I can totally understand wanting a better live for you & your family... common who doesn't? But WHY do we have to cater to them? they don't want to learn english so they get TV, Billboards & radio... Were lucky if we get someone who speaks english when we hit a drive thru.
When is comes down to it.. I'm just a construction worker... plain & simple, manual labor, there have been more times than I can count I needed a translator... and 90% of the time IM the minority.
Ive also encountered illegals on the road too... a few hit & runs & even chased the guy down, had the cops show up too, Only to be told "yup hes here illegally & no insurance, no license, no green card" and like that I'm out to fix my own car, Cop also told me they couldn't take him to jail as they were too full. Another time I was robbed (car broken into) yes I actually got my property back!! 3 of the 4 people were caught 1 returned to her parents (14yr girl) the other 2 males who were in there mid 20's 1 was deported and the other had to serve a 6month sentence for a previous crime then he was deported and once again... I'm out of pocket to pay for the window they broke...

There irresponsibility is what get me the most, they want America... but they don't want to pay or obey the rules / laws...
Bob I agree, there shouldn't be any preaching on political views by a church.
As for the ID, ya know if it helps & if its me doing my part to help they YES Ill gladly show my ID, not only that but its typically a good idea to have ID on you just in case the un-for -seen happens.

El Mirage is a mini Mexico... and yes I knew this moving here but hey it was a good deal on a house & a good time to buy!
Over the last few days I have noticed fewer street corner workers out (less trash on the corner too) and have also noticed a few houses (south of me in old Mirage) are now empty...

I don't think I am ready to give a definite opinion on this issue yet as I am still processing a lot of it and don't want to just blurt out a reaction. I do want to clarifiy the whole bringing politics to the pulpit dispute. For those of you who may not know Mike and I go to the same church. I have always respected our church and more specifically our pastor for not preaching politics. There have been opportunities when other churches were discussing how to vote on different propositions or backing specific political candidates, but nothing was ever said at our church. This was one of the things that made me feel like this church was my home. Furthermore, if John (pastor) was to push a political side we would likily lose a lot of our church goers. In getting to know the people I go to church with, I have found that we are a pretty diverse group politically. That's another thing that keeps me going back....I don't have to agree with everyone to love respect and worship with them.

Today, I felt our pastor was clear about not promoting either side of the 1070 debate. He said it was a difficult issue to navigate as Christians because both sides could be rooted biblically. He went on to show how each side was biblical and gave warnings on both sides. He used Romans to defend the side of the law but warned against seeing illegal immigrants as one dimensional...."law breakers". They are also people created and loved by God. He used James to defend showing love and mercy but warned against over looking the sin of breaking the law. Being here illegally is breaking the law. I think our pastor was calling us to remeber that our goal should be to be more like Christ as we navigate through complex issues like this. He said it was not only ok for us to disagree as Christians but that it is good as long as it does not divide us. As Christians we can learn from and respect each other from different sides of an issue. We are to be known by our love not only for others but for each other as well.

The sermon will eventually be up on the church website if anyone is interested in hearing it for themselves as my recount is not at all word for word. poiemachurch.com

offroadaz wrote:nope

shouldnt be required of anyone in the country to carry ID unless operating a motor vehicle or certain other activities

free people shouldnt be forced to produce papers for law enforcement or face arrest. That is not free.

Immigration issues need to be enforced at the border, not in the cities

But you said "Theres nothing in the bill saying they are only going to ask latinos for ID as well" why would that matter?

fatbob309 wrote:But you said "Theres nothing in the bill saying they are only going to ask latinos for ID as well" why would that matter?

because they can arrest me for walking the dog without id if they feel like it

they can say they suspect me of being an illegal canadian or german or wherever

it just gives them an easy excuse to abuse power

offroadaz wrote:
they can say they suspect me of being an illegal canadian or german or wherever

Are you??? Do you have milk in a bag?

Are we still talking about beans? I like to mix the rice and beans together. I especially like it when they melt cheese on top of the beans. Also, when given a choice of refried or black beans, I chose black beans.

