It’s been one of the hardest and most stressful weeks for me since — hmm, I don’t know — the week I broke my little toe on the lawnmower and it stuck out of the side of my foot like a thumb. Note to readers: don’t walk barefoot in the garage.

Two online mags now, both with back-to-back deadline schedules and unpredictable sources. So, starting on Saturday, I’ve had 3-, 8-, 13-, 21-, 12- and 10-hour days.

Somehow, I found time to monitor a simple Facebook question that I asked on May 10 that turned into as good a discussion as people can have responding to a wall post. My question concerned Arizona’s new immigration law.

The Arizona law is a predictable outcome to the problems that state has, and yet I also feel it’s unfortunate and will end badly. Here is the discussion as it unfolded — note how it ended: not with a “screw you, buddy,” but an “I disagree, but I love you, man.”

Seems to me that this is what our often-misinterpreted Founding Fathers intended.

Gene Monteith Arizona immigration law — thumbs up or thumbs down, and why? Be specific.

May 10 at 10:46pm · · ·

Jeff Lint

Jeff Lint

Thumbs down. This law is wrong for many reasons. I have not yet heard anyone explain what happens when a police officer asks a US born citizen to prove that they are legal. US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship nor should we be. What does a police officer do when someone they suspect is illegal says that they were born here, but don’t have their birth certificate with them?
May 11 at 1:49pm ·
Gene Monteith

Gene Monteith

I thought Andrei Codrescu nailed it on NPR the other day:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126480169

May 11 at 1:52pm ·
Tim Miller

Tim Miller

Big Thumbs down! Reminds me of the “Sundown Towns” that sprouted in the Midwest in the 40s and 50s…
May 11 at 9:57pm ·
Tom Mills

Tom Mills

I’ll go thumbs up. I have to note that proof of citizenship is not required, proof of being in the country legally is. Those with green cards, etc., have always had to carry that proof with them at all times. If Arizona makes people prove residence/citizenship to get a drivers license, then that is what would have to be shown. For any number of… See More reasons the Federal government has abdicated its responsibility to control the borders. Arizona is being adversely impacted and has the right to try to stem the flow. The claims of racism are ridiculous. I have yet to hear a better idea from those making that claim. I think if we took the time to actually read the law we woud no doubt find it is not as onerous as is being portrayed by those who have agendas of their own.
May 11 at 11:43pm ·
Gene Monteith

Gene Monteith

I agree that a citizen of another country who is here illegally should be prosecuted or deported. As I understand it, the main argument against the Arizona law isn’t that it improperly targets illegal aliens. The fear is that, because one out of every three people in Arizona is Hispanic, and because police can now stop anyone they have a “… See Morereasonable suspicion” of being an illegal immigrant, millions of U.S. citizens who look “suspicious” could be asked to prove they are here legally. That’s why some worry it could become racist in practice. (Under the old law, people could be asked for proof only if suspected of another crime.) Of course, it will all come down to how police exercise the new law.
May 12 at 12:47am ·
Sally Kurtz Thompson

Sally Kurtz Thompson

Geez, a slip of the finger on the keyboard could hang you! What I was trying to say is theimmigration law seems over the top, but I feel pretty strongly about the English language and how it’s taught in our schools.
May 13 at 6:48pm ·
Lee Lowry

Lee Lowry

Gene I love ya man but you need to read the bill.a person can not be detained on suspicion that they my be an illegal it is only after arrest or detention for a violation of the law can this be brought into question. here in Indiana while booking someone I have learned they are here illegally have called INS and they have refused to take custody of… See More them. The Arizona law mirrors the Federal statute but it is needed because the Feds will not enforce it. By the way, from experience first hand, most will tell you first hand if asked that they are here illegally.
May 13 at 8:26pm ·
Gene Monteith

Gene Monteith

Lee, if what you’re saying is the case, it sure sounds like the old Arizona law. Maybe you can explain what the difference in the new law is.
May 14 at 10:19pm ·
Lee Lowry

Lee Lowry

the old law requires to have the help of the federal goverment to act against thiese criminals for this particular infraction/the new law gives that power to the state to make the final determination to someones status and take action with out federall help or interference. it gives the power back to the state where it should be.This country fought… See More a war over states rilghts. The scarist thing is to have someone show up and say I am from the federal goverment and i am here to help!!!!! The bottom line is there is a law in existence and it is a federal law, a new one should not be needed, but instead enforce what laws he already have. The feds need to do there job. Unfortunately, when the problem is so big, it is far too easy to throw up your hands and give up and that is what our federal goverment has done in this case and now that someone steps up to take action the feds stand up and say hold on, thats our job! sorry for the spelling errors, it s early and i have fat fingers LOL! any way I am not an expert, this is just how it looks to me. Thanks Gene for getting people talking about things like this. All Americans should be invovled and concerned about what goes on in our world . People like you provide help fuel our desire to do so , keep up the good work brother.
May 15 at 7:33am ·
Jeff Lint

Jeff Lint

Lee, Should American citizens be required to carry proof of citizenship at all times?
May 15 at 1:07pm ·
Lee Lowry

Lee Lowry

yes its called a driver licensde or State ID should be enough because in Indiana you have to provide so much documentation to get the ID should be no question and yes I know they can be counterfitted not a perfect world.The main thing is when some one is caught and the feds notified then they should do their job. I must add that INS around here is… See More doing a better job lately.Recently they spent 2 weeks at our jail going through records to identify illegals. It is important that illegals come from a variety of countries, not just Mexico. Here we have our share of mexicans and Middle Easterners and Russians, just for starters. Identification of these folks isnt really the problem, it is getting action once they identified. To be taken serious is all the problem really needs and is all that the federal goverment needs to do to make most Americans feel better and safer. Those with their hidden agendas are really not worth our time. But we must protect and serve all so the ones who need us most are safe. yes there are some bad folks wearing badges and give us good ones black eyes. but please acknowledge there are those who serve to protect and allow them to do their jobs. the should be expected to do their jobs.after all that is why we pay them.
May 15 at 2:47pm ·
Gene Monteith

