The W
Views: 98290927
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.8.14 0007
The W - Current Events & Politics - SO, there's this immigration law in Arizona now
This thread has 20 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.52
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
(152 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (89 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.59
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Seems like everybody is in a big rush to say how horrible it is.

What's your take?
Promote this thread!
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.50
I am not against racial profiling, however the moment one of these cowboys shots or arrest an American citizen this bill will die a horrible death. It does remind me of the Cold War era Russia where you needed to have papers to get back and forth. I don't see it doing any good since Arizona needs to go after the real villains which is big business, not going to happen in an election or any year.
samoflange
Lap cheong








Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA

Since last post: 307 days
Last activity: 299 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.07
Though I expect that the consequences will be negative, I'm glad something like this is being tried on the state level. States are the place for political experimentation. Once this goes sour, the rest of the country will have evidence that such laws are not the answer.

Or so I would hope. Skewing the results to either side is inevitable. But, having clear evidence of the effect is better than a bunch of suits discussing it endlessly in theoretical terms.

(edited by samoflange on 28.4.10 1121)


Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her.
Harry: That's a special feeling.
Broncolanche
Sujuk








Since: 2.6.03
From: Littleton, CO

Since last post: 1099 days
Last activity: 351 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.75
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    What's your take?
Welp, if you get pulled over in Arizona and happen to have brown skin, good luck!
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.09
    Originally posted by Broncolanche
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      What's your take?
    Welp, if you get pulled over in Arizona and happen to have brown skin, good luck!


That's good advice as I have to go to Phoenix for a conference in July, and I'm hanging around an extra couple of days. I think my being Canadian will further confuse the police.

(please don't arrest or beat me)



Have fun in hell, Fuckface!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.56
I guess the Constitution means little in the AZ. My hope is this spurs the feds to deal with the issue and pass immigration reform.



Perception is reality
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 355 days
Last activity: 22 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.90
Well, considering that they are planning to train every law enforcement officer in the state in 90 days and are hoping to get federal money to pay for the training... there's a lot of potential for incredibly stupid things to happen in a relatively short period of time.

The state of Arizona is clearly going to lose tourist dollars and and border towns are going to take a huge hit as Mexicans citizens who can will choose to do their shopping online or elsewhere.

Enforcement of the law is going to vary from place to place and the ambiguity of it will cause problems.

I feel for the people who will personally face problems because of this and the families that will be broken up.

I don't feel like getting my panties in a bunch because this one will self-correct.

http://www.usatoday.com/​news/​nation/​2010-​04-​26-​arizona-​immigration_​N.htm
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/​2010/​04/​27/​mexico-​issues-​advisory-​for-​arizona/​
http://www.ktvu.com/​news/​23284711/​detail.html
http://www.latimes.com/​news/​local/​la-​me-​0428-​arizona-​boycott-​20100428,0,3848260.story

(edited by Lise on 28.4.10 1025)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
well, many of you know I am and ex-police officer. So I have now read the bill.

First, of course is the "lawful contact" clause, which requires that the person has committed a crime or violation so that the officer can contact them. Of course, I understand the many reasons you can find to pull someone over, so that's interpretive at best.

Reasonable suspicion is certainly a tricky statement, similar to probable cause. I imagine that it will take a few checks and challenges before anyone will know for sure what judges think this means. Brown skin, I am sure, will not be enough. I suspect 5 people in a car, four of whom have green cards and one person does not and has no US driver's license would be, for example.

I don't understand why clause C, D and E are there. They are already federal law. Illegal aliens who commit crimes can be arrested and deported.

I like the restriction of "refuge" cities by the state law in clause f

Section 4 clause E is tricky too. I don't know how a cop will know someone is smuggling humans. But they can stop trucks now, so..

actually, it doesn't look terribly bad to me. Doesn't seem to impede the rights of US Citizens or the human rights of others, but enforces our immigration laws.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 160 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.78
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I guess the Constitution means little in the AZ. My hope is this spurs the feds to deal with the issue and pass immigration reform.


(I know I may get flamed for this, but...)

