employers are not willing to take that chance.

    2. Re:You are incredibly naive by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the "indocumentados" in Mexico. Those Mexicans must really be racist against Hondurans and Guatemalans, eh sensitive guy?

    3. Re:You are incredibly naive by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      Most businesses in Arizona either don't need a license, or can acquire one for less than $10. For a company that just hires immigrants to do farming, they don't care if they get shut down, because they can just start a new business next week.

  24. Names and such removed? (I think not) by Holammer · · Score: 1

    I can imagine this leak making some big waves if the material isn't meticulously edited like the wikileaks material. Heck, this could turn out to be wikileaks 2.0 in terms of publicity.

  25. How about... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fining the ass off of Employers that are hiring illegal aliens?

    Oh, I forgot who has the bigger lobby.

    This country is seriously screwed...

    1. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! illegal immigration has been hollowing out the American workforce for generations now. If you're not working minimum wage or are rich with a white collar job, most certainly you're unemployed as your previous job got outsourced. Welcome to the two-class system. The middle class was a lovely thing while it lasted.

      Second, illegal immigrants are creating for themselves a society of dependents on the Federal Gov. Being that they represent a potential voting block large enough to keep a political party in power into perpetuity, we all become a nation of slaves. We can't exactly do away with all those "benefits", now can we?

      THIS NATION IS FUCKED!!!

    2. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you prove that the employer knew that the person was an illegal alien? (especially when they have a stolen identity that passes e-verify)

      Also, by federal law the states cannot fine employers of illegal aliens, the only thing they are allowed to do is suspend or revoke the business license of the employer (and that only by a 5-3 decision of the Supreme Court)

    3. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why shouldn't an employer hire illegal aliens? I hire from my community, and I welcome peaceful people into my community regardless of how the law views them.

      I'm not a wannabe slaveowner or a profit-crazed corporatist, I'm a urban farmer who rarely even uses employees. But I'd be happy to hire someone who immigrated illegally, and even hide him in my attic if he needs it.

    4. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that's going to work great. A bunch of unemployed illegal aliens consuming resources and producing no wealth. Both employment sanctions and deportation are necessary measures, however instead we do neither and have a severely depressed job market as we trend toward employment parity with Mexico.

    5. Re:How about... by Nysul · · Score: 1

      Arizona already passed that law, employers hiring illegal aliens can lose their business license.

    6. Re:How about... by alta · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. We don't need to worry about deportation and the like. Once the funds stop they'll go back home. Once THAT is done, then the ones still coming are probably doing so for drugs... then we can crack down on those.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    7. Re:How about... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Yes, all americans are equally guilty for the state of illegal immigration - republicans too. We all apparently want them here or they wouldnt be here :)

    8. Re:How about... by jd · · Score: 1

      When this spreads to New Mexico, will Area 51 be exempt?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:How about... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      It's called the Arizona employer sanctions law, which the Supreme Court just upheld the constitutionality of.

      And personally, I can't imagine a bigger attack on capitalism than raiding businesses just because they decided to hire someone looking for a job, regardless of the legality of their presence in the country.

    10. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just set the minimum wage of illegal workers to, oh, say, $15/hour. Make companies liable for double backpay plus a fixed amount even if they didn't know their workers were illegal.

      The lawyers are going to the ones who bear the burden of finding breaches of the law, there's a financial incentive for companies to check, and if there really *aren't* any legal immigrants or natural born citizens who want to do the job, fine, you can hire illegals at a premium.

    11. Re:How about... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      I hope you're prepared for $10 apples, $25/lb flour, $10/lb strawberries, $10 oranges, all that.

      You're an absolute brain-dead moron if you think you'll be able to afford to eat if all the illegal aliens stopped working. Go fucking learn where your food comes from.

    12. Re:How about... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Fining the ass off of Employers that are hiring illegal aliens?

      Oh, I forgot who has the bigger lobby.

      As an employer, I am all for this. However, you have to understand that:

      - It is illegal (discrimination) to reject a job applicant simply because you suspect they are illegal.
      - It is illegal to ask a job applicant what their citizenship is (you can ask if you're authorized to work in the U.S.). Security clearance jobs excepted.
      - The I-9 form requires one or two pieces of documentation. If the applicant produces them and they appear genuine to you, then you are legally required to consider the applicant eligible to work in the U.S.

      The reality is, it's actually fairly difficult to knowingly hire illegal aliens. You have to never produce any paper trail that you've hired them, and you have to pay them in cash (because checks produce a paper trail). The far more common case is an illegal immigrant pays for forged documents to satisfy the I-9. If they give you these documents and they look genuine, it is illegal for you to refuse to hire them because you suspect they are illegal.

      If your fining process can adequately distinguish between these two cases, then I am all for fining employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. But if you're proposing fining any employer who hires someone who turns out to be illegal, then you're putting employers in a catch-22. You're saying they'll be fined if they hire someone who turns out to be illegal, but they'll also be fined if they refuse to hire someone they suspect is illegal.

      Under that legal construct, there is no way to comply with both sets of laws and avoid fines. If you err on the side of not hiring any illegals, you will violate the anti-discrimination laws. If you err on the side of not discriminating, you can unknowingly hire an illegal alien who has good forged documents. The vast majority of business owners want to comply with the law. But you have to make the law something that can be complied with. They want a series of steps which they follow, and if they follow it to the letter, they are absolved of any legal liability. Fining them for having hired someone who turns out to be illegal makes it impossible to do that - employers would be at risk of breaking the law no matter what they do.

    13. Re:How about... by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      Where'd that come from?

      Somehow, produce is still available in places like Europe at reasonable prices. And Cotton is still King in the US.

    14. Re:How about... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigrants work the farms that feed America. They have in fact set up a website to give up their jobs to Americans who complain that these immigrants are taking their jobs, but yet, the illegal immigrants continue to work the farms.

      If all the illegal immigrants disappeared tomorrow, you wouldn't be able to feed your family within the week. Period.

      The employers who hire illegal immigrants are the 302M people in the United States.

    15. Re:How about... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      And Europe's just as full of illegal immigrants. Only they're Roma and Polish. Cotton may still be King (I don't know), but Arizona is full of cotton and illegal immigrants.

