What is happening? 

For those living in Arizona, nothing could be more frustrating.   The federal government has for many decades refused to provide the resources that are required to control access to this country from Mexico.  Persons crossing the border without invitation are here illegally.   They are providing problems to border-states like Arizona because of their access to hospital or other medical care, the pressure their children place on local schools as a result of the influx of students whose only language is Spanish.   They provide a problem to local law enforcement personnel and they are a threat to persons living on or near the border.  One recent event highlighted this threat in that a local Arizona rancher was murdered by an illegal immigrant.   The citizens of Arizona finally said that enough was enough.   Their legislature enacted the following bill to require Arizona police officers to enforce federal law given that the US Government will not.  

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm

What frustrates many of the rest of us is that people continue to debate the merits of this law and each denies or decries the comments of the other by disagreement as to the language of the law.  Those who regard this law with disfavor do so by stating all persons of Spanish origin are at risk because one can now be arrested for being brown.   Those who regard this law with favor state that this is not true, there is a requirement that there already be a lawful contact between a person and a police officer before that police officer may ask that individual for identification.

How does this differ from Federal Law? 

The law specifically states that the law addresses only the enforcement of federal law.  There is no attempt to redefine who may enter this country beyond the rules enacted by the Congress.    

Section 1. Intent

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. 

Can a person be stopped and challenged regarding his/her immigration status by merely being brown and stopped while walking the dog? 

No.  It is particularly frustrating to hear people state matters of fact that are not fact at all but well dressed lies to people they believe will never actually spend the moment to secure and read the actual law.    

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF 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, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(C). 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. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

As demographics change around the country and persons of Mexican decent grow as a percentage of the overall population these persons grow as a potentially large voting-block that both political parties want to attract. 

Many Republicans and Democrats wish to preserve the existence of cheap labor to companies who take advantage of Mexican laborers in agriculture and construction.  The Mexican worker has demonstrated himself to be a hard worker who provides a quality output.  If hired legally these workers can be organized and they can demand wages well beyond the wages they currently receive illegally because their employers are taking advantage of the system. 

A more sinister concern is that not all those entering the country are doing so in search of jobs.  Others come in search of the bounty of America but not as a result of their hard labor.  Their ambition is to become wards of the state and there are many within the federal government who see the natural advantage presented by more wards of the state.  They will logically continue to vote as a block in favor of the Democrat Party that consistently protects their access to taxpayer funds.   Politicians will deny this is true but it should be a concern that we have one political party who consistently votes to continue entitlement programs and the more persons benefitting from these programs the more this can be directly translated into November votes to continue the stipends of those who are willing to live their lives at the expense of the taxpayer.    

Why can’t pundits agree on what the law actually says and does?

It is not to the advantage of those opposing this law to agree with those in favor of the law as to its language or its intent.  They understand that most people will not read the actual legislation.  Instead they will get their information about what this law says by listening to persons they think they can trust tell them what it says.   The total language of this law is available from the State of Arizona, not the media through this link:  http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm.  The language above that has been italicized and indented is lifted directly from the legislation found by this link.  It is unfortunate but there are those among us who plainly and simply profit from ignorance.  Rallies are planned to protest a draconian law that says nothing more than that Arizona peace officers shall enforce federal law while taking care to protect the civil rights of individuals.  Sadly too, the Obama Administration sees themselves as a beneficiary to angst and anger they churn by making false statements about this law.   They look to that huge voting block and they see this as their ticket to protecting their presence in the Congress and eventually as a means to re-elect this president in 2012.  This is particularly sad because this president is not acting in the interests of his constituents when he spreads lies and innuendo.  Obama is instead following the guidance of Saul Alinsky as promoted in his Rules for Radicals.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals  Reference Rule 11, personalize the issue, find someone to blame, polarize the opponents.   In this way persons can be lured into indignation and channeled toward the specific purpose Obama intends. 

Why haven’t we controlled our Southern border? 

This has been an issue for more than twenty years and beyond that.   During the Reagan administration amnesty was granted to those then in the country illegally and people were given an opportunity to apply for citizenship and remain as long as they could pass a criminal background check.   Opponents to this amnesty said the granting of amnesty would only lure more to this country.  The opponents were correct.  It became a sizable problem again and once again there are legislators willing to grant amnesty again but call it otherwise because a small fine would be levied against the person here illegally.   Persons from around the country shut down the Congress’ switchboard advising their Representatives and Senators to vote no on the McCain – Kennedy bill that would have provided “comprehensive immigration reform” because the vast majority of the population wants our borders defended and our sovereignty protected.  

Why do Republicans disagree?

The Republican Party consists of two elements.  They are typically identified as Conservatives and the Elite.  Those identified as the elitists regard raw capitalism as their main objective and they want open borders that will provide businesses a constant flow of inexpensive qualified labor to work in their fields and to work on construction projects.   It is also they who argue that such enforcement of laws will alienate a segment of the population that will continue to grow in significance.  Those who are conservative are also capitalists but they recognize the need to protect the nation’s sovereignty and unlike the elites, they may not have the same conflict of interest that belongs to the elites who have their own businesses to protect.  

Might this spread to other states?

Yes.  There is considerable likelihood that Arizona’s law will move to other states as well.   Illegal immigration is a problem for all states, not just border-states.  They work in meat packing plants, on construction teams and in agricultural fields all across the country.  These industries are not confined to Arizona.  

A message to President Obama: 

You stopped the construction of a fence that would make illegal entry to this country more difficult on the basis that such a fence is ineffective.  What are you doing then that is more effective?   If the southern border is not important I would invite you to eliminate the southern fence at the White House.  You can send someone to patrol the property line every few hours to make certain your family is safe and secure and you have nothing to be concerned about regarding anyone’s illegal access.   If that border fence is ineffective then so too must be the southern fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.