Doc, why is this an affront to the Constitution. While I am unsure how I feel personally about the entirety of the law, the main gist of the law is to simply enforce the existing law.

According to current Federal law, someone who is in the country legally with a Green Card MUST always carry their Green Card & present it when questioned. Additionally, as I understand the AZ law, the request for a Green Card may only occur in the course of an existing police matter (such as being pulled over for speeding, or some other "regular" interaction with the police), so it is not simply to punish "brown people" as has been screamed from the opponents of this legislation.

As I said, I am truly unsure how I feel about the AZ law, but I can't dismiss the fact that AZ must do something, as the Feds have basically abdicated their responsibility to enforce current laws & AZ has been forced to do SOMETHING.

Also, while I have been on the fence leaning towards AZ's decision, Al Sharpton's "fierce" opposition has made my decision a little easier as well... :-)
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.50
Though I don't think it'll last, I like the law. If the federal government isn't going to enforce immigration laws, then kudos to Arizona for taking their own steps. And since, as AWA points out, this will only take place when a suspected illegal has been pulled over for a violation or suspected of another crime, I'm all for it. I hope they ask EVERYONE for proof.

But, as Lise mentions, without federal support for the resources needed to carry out this law, I suspect all of this will be moot in a few months.

Also, this screenshot from MSNBC is hilarious and sad at the same time:

Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.36
The real evil with this bill is not with the cops. It will be with the small-town local governments. Let's take a look at what opens the door.

SB 1070 Revises the Arizona Revised Statutes. Let's look at the specific area that is concerning...

    Originally posted by SB 1070
    Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
    39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
    40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
    41 classification
    42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
    43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
    44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
    45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
    S.B. 1070
    - 3 -
    1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
    2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
    3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
    4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
    5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
    6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
    7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).



Hmmm.. ok. More info on what Law Enforcement can do. Wait a second... Uh-oh. Let's take a look at who is allowed to do this pursuent to 1373, shall we?

    Originally posted by UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
    Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service



    (a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. (b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity. (c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.



So, in effect, any local government can pass a law that would allow a local government employee to initiate the review process. Government employees like the local sanitation worker, for example.

That's ok, though, because local governments can pass their own statutes telling their employees not to do this, right?

    Originally posted by SB 1070
    20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
    21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
    22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
    23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
    24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
    25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
    26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
and

    G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
    12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
    13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
    14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
    15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
    16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
    18 ATTORNEY FEES.
    19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
    20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
    21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
    22 SUBSECTION.


So, any person who tries to define the rules of what is reasonable faces a personal civil fine of $1,000 per day of the policy being in effect after the lawsuit is filed. Well, at least this will keep the cops in check.

    27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
    28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
    29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
    30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
    31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
    32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
    33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.


Ok, so unless you can prove a Cop acted in bad faith (Basically, they would have to have a written statement or be caught on tape admitting that they did) they are indemnified, and if a civic servant tries to create a policy to clarify this, if they go too far they personally are on the hook.

This is a bill written and designed to quash anyone who is against the idea of giving local governments and law enforcement free reign to check whenever, and wherever, they want to. This will be abused, and minorities will pay the price.

The civil fine for individuals is over the top. If I were a supervisor and I said "Err on the side of caution when deciding to ask for ID or not" that could put me in a position where I am personally on the hook for $1000 a day if someone takes it to court. My only option would be to rescind that policy immediately any time it is challenged by ANY person in the state. This is the problem with this bill as I see it. People should need to have a stake in the game to make a complaint - just like a third party can't sue the state when an inmate is up for execution. Only the state or the inmate can sue. I don't see why every local government policy should now be up for review at the Superior court level by any citizen.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.36
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    well, many of you know I am and ex-police officer. So I have now read the bill.

    First, of course is the "lawful contact" clause, which requires that the person has committed a crime or violation so that the officer can contact them. Of course, I understand the many reasons you can find to pull someone over, so that's interpretive at best.
    [snip...]
    actually, it doesn't look terribly bad to me. Doesn't seem to impede the rights of US Citizens or the human rights of others, but enforces our immigration laws.