    16. Re:How about... by One+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Are you not allowed to say "I'm sorry you didn't make the cut, we wish you luck gaining employment elsewhere"? Why do you have to say "I'm sorry but I don't like Jewish Asian Lesbian Possibly-Illegal One-Legged Half-blind Over 50s so I'm not going to hire you"? Is it illegal not to give people a solid reason why they have been turned down? And if it is could "we had more suitable candidates present themselves" be a better response than "we had more young white male protestant applicants"? I'm not really trying to be rude but even though I have been known to be a young white male indistinguishable from a protestant of the same gender, age and racial background nobody ever told me they were either hiring or not hiring me for any reason other than "stuff" probably to avoid such recruiting snafus.

      --
      www.nodicerpg.com - Some RP stuff for free, some not so for free, but still cheap.
    17. Re:How about... by w_dragon · · Score: 2

      If they look legit then you're also paying minimum wage, deducting taxes, and all that jazz. In other words, the business owner isn't making any profit off hiring illegals unknowingly. They need to be going after the ones that are doing it to lower the amount they need to pay their workers.

    18. Re:How about... by Worf+Maugg · · Score: 1

      Odd how the government can secure the entire perimeter of Edwards Air Force Base (Area 51) so that not so much as coyote can cross the line without detection. What's so tough about the mexican boarder.

    19. Re:How about... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      The study I saw showed that prices would go up around 12-15% in the short term then would drop down to about 5-8% higher than normal.

    20. Re:How about... by radtea · · Score: 1

      I hope you're prepared for $10 apples, $25/lb flour, $10/lb strawberries, $10 oranges, all that

      You're right! I'm SO TERRIFIED by the entirely hypothetical consequences of a complex change to social infrastructure that I'm willing to condone abusive conditions for undocumented workers, because really, cheap food in an obese nation is WAY more important than human rights. After all, this is AMERICA we're talking about!

      The "terrifying hypothetical" argument is really, really lame, y'know? And the appropriate response to it is to perform an experiment: Subject a few farming regions to aggressive scrutiny to prevent them from using undocumented workers, and see what affect that has on their productivity. That will give us an actual measure of the effect, rather than breathless speculation by some self-interested fear-mongers. Then we can have a rational discussion about the social costs, rather than a panic-driven emotion-fest like conservatives want.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    21. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polish people are European, they can legally work in other EU states with very little problems. I actually don't know about the Romanians but most around here (two families on my street alone) are perfectly legal. They still send their women out begging though, even though they live well in nice houses, nice cars etc. The blokes just sit out front and tinker with their cars all day.
      That's not to say we don't have illegals here, but they tend to be Nigerian, Moroccan and Algerian. Nigerian for the most part though.

    22. Re:How about... by jd · · Score: 1

      Edwards Air Force Base is not Area 51. It's not even in the same State.

      Second, do you know exactly how much the black budget is? Ok, do you want to guess the cost of the detector arrays involved, the number of false alarms or maintenance bills? The bill for that kind of level of security is probably in the order of a few mil per sqaure yard per year. I'm sure the Feds would be more than happy for you to pay them to install the system and run it. Oh, you DON'T want to pay for it? Well, an aiirwall is pretty cheap, fits into the taxes you're willing to stump up perfectly.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    23. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fining the ass off of Employers that are hiring illegal aliens?

      Actually they do worse then "Fining the ass off Employers" they take away their licence to do business in the state of Arizona. So what happens, they lose their entire business. I'd say that's a lot worse then a few fines.

      For all those against SB1070 they should take the time to actually READ IT before they go on and on about what it does and does not say. You'd be suprised.

  26. lulsec can you hear me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your going for government intrusion please, for the sake of doing something truly important on this earth, and i mean making a permanent name in the history books, please go after info on the real aliens please.

    I mean do the political stuff too but seriously.

    Where is the ETs at?

  27. Mod parent up!! by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

    Fining the ass off of Employers that are hiring illegal aliens?

    Oh, I forgot who has the bigger lobby.

    This country is seriously screwed...

    This is the heart of the whole problem. I don't "support" illegal immigration...I support attacking the problem at the source...the jobs that create the motivation. The documentary Food Inc has an amazing segment on this. The meat packing industry (once I very good, safe, high paying factory job in the 50's) is sustained by illegal labor. Not only that, immigration conveniently deports the workers that have built up a little seniority.

    This is why I HATE the illegal immigration issue so much...a bunch of politicians with no real intension of changing anything using it as a campaign issue because it stirs up all sorts of great racial hatred and gets people riled...all the while being basically on the payroll of companies that thrive on this modern day slave labor. What a crock of shit...yet voters keep falling for it election after election. Build the dang fence my fucking ass....

    1. Re:Mod parent up!! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      So... your solution for people is "please ignore everything that upsets you, I promise it'll be okay, thanks" ?

      That's NOT how a democracy works!

    2. Re:Mod parent up!! by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      To tell you the truth, I haven't a clue what you mean by that at all. My solution is for people to tell their representatives to go after those who are creating the problem by employing illegal aliens, rather than just just using the issue to fan racist flames while businesses go on benefiting from illegal labor.

  28. Sheriff Joe - new yorker july 20, 2009 by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    Anyone who is unfamiliar with arizona, needs to read an article in the new yorker called "Sherrif Joe" By William Finnegan. Its behind a paywall but there are some other places to get it

    The biggest part of the sheriffs job is running the jails, and Arpaio saw that there was political gold to be spun there. The voters had declined to finance
    new jail construction, and so, in 1993, Arpaio, vowing that no troublemakers would be released on his watch because of overcrowding, procured a consignment of Army surplus tents and had them set up, surrounded by barbed wire, in an industrial area in southwest Phoenix. "I put them up next to the dump, the dog pound the waste disposal plant" he told me. Phoenix is an open-air blast furnace for much of the year. Temperatures inside the tents hit a hundred and thirty-five degrees. Still, the tents were a hit with the public, or at least with the conservative majority that voted. Arpaio put up more tents, until Tent City jail held twenty-five hundred inmates, and he stuck a neon "vacancy " sign on a
    tall guard tower. It was visible for miles.
    His popularity grew. What could he do next? Arpaio ordered small, heavily publicized deprivations. He banned cigarettes from his jails. Skin magazines. Movies. Coffee. Hot lunches. Salt and pepper Arpaio estimated that he saved taxpayers thirty thousand dollars a year by removing salt and pepper. Meals were cut to two a day, and Arpaio got the cost down, he says, to thirty cents per meal. "It costs more to feed the dogs than it does the inmates," he told me. Jail, Arpaio likes to say, is not a spa its punishment.
    He wants inmates whose keenest wish is never to get locked up again. He limits their television, he told me, to the Weather Channel, C Span , and, just to aggravate their hunger, the Food Network. For a while, he showed them Newt Gingrich speeches. "They hated him," he said cheerfully. Why the Weather Channel, a British reporter once asked. "So these morons will know how hot it s going to be while they are working on my chain gangs."