Chris, they have to have probable cause to pull you over in the first place. The papers/ID/illegal stuff is secondary. You (anyone) out walking your dog is not illegal, so they would not look at you twice.

I would look at Chris twice. He is cute. Ok, that is wrong. Back to manly stuff. Where did I put my socket set?

Finally an article that seems less based on opinion (and actually written out of state)

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
By: BYRON YORK
WashingtonExaminer.com
April 26, 2010

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible-- an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency--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…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

pssh no racial profiling?

Got in to work today and the mexican guy next to me was stopped and detained for 40 minutes by scottsdale PD

He was helping a lady move in scottsdale and the police followed him for 30 minutes before pulling him over, and demanded to see ID and proof of citizenship

Of course he is a legal US citizen and has lived here for over 20 years

Cop let him go with no ticket or any citation

offroadaz wrote:pssh no racial profiling?

Got in to work today and the mexican guy next to me was stopped and detained for 40 minutes by scottsdale PD

He was helping a lady move in scottsdale and the police followed him for 30 minutes before pulling him over, and demanded to see ID and proof of citizenship

Of course he is a legal US citizen and has lived here for over 20 years

Cop let him go with no ticket or any citation

Per the law your AZ DL is proof of citizenship. Im not saying he didn't get asked. Just like Im not saying the guy at my work who had that same story for tempe police, didn't get asked. I just find it hard to believe that all these people are being pulled over and asked for something that is not required when providing a AZ DL and is not law yet...

As for being followed. I have been followed from North Scottsdale to the US60 by DPS when I had my new Mustang. To bad I am white and a male. I could be rich since Im sure it was a skin color issue.

fatbob309 wrote:Per the law your AZ DL is proof of citizenship. Im not saying he didn't get asked. Just like Im not saying the guy at my work who had that same story for tempe police, didn't get asked. I just find it hard to believe that all these people are being pulled over and asked for something that is not required when providing a AZ DL and is not law yet...

As for being followed. I have been followed from North Scottsdale to the US60 by DPS when I had my new Mustang. To bad I am white and a male. I could be rich since Im sure it was a skin color issue.

but what probable cause did the PD have? especially since he was not ticketed or cited for anything

offroadaz wrote:but what probable cause did the PD have? especially since he was not ticketed or cited for anything

You do not need to be cited or ticked everytime you get pulled over. Whats the real story as to why he was pulled over? Im sure the cop was all "I pulled you over because you are a spic". I wasn't there but like Randy I call BS.

fatbob309 wrote:You do not need to be cited or ticked everytime you get pulled over. Whats the real story as to why he was pulled over? I wasn't there but like Randy I call BS.

he thinks it was because he was in his pickup helping a rich lady in scottsdale move. He doesnt fit in with the neighborhood (mexican, pickup, manual labor) so he thinks the cop followed him

offroadaz wrote:he thinks it was because he was in his pickup helping a rich lady in scottsdale move. He doesnt fit in with the neighborhood (mexican, pickup, manual labor) so he thinks the cop followed him

You didn't answer my question. Whats the reason he was pulled over?

fatbob309 wrote:You didn't answer my question. Whats the reason he was pulled over?

cop said he was speeding, but no ticket, no radar gun or anything

guy at work said he was going speed limit

I too have been followed in Scottsdale... even followed by DPS for several miles, Ive also been pulled over a few times too and yes they tell me "The reason I pulled you over" the last time I got a ticket (speeding) was back in 2001 since then Ive been pulled over several times, once in Wickie up over my radar detector (placement on the windshield) DPS told me it is a ticketable offence but gave me a warnning, but he did say it was used to check me to make sure I didnt have any warrents, ect. Other than that Ive never gotten a ticket - warnning in the 5 or so times Ive been pulled over.
My opnion the minority are gonna pull the race card every chance they get on this... Id like to see the dash cam on some of this stuff to validate it...

I think they should be able to pull over any vehicle with stick on port holes as good enough premise

While I agree with Skatch, I believe the stick on sunroof should still be exempt from profiling.

So getting one. Darn it. My jeep is a convertable.