I personally don't think the issues will come from the police. They are trained and will be the first ones to know where the line is on this. I trust that they won't be the ones causing the issues.

Who I don't trust: Small minded school teachers, trash guys, meter maids with an attitude, the water company, the public works guy, your neighbor with an axe to grind who works for the road crew, prison guards, and the myriad of other "local government" people who will be able to play cop without the same training.

If a local government wanted to make a tip line for any of their employees to turn in suspected illegals, they could - and no one in the state could do anything about it. Plus, you've now got your reasonable suspicion for cops to be the ones checking it out! Bonus points. Not only that, but passing a statute limiting them from doing this would be illegal under this bill.

In case it seemed like I had very little against this law in my last post, I wanted to clarify. I'm really against this.

Many of you posted in the time between when I initially started posting and when I came back to my computer later to finish it.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.50
After having a cop almost wreck into me, scream at me as he was driving while waving his hands in the air while going in and out of lanes then keep looking back at me when we reached the spotlight as of eyeballing me up for a body bag, I can say the cops will be a problem. Its not like cops magically stop being human when they put on the badge. Its going to take blood to reverse the law and with the attitude of the SouthWest thinking John Wayne movies are real, its going to happen. I have come to the conclusion that protesting is meaningless anymore as are boycotts. A cattle rancher's death helped seal the deal for this to get done and it will probably take a dead minority's death or five to reverse it. As long as the outrage is there and Fox News doesn't spin it as "Well, he should tried ducking the bullet instead of taking it in the chest." argument which I can see happening. Its going to waste more government money either way, I still prefer the giant wall with guys with guns on it. Simple and effective. A law like this is designed to keep the allusion of being safe while ripping away rights.

(edited by lotjx on 28.4.10 1349)
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 6 min.
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.09
At least once Arizona County Sheriff seems to think this law is just more than an enforcement of current immigrations laws:

Dupnik says he will enforce AZ immigration law if forced to do so (azstarnet.com)


    Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik called the state’s new sweeping immigration law a “national embarrassment” and said he’ll only enforce it if he’s forced to.

    “This law is unwise, this law is stupid, and it’s racist,” Dupnik said on Wednesday. “It’s a national embarrassment. . . If I were a Hispanic person in the state, I would be humiliated and angered. From that point of view, I think it’s morally wrong.”

    But while he opposes what he deems an unnecessary law — his deputies already arrest hundreds of illegal immigrants a month — he said he might have to reluctantly enforce it if the measure withstands a legal challenge.

    “If the county attorney tells me credibly that I don’t have any choice, or that I’m going to put our department and our county in legal jeopardy if I don’t, then I’ll have to think about that. It would irresponsible for me to do otherwise.

    Dupnik said he agrees illegal immigrants should not be in the state but said his department already arrests and refers more illegal immigrants to the Borer Patrol [sic] than any other law enforcement agency in the state and doesn’t need a “new tool” to continue doing that.

    ...

    He also called it an unfunded mandate. If Pima County Sheriff’s begin housing illegal immigrants they encounter during their patrols in the county jail, instead of turning them over to the Border Patrol, it would crippled the criminal justice system and cost taxpayers more.




Who likes the little little duckies in the pond? I do, I do, I do, a chicka-quack quack.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.68
If nothing else, this story has provided a near endless amounts of amusing headlines.

Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law (AP/Yahoo!)

(Obviously I find this headline amusing because I AM A RACIST)



TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 47 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.86
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    Also, this screenshot from MSNBC is hilarious and sad at the same time:





Sarah Palin on "Hannity" Tuesday night: "This is the problem with that lamestream media throughout our country, it's not just this issue but so many. One of the media outlets the other day just-was killing me on this one, Sean, where they had a caption across their screen that said Arizona law will make it illegal to be an illegal immigrant? Some bizarre type of headline like that where it was just this illustration that they just don't get it."





DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.56
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      I guess the Constitution means little in the AZ. My hope is this spurs the feds to deal with the issue and pass immigration reform.