    He got a tank from the Army, had the howitzer muzzle painted with flames, and "Sheriff Arpaio s War on Drugs" emblazoned on the sides, and rode in it, with Ava, in the Fiesta Bowl Parade. He decreed that all of his inmates there are now roughly ten thousand of them, double the number when he took office must wear pink underwear. And pink socks and pink flip flops. Even pink handcuffs. Pink, he explains, mock-sincerely, is a soothing color.
    "I know just how far I can go," Arpaio told me. "That s the thing."

    Arpaio wasn't kidding about chain gangs. Foreign television reporters couldn't get enough footage of his inmates shuf-
    fling through the desert. New ideas for the humiliation of people in custodyâ"whom the Sheriff calls, with persuasive disgust, "criminals," although most are actually awaiting trial, not convicted of any crimeâ"kept occurring to him. He put his inmates in black-and-white striped uniforms. The shock value of these retro prisoner outfits was powerful and complex. There was comedy, nostalgia, dehumanization, even a whiff of something annihilationist.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Sheriff Joe - new yorker july 20, 2009 by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Yes! With any luck something in this drop will be usable against Arpaio. Sheriff Joe is already under investigation by multiple federal agencies, including a federal grand jury. Anything that gets this guy indicted, and with luck convicted is a good thing.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Sheriff Joe - new yorker july 20, 2009 by Discopete · · Score: 1

      Most of it is from AZ Department of Public Safety. They hate Joe as much as the next guy.

    3. Re:Sheriff Joe - new yorker july 20, 2009 by Discopete · · Score: 1

      In Joe's defense (god I cannot believe I am defending him), the chain gangs are a volunteer program. No inmate is forced to work chain gang. The inmates that do volunteer see it as a welcome time away from the jail cell.

    4. Re:Sheriff Joe - new yorker july 20, 2009 by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      America you're a fucked up country, and you'll deserve what's coming to you. Sorry to have to say that.

  29. AZ also has death panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20027668-10391704.html

    During last year's federal battle over President Obama's health care legislation, some Republicans claimed his program promoted "death panels" which they seemed to suggest would involve government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies.

    The health care bill did include language which paid doctors to offer end-of-life counseling. That was eventually removed.

    Facing a tough budget situation, however, Arizona has instituted what critics say is much closer to these so-called "death panels" than anything that ever appeared in the federal government's health care legislation.

    1. Re:AZ also has death panels by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Is "death panel" a paranoid, emotional way of saying "triage"?

      If resources are limited then it is a great idea to save the most people possible in an organised way. Otherwise you will be treating everything that comes, nomatter how futile at the beginning of the month then not treating anything by the end of the month when the money has run out and who knows who will die early from easily treatable conditions when all the money has been spent on saving a month or two of life for other patients.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    2. Re:AZ also has death panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are resources limited today, but weren't yesterday? Why should the creation of money be an exclusive, divine right of bankers who automatically attach debt to it? Why shouldn't our elected reps create money, as Lincoln printed some $400 million greenbacks?

      Scarcity thinking creates artificial scarcity (of money, for example) to prove its own correctness, a "self-fulfilling prophecy". Only accountants can look at the vast bounty that the US produces each year and call it a "deficit"...

      Everyone has an unalienable right to life. For money managers to determine that some figure in a ledger book outweighs that right is un-American.

    3. Re:AZ also has death panels by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      While money is artificially scarce, CAT scan machines, operating theaters, qualified doctors, nurses, respirators, etc. are naturally scarce and all that making more money will do is push up the cost. However, if one was to make more of these machines and train more specialists the price would go down. Money is scarce because it needs to be negotiable against actual scarce things.

      Anyway, "un-American", what are you talking about? America is famous for being the only first-world developed country to not have made a serious attempt at creating a working socialized health system.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  30. So they are Democrats by z-j-y · · Score: 0

    How predictable. Probably wet his pants when Obama was elected.

  31. Heh by Niris · · Score: 1

    Where's that Internet Hate Machine I grew to know and love over the years? "Hay guiz, that's racist! Shame on you."

  32. False flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LulzSec is an arm of the government paving the ways for draconian laws against computer use and to vilify hackers.

  33. Sorry, too late. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Sorry, Lulzsec. Too late to change ideologies now. You set out to hack "just for the lulz". Now that some very serious people don't find you all that funny, it's a little late to start making a play for the "oppressed political dissidents" card.

    1. Re:Sorry, too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read their IRC chat logs, you realize they are nothing more than script kiddies a'la 1996.

      Their 'hacks' are with SQL Injection, and hanging out in 2600 irc paying for 0 days.

      None of their members have come up with an original hack. Mostly, they just like point large bandwidth shells at people, for lulz.

      Recently, they had some ex sony dev come to them with source code for a sony internal developer site. I mean, come on.

      They aren't even standing on the shoulder of giants, they are sitting on them trying to chicken fight others.

      MASTER BLASTER RUN BARTER TOWN

    2. Re:Sorry, too late. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Pretty much, you know once they started hacking the CIA it was lights out.

  34. Why so serious Lulz? by kjzk · · Score: 1

    I remember reading an article stating how Lulzsec was a harmless "just for fun" hacking group. Looks like they were wrong.

  35. Wait? What? by bigdogpete · · Score: 1

    So someone pays $10,000 and gets someone to smuggle them over the border. That gives them the right in order to come to anyone's country. So everyone says they are so poor. That all they are trying to do is provide for their family. $10k seems like a pretty good start to me. So lets not use that $10k in order to do the paperwork and immigrate legally to the country. Then taxpayers support them in hospitals and schools. So we creep into your house in the night and we live in your basement. You kind of know we are there but the police are not allowed to come in and ask us why we are there. We know this so we bring in more of our friends. We know the police cannot ask us to show them proof that we are suppose to live in your house so they can't arrest us. I say this in hopes of getting someone to say I am a bad person. That perhaps even racist. That I am anti-immigration. Well I am here to tell you that no I am not. My wife and step-child are Filipino. I am currently working on getting their visa's done in order for them to come to the states. It is a pain in the butt in order to get everything right and it is a little tough. But we are doing it. America is founded on immigration. But if done properly nobody cares and congrats. It is when you sneak into our house that's when we get mad. If my wife and children are asked for papers after we get to the states, no problem here you go officer. If I am in another country and the police ask for my ID, yes sir here you go. I have nothing to hide I am here legally.

    1. Re:Wait? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So someone pays $10,000 and gets someone to smuggle them over the border.

      [Citation needed] Your entire case is based on this amount...

    2. Re:Wait? What? by mochan_s · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there is no method of immigration for Mexican economic migrants. Immigration methods are marriage, lottery, excellence - technical, artistic or athletic, asylum from persecution, or investments of over half a million dollars. None of these are applicable for an economic migrant to take advantage of the better economic climate across the border.

      In other words, there is no proper way. The only proper way is not to attempt to immigrate.

  36. DON'T PUT YOUR INFO ON THE INTERNET! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you don't want your info stolen don't put it on the internet.

  37. US citizens are being deported too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-476045

    According to Northwestern and Northeastern University researchers, every year hundreds of Americans are wrongfully forced out of the country. It happened to this American citizen after committing a crime (throwing rocks). He kept telling authorities that he thought he was an American citizen but didnâ(TM)t have the paperwork or access to an attorney to prove it to the authorities, so he was deported to Jamaica. For ten years ...
    Some people are actually threatened by officers that if they donâ(TM)t give up their citizenship claims they may be prosecuted for making false claims.

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-07-27/news/17218849_1_judy-rabinovitz-immigration-laws-illegal-immigrant

    U.S. citizens wrongly detained, deported by ICE

    Veloz is one of hundreds of U.S. citizens who have landed in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and struggled to prove they don't belong there, according to advocacy groups and legal scholars, who have tracked such cases around the country. Some citizens have been deported. ...
    Jacqueline Stevens, A UC Santa Barbara professor of law and society, said she had identified 160 cases of people who had been detained or deported but whose U.S. citizenship was later affirmed by the federal government or a jury. And several immigrant legal aid groups have helped free dozens of other citizens in recent years.

  38. would be funny if.. by vonshavingcream · · Score: 1

    the torrent was just 350mb of crazy spanish / mexican porno

  39. Does anybody read the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? There isn't a racial profiling part of the law. It doesn't say you can stop somebody and ask for their papers. It says that when law enforcement is already talking to you, they can, if they have reason to believe you are an immigrant, request to see your immigration papers, which federal law says you must carry. I really, really don't see a problem here.

    It also specifically does not punish illegal workers, but rather the business that employ illegal immigrants. All the bleeding hearts should like that part, so the poor illegal immigrants aren't taken advantage of.

    1. Re:Does anybody read the law? by ziggy_az · · Score: 1

      Hey AC, what exactly is "reasonable suspicion" of being an undocumented immigrant? SB1070 does, in fact, target anyone who "looks" like an illegal immigrant. In Arizona, that would most likely be Chicano. If I'm a bleeding heart for not wanting my citizen friends to be harassed for "looking" Mexican, then so be it.

      --
      "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
  40. Attacking the wrong people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So LulzSec finally try to show a political motive and they attack the only state that is actively fighting ILLEGAL immigration? Illegal immigration puts a huge financial strain on this country, from free health care to free schooling! They can even get a drivers license. If your going to attack someone at least know what or who your attacking.

  41. Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good people are going to get burned in this.

  42. I WANT REAL aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want lulzsec to fucking get something useful! Like hacking into the pentagon and fucking getting real coverups on real aliens. Like the ones in space!

  43. So acording to you by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    the problem is that we aren't fascist enough. Unfortunately for you, we know how to take care of your type. We did it before, and we'll do it again.

  44. Do you really think... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    that the rest of us are ignorant enough to believe that they won't? I personally find your insinuation as to our gullibility to be rather insulting and think you should apologist.

  45. No by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    We are afraid of the 90 percent who are racist who make the rest look bad. After all, they are in Arizona, and as you have shown, they are a pretty pathetic bunch.

  46. you reap what you sow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as I don't like SB1070, I will be sure to laugh my ass off and post a "you reap what you sow" comment when one of the documents that they have leaked results in the death of one of a lulzsec participants family member. Those jackasses have no f-ing idea what they are doing. At least wikileaks vets what they are releasing.

  47. Bad Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if the political posturing leading up to the next US presidential election wasn't bad enough we now have Team Lulz stirring up the politicos who are probably shiatting bricks over the amount of dirt a skilled group of hackers could uncover.

    So long Internet anonymity, we hardly knew you.

  48. Who is LulzSec? by transami · · Score: 0

    Is anyone else starting to wonder if LulzSec is a government cyber false-flag op? "He" seems to be in too many places too quickly. I waiting the next foot to fall up on capital hill, calls for government monitoring of all IP traffic and mandatory online identities for everyone so stop the likes of LulzSec.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
    1. Re:Who is LulzSec? by bubulubugoth · · Score: 1

      Time to check those wireless routers and start to build a citizen-net-mesh maybe?

      Nothing good will come after this, only more regulations...

      --
      Â_Â
    2. Re:Who is LulzSec? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one has ever said LulzSec is a "he." LulzSec is probably similar to Anonymous in that it's random people across the globe. I guess to put it simply, LulzSec isn't one guy it's a group.

    3. Re:Who is LulzSec? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else starting to wonder if LulzSec is a government cyber false-flag op?

      Plenty of people, though mostly I suspect it's just people who think using the term "false-flag" makes them sound cool.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    4. Re:Who is LulzSec? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A lot of start up funding, promotions, budgets depend on much public 'cyber' going down 'soon' to ensure the rapid expansion of Cyber 3.0 and huge new contracts.
      If not funding flows to other areas. Large budgets get set lower long term, 100's of megawatts in power lost.
      Need to get public interested rising fast .... must save budget and prestige ...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  49. Pfft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing that could not be obtained through a carefully worded FOI request.