    (I know I may get flamed for this, but...)

    Doc, why is this an affront to the Constitution. While I am unsure how I feel personally about the entirety of the law, the main gist of the law is to simply enforce the existing law.

    According to current Federal law, someone who is in the country legally with a Green Card MUST always carry their Green Card & present it when questioned. Additionally, as I understand the AZ law, the request for a Green Card may only occur in the course of an existing police matter (such as being pulled over for speeding, or some other "regular" interaction with the police), so it is not simply to punish "brown people" as has been screamed from the opponents of this legislation.

    As I said, I am truly unsure how I feel about the AZ law, but I can't dismiss the fact that AZ must do something, as the Feds have basically abdicated their responsibility to enforce current laws & AZ has been forced to do SOMETHING.

    Also, while I have been on the fence leaning towards AZ's decision, Al Sharpton's "fierce" opposition has made my decision a little easier as well... :-)


No flame. IMO, if you are a legal resident of the US, it just seems to me that several aspects of the Bill of Rights are being violated by forcing you to prove on the spot your identity as a legal resident and being potentialized if you don't.



Perception is reality
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.59
(deleted by StaggerLee on 1.5.10 1538)
samoflange
Lap cheong








Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA

Since last post: 307 days
Last activity: 299 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.27
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Is it unconstitutional for an officer to ask for your ID?


They first need to have "reasonable suspicion," and this is where the problem lies. "Reasonable suspicion" in Arizona will probably amount to being Latino and thus MANY legit citizens will probably be stopped by police for that reason alone. If I were ever asked by a police officer to show my ID when I know that I've done absolutely nothing wrong, I'd tell them to fuck off, plain and simple. (EDIT: and I have on two separate occasions, though with less vulgarity.) I know it may not seem like much of a problem to just show an ID, but there's a reason why the term "slippery slope" was coined. Anything that takes the country any bit closer to being a "police state" is going to be something I will disagree with.


Additionally, here are some important points regarding constitutionality which I've stolen from elsewhere, because I'm not a law student and this person is:

1. Preemption: the constitution says that states are not allowed to (1) create laws that are in conflict with express or IMPLIED decisions of the federal government, Congress (see the Supremacy Clause) and (2) create laws that attempt to govern an area of law that is usually not left to states. The argument is that the fed government has itself opted not to enact a law like this, which is a DECISION. Why should a state contradict this decision? Also, immigration law is usually a field of law left to the federal government because of obvious international implications (e.g. our relationship with another country).

2. Equal Protection: The EP clause of the 14th amendment says that all PERSONS (it doesn't say all legal aliens/citizens) are entitled to the equal protection of the law. The Supreme Court says that, where a law has a disparate impact on a particular race, it is subject to strict scrutiny (which means that the law will very likely be invalidated b/c it is scrutinized so heavily). Since most immigrants in Arizona are Latino and the Bill allows for race to be used as a factor in determining whether the person is illegal, there are obvious affects on the Latino community (illegal or legal. Immigrant or citizen).

3.Due Process: under the DP clause of the 14th amendment, no state shall deprive any PERSON (not limited to legal/illegal/alien/citizen) the DP of the law. This basically means that everybody gets a fair chance to be treated fairly under the law (e.g. fair notice of the existence of a law). The argument is: What is “reasonable suspicion” anyway? It’s mush! This phrase is subject to arbitrary and malicious enforcement to the detriment of a discrete and insular minority.

(edited by samoflange on 29.4.10 0713)


Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her.
Harry: That's a special feeling.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.56
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Is it unconstitutional for an officer to ask for your ID?




I really don't need to add anything to what samoflange said.



Perception is reality
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread rated: 5.52
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread ahead: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Next thread: We Like (To Catch The Guy That Built) The Cars That (Don't) Go Boom
Previous thread: DWI Chair finally sells.
(152 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The problem right now is that the only major power players in the region are pretty much in a position of reflexive opposition to any U.S. position.
The W - Current Events & Politics - SO, there's this immigration law in Arizona nowRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.139 seconds.