  50. Hmmm by rhewt · · Score: 1

    Has anyone else noticed how http://lulzsecurity.com/ has been down, and their twitter account has been pretty quiet since this release? Maybe they just ran out of jolt (and their server)?

  51. THIS IS FUCKED by alexborges · · Score: 1

    Okay, ive grokked through it quickly and I hate this Arizona law as any single mexican (which is a lot). But the info contained in the package is now public and it shouldnt be. It will help criminals get off the hook (if they have brains enough to use a torrent client). This is wrong. This jerks shouldve given this to wikileaks.

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:THIS IS FUCKED by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      OMG but Wikileaks are terrists, haven't you heard? Why are you anti-America?

  52. Same old nonsense. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is it that white people seem to be the most vehemently opposed to any measure to deal with illegal immigration? It's like they're operating from a standpoint of hyper-sensitivity and guilt.

    I find it offensive that suggesting that something needs to be done about illegal immigrations leads to a person being branded as a racist. Can anyone explain to me what's unreasonable about keeping people from entering the country illegally? That's the key distinction here: illegal.

    My entire family consists of first generation immigrants. My uncle had to wait 7 years for his number to be called because he was coming with his family. And my parents were sponsoring them. I'd say 90% of my closer friends are immigrants and most of them have a problem with illegal immigration. The important thing here is that they all, myself included, came here legally. We followed the process, paid the fees and did whatever was necessary to come here.

    So why should someone who felt they didn't want to bother with any of that be given a free ride? And the irony here is that coming illegally merely insures unending hardships. All those illegals who couldn't be bothered to follow the process end up being exploited doing crap work. Had they come here legally they would have had many more options.

    My wife, having been in the country one week shy of a year had to pay out of state tuition at the local community college. Now an illegal immigrant enjoys the benefit of paying in-state tuition by virtue of not submitting any paperwork that proves residency. I can appreciate the motivation behind that move, they're trying to encourage illegals to go to school. The problem is, if you're still an illegal when you graduate you're still not going to be able to find work. And ultimately, there really needs to be some level of penalty for breaking the law.

    The fact is, however, that there's no way we can realistically deport those already here. We do need to legalize them. But that should never happen before we've addressed the problem of those coming across the border. If we don't do that first we're never going to fix this problem and in fact we'll probably make it worse. It isn't the first time we've tried this.

    And the propaganda campaign against the Arizona law was quite effective in how it has misled the American public. It basically mirrors the Federal law already in place and makes it illegal to conduct racial profiling. I found it rather amusing to hear Europeans and the Chinese berate us over the law given that their own immigration policies are much harsher. Hell, Mexico is much tougher on illegal immigrants than we are.

    1. Re:Same old nonsense. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "keeping people from entering the country" != "throwing people out of the country"

      e.g., the Jose Vargas story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?_r=2&hp

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    2. Re:Same old nonsense. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is pretty much exactly my stance. It doesn't benefit me as an American to let a bunch of poor people (of any race) stream across the border with no constraint. Give the ones here a path to legal status (timeboxed), after that it's serious shit and they get no more chances. Seal the border, and issue however many visas we need to get workers for the jobs we need to fill.

      The problem is we have assholes on the right and dipshits on the left. The right naively thinks we can deport all the ones who are here, which is risible. The left just wants some hippie commune with no borders where we add 20 million dirt poor people sucking at Uncle Sam's tit because, well, we can just make those fat cat rich assholes pay for it, right?

    3. Re:Same old nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that white people seem to be the most vehemently opposed to any measure to deal with illegal immigration? It's like they're operating from a standpoint of hyper-sensitivity and guilt.

      You apparently are not aware of what SB1070 is and does.

    4. Re:Same old nonsense. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Why is it that white people seem to be the most vehemently opposed to any measure to deal with illegal immigration?

      I find it offensive that you lump white people together so casually. There are a number of us pale-skinned, freckle wearing, fish-bellies that are quite supportive of numerous measures to deal with illegal immigration. However, I will readily admit than many of us are opposed to measures that we consider ineffective.

    5. Re:Same old nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for this point of view... I don't think a lot of people have bothered to actually read the law. Instead, they've jumped on the bandwagon without actually thinking for themselves.

      I'd just like to point out that the Arizona law doesn't "basically mirror the Federal law". It directly cites it. If If Arizona non-residents genuinely wanted to change the Arizona law, they could call their representatives and ask for changes to the Federal law.

      In any case, for those of you interested in reading the law I'll post a link. The parts in blue are the new bits added by SB1070.

      http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

      Here are the bits I'm refering to:

      B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
      OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
      STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
      UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
      WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
      PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
      PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

      A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
      TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
      1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
      2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

    6. Re:Same old nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico doesn't have 3 million illegal immigrants.

      In fact, almost no other country had 3 million illegal immigrants. I think Egypt may, but they're allowing them to stay for humanitarian reasons, because the conditions are so much better in Egypt than Libya and Syria. The other issue is that the border with Mexico is one of the largest POPULATED borders in the world. Sure, a few borders that Russia shares with China may be comparable in size, but they're in Siberia. Same for borders between Chile and Argentina, but again, comparable countries with a border in the middle of nowhere.

      The problem is unique between the US and Mexico. You notice that there is no similar plans in Montana to stop the flow of immigrants from Alberta (because there really isn't one).

      Another issue worth pointing out is that there are lots of "diversity" visa opportunities for people from most countries. It's one of the biggest visa lotteries in the US immigration system, however Mexico is specifically excluded, eliminating the majority of the chances for lower skilled Mexican immigrants. Many people from China and India are accepted in this category, but Mexicans aren't allowed to apply.

  53. Wait, Entropy == Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret. Just like trying to push a large boulder up a mountain - like Sisyphus. And eventually they're going to trip up, and that boulder will come tumbling back down. We're watching it happen. And I, for one, am enjoying nom'ing on some popcorn while it happens.

    Does your support of this really come from the idea that natural = better? Or that its better to let entropy take its course than to expend energy? Because those sound like very bad general principles to me.

    Think of how much energy we expend eating. It would take less to just whither and die. My houses natural state does not have the Internet. Or, you know... a house.

    Should our government be freer with its information? Probably. But your reasoning almost argues for the opposite.

  54. No actually they don't seem to by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I've spoken to very few people who really want any kind of immigration reform. They either want all the brown people out (if they dislike illegal immigration) or simply want people to be able to do whatever they want with no documentation (if they like illegal immigration). When you talk about something like a guest worker program, which would involve things like documentation and control, they lose interest.

    That's part of the reason it is an issue so little gets done on is few people seem interested in a real, comprehensive, solution. Solving the problem doesn't mean grant everyone amnesty and open the borders. There is a reason nations have and control their borders and they ALL do.

    Solving the problem would be something along the lines of create a good guest worker/other visa program that quickly and easily gets people proper documentation, make the legal process extremely efficient and streamlined. Then ratchet up enforcement. Come down on people who refuse to play by the rules and those who employ them like a ton of bricks. Make it clear that the options are play by the rules or don't play.

    Getting anyone to buy in to a plan like that is hard. As I said of those that want immigrants around, the most common plan seems to be "just ignore the problem."

  55. Striking glimpse of lawlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you actually download the documents, you will see what kinds of things the officers have to deal with. I for one salute our officers and their bravery to maintain the rule of law, just so the rest of us can sleep safe at night.

  56. LulzSec.com is down, Chicken vom home to roost by NikolaiKutuzov · · Score: 1
    For about 25 mins LulzSec.com is down, and one self-proclaimed white hat hacker "th3j35t3r" posted enough information on pastebin for the FBI to identify another core member of the LulzSec - http://pastebin.com/76TsPHeU.

    Proof again you can break into FBI or CIA, or you can talk about it, but you cant do both for very long.

    This here explains it in some more words: https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/14706-LulzSec-How-Not-to-Run-an-Insurgency.html#.TgNxjyifa2A.twitter

    --
    Invita Invidia
    1. Re:LulzSec.com is down, Chicken vom home to roost by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      None of the information in that pastebin points to any person he's named being involved with Lulzsec.

      [19:53] kayla also, word on the internet 306 fox.com employess passwords are getting leaked on http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec soon after a destruction of many of their linkdins
      [20:19] Sabu http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec
      [20:19] Sabu it begins

      What does this mean? Means nothing. It means that someone posted a link to the twitter page saying that "passwords are getting leaked" and this "Sabu" kid acknowledging that they're posted. Doesn't mean he posted 'em.

      This in and of itself is not an admission of involvement with Lulzsec because there was somebody that posted about it *BEFORE* he did.

      Once again, no proof that any of these dudes are involved. Just because they sit on IRC, hang out with each other, maybe run a botnet, and know python? They're Lulzsec?

      LOL Come on.

  57. Reminds me of a "joke" by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An elder Armanian is lying on his death bed surrounded by his sons and grandsons as he passes on his final lessons:

    Remember my children, always defend the jews.

    The eldest son asks confused: Why the jews?

    The elder answers: Because when they are gone, we are next.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  58. I have a tip for you, when you are trying to write a bleeding heart story, don't make the "hero" to be an asshole.

    Basically you are saying that someone who disobeyed the laws of the country he was in, got in trouble with the law for breaking the law... Oh nozers!

    He got arrested for being an asshole as you yourself admit. End of story.

    Or do you think that someone just because they are famous shouldn't have to follow traffic law?

    And just how famous do you got to be? Especially since you can't evne be bothered to name him. An athlete eh? Does it count if I been on TV in Holland, can I break traffic laws at will in the US too with your blessing?

    You know why these anti-immigration laws pass? Because those that are opposed to it can't come up with anything better then your kind of story.

    Why not use as your next example a mexican drug-cartel hit man being arrested as an example of why the police is wrong. That will get keep turned to your point of view REAL fast.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:So? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      being an 'asshole' is no reason to be arrested.

      "Or do you think that someone just because they are famous shouldn't have to follow traffic law?"

      Now walking on a footpath isn't a reason to go to jail for three days.
      Would it be OK to put you in jail for three days for going 5 miles over the speed limit?
      Of course it wouldn't. That's not deterrent, or justice, or safety.

      "Why not use as your next example a mexican drug-cartel hit man being arrested as an example of why the police is wrong."
      Yes, that's the same thing~
      If he was arrested and put in jail just because he was brown, then yeah, it would be WRONG to do so.

      You just do't arrest people and then hope they may have committed some crime. At least it didn't used to be that way.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  59. Do yourself a favour and grow up by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    "Information's natural state is to be free "

    So for example if police or security services have information about a crime to be committed but what to keep it secret so they can catch the criminals in the act , you think they should just make that information public ASAP and if the criminals find out, well too bad eh? At least your moral high ground is intact.

    Christ I wish people like you wold grow the fuck up. This is real life with real people, not some fantasy nirvana with idealtistic ciphers standing in for real fallible people you and you idiot right-on friends might dream about. Newsflash - such a place doesn't exist. Go learn some history and then learn about human nature.

    1. Re:Do yourself a favour and grow up by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

      "Information's natural state is to be free "

      So for example if police or security services have information about a crime to be committed but what to keep it secret so they can catch the criminals in the act , you think they should just make that information public ASAP and if the criminals find out, well too bad eh? At least your moral high ground is intact.

      Well... it would result in either the crime not being committed, or (if the criminals didn't know or ignored the release) the crime and therefore capture going ahead anyway. Since both are good outcomes, I fail to see the problem with the information being released. And if someone doesn't commit a crime then they've nothing to be imprisoned for.

      Disclaimer: I do NOT condone the "breaking and entering" of information storage (physical or virtual) in order for a third party to release that information - it should be a voluntary or at least information-holder initiated (in the case of legal requirements etc) release. In other words - I do not condone LulzSec's actions in any way - the ends do not justify the means.

    2. Re:Do yourself a favour and grow up by scubamage · · Score: 1
      No, I wish people like YOU would grow the fuck up. Please re-read my comment. I did not say that there was ANYTHING wrong with security. Nothing. Apparently its also part of human nature to aggressively insult people with things you pull out of your ass and NOT from the actual post. Here, let me quote the OP for you:

      I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret. Just like trying to push a large boulder up a mountain - like Sisyphus. And eventually they're going to trip up, and that boulder will come tumbling back down. We're watching it happen. And I, for one, am enjoying nom'ing on some popcorn while it happens.

      See? Nothing about security being incorrect. I simply stated that its unnatural, so they're fighting an uphill battle. As for me enjoying it, I'm allowed my schadenfreude just like everyone else. I'm not saying we live in some mystical happy place, I'm saying the exact opposite. People are trying in vain to keep things secure; and they're not realizing that they're trying to build cities with bad foundations. Eventually those buildings will crumble. And just like watching any other building tumble, its enjoyable to watch. You can think that makes me a bad person to enjoy other people's misery - just remember it next time you walk by a homeless person asking for change.

    3. Re:Do yourself a favour and grow up by radtea · · Score: 1

      This is real life with real people, not some fantasy nirvana

      Which is why we need "a stubborn commons and a martial nobility, possessed of arms, tenacious of property" and also willing to root through the State's trash to "protect a free constitution from the ambitions of princes" (that's more-or-less from arch-Liberal Edward Gibbon.)

      Although there are a few situations where secrecy is a public good, in the vast majority of cases it is not, and should only be maintained for as short a time as possible. For some cases that means a few decades, but in most the time-scale on which secrecy ceases to be a matter of legitimate public interest and becomes solely a matter of protecting the Organs of the State from democratic scrutiny is weeks to years.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Do yourself a favour and grow up by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "People are trying in vain to keep things secure"

      In your opinion. But as we've seen , your opinion isn't worth much.

      "And just like watching any other building tumble, its enjoyable to watch"

      So you'd be laughing if someone broke into the bank you use and stole all your money? I'm sorry, whats that? Thats different is it?

      "You can think that makes me a bad person to enjoy other people's misery - just remember it next time you walk by a homeless person asking for change."

      If thats some piss poor attempt at moral equivalence you need to go back to the drawing board.

    5. Re:Do yourself a favour and grow up by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Really? Says who? You? You, the person who lacks any reading comprehension? Your second example is pointless - if my bank is broken into and my money is stolen, the federal government is on the line to pay it off thanks to the FDIC. So yes, it is different. I openly accept my human nature - that is, I enjoy it when other people fail. I like it when their hubris leads up to an eventual failure. I understand that security, even the very best, is transient and will ultimately fail. Likewise, I accept that I am not perfect, and am liable to fail. Just like you fail at reading comprehension. Now go along and play, I'm bored with you. You seem to lack the basic ability to understand that the statement "information is meant to be free" is different from "OMG I WANT EVERYTHING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OMGOMGOMGWTFBBQ1111" so you're really not worth my time. I have better, more intelligent people to talk to who make far, far money than both of us combined. Good day.

  60. He even explains it in the body text, idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means that you have to work hard to keep information secret, therefore it is not natural for information to BE secret, any more than it's natural for a lump of metal that is a helicopter to remain suspended in air therefore you need a sodding big engine to make it do that.

  61. Irony is lost on sanctamonious idiots by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Though they do a nice line in hypocricy. Usually with people like the OP "information" invariably means "everyone else information, not mine". They make me want to heave.

    1. Re:Irony is lost on sanctamonious idiots by scubamage · · Score: 1

      You might want to check your reading comprehension - I never mention in my post that there is anything wrong with trying to secure data. Anything you infer from what I said is your problem.

    2. Re:Irony is lost on sanctamonious idiots by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      No , nothing wrong with securing it but for some reason you find it funny if its broken. That says a lot about your level of maturity. Let me guess, you're early to mid 20s, probably still living at home with mum.

    3. Re:Irony is lost on sanctamonious idiots by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Age is correct, though I work in security, am a well paid engineer, and own my own home. I didn't say it's funny, I said its entertaining to watch people fight the inevitable. People put too much faith in technology - it fails. When people realize that, we can start to make some actual progress.

  62. Would that matter? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    Companies would still use the cheapest labour, say that labour is expensive and pocket the profits.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  63. Such brave people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will be very, very interested to see the results of Wikileaks or Luzlsec's release of secret Chinese or Russian documents. What? They don't have any? Gee, I wonder why.

  64. They are just bullies by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    This just goes to show that LulzSec is just a bunch of cowardly bullies. Their actions say

    We don't like you, something you do, or something you support so we are going to violate your privacy, hack your computers, and attack you, all while hiding in the shadows because we don't want you to be able to defend yourself or retaliate.

    It is a bunch of "internet tough guys" going after important and powerful real life institutions. And, by going after the government, they are making the same mistake Japan did in 1941.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:They are just bullies by waives · · Score: 1

      what a retard you are.. which is it, are they cowards or are they putting themselves in danger assface?

  65. Real fines by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    How about this: If illegal workers are found at an employer, they are sent back home by airplane with all expenses paid by the employer - along with a month's worth of pay equal to the average legal workers' wages. Talk about disincentive.

  66. the ... police state that is Arizona by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why so many people are trying to cross the border - get real!

  67. TSA Groping vs SB1070 by babywhiz · · Score: 1

    I think I have heard more than one person say that they wish Airport Security Theater was back to the old profiling days......Makes me wonder, if you are at an airport in AZ, do you get profiled, and groped?

  68. Democracy has already failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democracy has already failed because of the ever-growing pool of sponging parasites who keep voting themselves other people's money. The faster democracy collapses, the better.

  69. Eu tu brute? by Borland · · Score: 1

    "In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war, as did most other places...ex-colony countries that became independent without war."

    I apologize for being harsh, but that's because your broke-ass empire couldn't afford to keep the repression game going and slavery was never profitable for you. I'm not quite sure where Britain, Kings and Queens of the White Man's Burden, can really get all high and mighty on the United States. Civil rights in the UK evolved almost by accident as one group with power tried to take it from another group. Do you think the Magna Carta was all about the poor? F'sck no.

    And I believe starting a war with Napoleon DID work out for you as did wiping out the Spanish Armada. Until then you were the bitch of any seafaring nation that wanted your little island (Romans, Dutch, French, etc).

  70. Pro-legal-immigrantion? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Small matter: You may want to use immigration rather than immigrant. One is a practice, the other is a human being. Politicians are hard on crime, not hard on criminals. It is a more defensible position... but I digress...

    Saying that implies that they are pro-legal-immigrantion. Much like anti-abortion, where one could say, "No, I'm just anti-illegal-abortion," which does not state what pressures are acting on that position. In the abortion debate, most are pushing to make all abortion illegal. Similarly, I would suggest that many anti-illegal-immigration advocates are also on the side of shutting down the Mexican boarder to all new immigrants. Because I hear fewer people saying they are also pro-legal-immigration. The states themselves have not stepped up with as heavy of a hand to provide help to people who wish to be legal residents.

    As such, I find anti-illegal-immigration as manipulative as saying one is saying one is anti-illegal-abortion without stating how they are pro-legal-abortion. Arizona is not pro-legal-immigration, therefore, it's absurd to think of them as anti-illegal-immigration is anything but double-speak to mean, "They're criminals! Kick their ass!"

    --
    I8-D
  71. No longer "just for the lulz" by LoadWB · · Score: 1

    Lost direction, have they?

    1. Re:No longer "just for the lulz" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poking a political hornets nest like immigration control ensures a high probability of producing lulz, especially if Lulzsec isn't USian.

  72. British Navy by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    We had a harder time cleaning up the British mess known as slavery.

    Also, after Wilberforce's reforms went through, the British Navy was employed to end the slave trade. In other words, the world's strongest navy (i.e. military force) was employed to end slavery.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  73. LulzSec is bulls*** by ziggy_az · · Score: 1

    Dear LulzSec,

    F*** you. In releasing "hundreds of private intelligence bulletins, training manuals, personal email correspondence, names, phone numbers, addresses and passwords belonging to Arizona law enforcement." you have endangered the lives and families of Arizona's DPS officers.

    It is my sincerest hope that you will be caught and sent to Guantanamo Bay, where you will be interrogated for an extended period of time, then brought back to the Mainland US where you will be tried and convicted of your crimes against the State.

    I am against SB1070 and in favor of immigration reform. What you have done is expose AZ DPS officers families to retribution from violent drug cartels and vicious petty criminals. You suck LulzSec.

    -40yr Pima AZ Resident (http://startourstate.com/)

    --
    "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
  74. Tsk tsk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously hope this breaks the impasse and finally lands these criminals where they belong. Dead or jailed.

    I STAND with Arizona !!

  75. Lulzsucks bringing down the web for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously no matter your stance on the issue. The fact that after the moronic lulz get busted, so many new laws are going to spring into existence that big brother will be watching us so closely. The Patriot act will look like a bill for human rights and freedom. They need to get the message to stop before buying a security book red flags you or bit torrents are completely outlawed. How can these children be so stupid, it is one thing to attack one target as a point, but they are erratic, irrational, and childish. In a few years all we will remember of lulz is that it is a word outlawed by the oppression act of 2011. They will sit in prisons (I hope for their sake US prisons) rotting away because soon no country will protect them, no person will like them, and their fame will fade into the background. Unlike captain crunch they will go down not as gifted individuals, but terrorists that gave the government an excuse to pass new laws to stifle creativity and freedom.

  76. AZPD not particularly corrupt by Toze · · Score: 2

    At first I was going to point out that document leaking that exposed corruption or dirty tricks was valuable, although LulzSec shouldn't have exposed the names of undercovers who are now in grave danger. Then I checked some analyses of the documents. According to http://www.unelected.org/analysis-of-lulzsecs-arizona-dps-document-dump the contents don't show any corruption or anything, it's just interoffice emails and stuff about Mexican cartels the AZPD are trying to fight. So, yeah, I agree with you; Wikileaks distributing proof of US political corruption, with an effort to scrub names to protect agents, good. LulzSec dumping police documents that amount to showing Mexican drug cartels the entirety of law enforcement operations trying to shut them down including the names of officers working against them in secret? Bad form.

    --
    No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
  77. Has anyone found anything damning in this yet? by gosand · · Score: 1

    I've been looking through some of the docs, and I haven't really found anything all that bad yet. There's lots of comments on here about racial profiling, etc. But so far I haven't found anything to support that.

    What I have found is that lulzsec didn't do any kind of filtering on what they released. I was sad to read about a murder investigation. I kind of wish that would have been culled out - there should be some kind of decency out of respect for those families involved. I saw some memos about a new motorcycle gang allowed to ride in AZ, and it was more 'matter of fact' informational than anything. And hey, the Hell's Angel's had a Cinco de Mayo party - make sure you use caution when approaching any of their members. oooh, scandalous. Along with officers addresses (WTF?) there's a bit of banal info like shift schedules and whatnot. I just kind of don't see the point. From looking through this, it's clear to me that police officers, no matter how "bad" they seem in the grand scheme of things, are just doing a job. It looks like they have to deal with a lot of various things and coordinating on it and doing their jobs requires a lot of discipline. And they are never allowed to make any kind of mistake apparently. Sounds like a fun job, now a bunch of internet douchebags are posting their personal info. How many people do you think will retaliate just for the 'lulz', without actually needing a reason?

    I live in AZ, I'm well aware of the effects of illegal immigration. I'm also aware of the contributions of the Mexican culture to the US. There seems to be a general disgust for "border jumpers" around here, but it's directed at all brown-looking people. I get pretty sick of the jokes and comments - and I'm about as white as you can get. It just reeks of ignorance and blanket hate. It never seems to be based on real information, it's on Fox headlines, forwarded emails, or facebook posts. I think that the news of these released documents is just fuel when in reality it's not needed. If they really wanted to target injustice, they would actually read through the stuff they stole and make a more pointed release of information. This "hey, we found a bunch of evil stuff, check it out" and then releasing it to the wind could have detrimental side effects. Come on, I know you're the lowest of the low hackers, but show some initiative! All you're doing is making the machine want to clamp down tighter. If you want to make a difference, then use your heads. Sheesh.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Has anyone found anything damning in this yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      been looking through the "mess" and it doesn't look like there isn't anything in there that might be super sensitive and secret except for the original dump of UN's to begin with.

      its really not even worth the time, they sure picked a crappy target

  78. Opinion? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You didn't post an opinion. You posted an Ad Hom attack, and your post was factually wrong.
    If you where going for troll, then you need to put more effort into your post, because it read like a troll.

    FYI: They the same taxes as everyone else in there relevent tax bracket.

    In many case they pay more.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Opinion? by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 0

      Oh, horse shit. You're just making shit up.

  79. Darfur comes to mind right off the bat. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    How many major genocides has this century had?

    Darfur, for starters. I could probably find more / others, but it's just too depressing.

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  80. Fear or Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no other reason to keep a secret.