Gene Monteith

Neither a drivers license or a state ID are proof of citizenship. You’d have to produce a birth certificate or a passport, neither of which I carry in my glovebox. But I’m not sure that the Arizona law requires you to prove citizenship — only that you are here legally. The point is that the proof is on the “suspicious” person being apprehended. … See MoreAgain, foreigners who break our laws should be held liable — and if that means paying a fine, or going to jail or going back home, that’s fine with me. The problem I foresee is when everybody who looks like a foreigner becomes suspect and forced to prove themselves.
May 15 at 2:57pm ·
Lee Lowry

Lee Lowry

I agree that would be wrong and there will be those who will abuse it however when abuse are found then that individual should be prosecuted as well. I understand your concern and it is valid. I have a son iin law who is from mexico and one that is from Peru…i love them both. One of the grandkids looks Hispanic, I do understand your concers … See Morereally. but amnesty is not the way to go. when someone is identified as illegal lets send them home, we dont need to hold them in jail any longer than it takes for INS to come and get them. Because some one looks different is not and should never be a reason to be hassled but a little know fact is that more Americans in the United States , of all races, are killed every month by illegals than died on one day in the trade towers. it is out of control and something needs to be done.You know every one wants to blame Arizona, but the blame belongs on the Federal Goverment who has not donethere job in this area for well over 25 years.We do not need new laws or debate, they simply need to do their job and enforce the statute that already exist. It always galls me how much money is spent on committees that acomplish nothing, mean while we have people who go with out mediciine food and housing. all thee money that goes over seas to goverments who hate America,(i am not against helpiing people of other nations just dont give the money to goverment) Rather spend the money here to help our citizens live and feel safe. Secure our boarders. Stop doing things that clearly dont work. It really isnt that hard to do whats right. we all no matter our political view should demand that from our goverment.
May 15 at 3:10pm ·
Lee Lowry

Lee Lowry

Jeff I would be interested in viewing some of your work can you tell me how or where? sounds like you do some very interesting work.
May 15 at 3:11pm ·
Jeff Lint

Jeff Lint

Lee, Given your apparent views on the government and freedom I am surprised that you would say that an American citizen should be required to carry papers to prove their citizenship. Do you really think I should have to carry proof of citizenship if I walk down to the corner store?I think you have misinterpreted the Arizona law. My … See Moreunderstanding is that the law was changed from allowing the questioning of a person’s status in a situation of “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention or arrest”. A person does not have to be under arrest or detained. “Lawful stop” is a broad term that can cover such situations as a person being a possible witness to a crime, playing your radio too loud in public or being with someone who is stopped for any reason. Obviously this gives the police a lot of leeway and don’t forget that the new law does not “allow” police officers to question someone’s status. It “requires” police officers to check someone’s status if they have reasonable cause to suspect them of being illegal. And I have not heard anyone explain what would constitute reasonable cause except for a guy who said you can tell illegals by the way they are dressed.

To me the big problem with the Arizona law is how it affects US born citizens. I have yet to hear anyone explain what happens when a police officer asks for proof of legal status form a person born in the US. That person cannot be required to present immigration papers because they’re not immigrants. And if they’re American citizens they cannot be required to prove it. If they’re not driving they don’t have to have a driver’s license. The police officer must take their word that they are an American citizen. This seems to me to be a huge loophole in the law.

Anyway, this has gone too long, but just one more point. Don’t assume that those of us who oppose the Arizona law are against any attempts to deal with immigration problems or that those problems don’t exist. We just want humane, practical and constitutional solutions to problems such as this.

May 16 at 3:03pm ·
Tom Mills

Tom Mills

The revised law now clarifies that a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the enforcement of another law, etc. must occur before immigration status can be checked. If that is racist, or the beginning of Nazi rule in Arizona, I’m missing something.The law also states: The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal … See Moregovernment pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). Does the federal government know my immigration status, presumably yes b/c I have a passport. What about those who don’t? I can’t even begin to pretend to know the information available to the federal government, but presumably it can access things like birth records. To that the next argument will be what about those born at home who don’t have a birth certificate? My response is there is no law that is perfect in its writing or its application. To argue that nothing s/b done because something bad might happen to someone, while instead calling for an undefined more humane approach is sophistry.

The way around the Arizona law is for the federal government to enforce existing laws, (which require legal immigrants to carry proof of their status at all times) but it does not. Of course if it did, the protests against the AZ law would simply be relabled. There is no pleasing some folks. I for one would like to at least wait and see how the law is actually enforced before I cancel my next trip to Arizona.

May 16 at 11:48pm ·
Lee Lowry

Lee Lowry

thank you Tom but i am afraid this will fall on deaf ears
Monday at 6:21am ·
Jeff Lint

Jeff Lint

Lee, Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were making that argument, that if someone is against this particular solution they don’t think there is a problem or don’t want to do something about it. I just hear that argument a lot particularly on this issue. I didn’t intend to imply that you were saying that.We do hear that argument a lot, from… See More both sides on a variety of issues. It’s the old if you don’t believe in A then you must believe in B. Two examples that we’ve heard in the last few years: “If you’re against harsh interrogation of terror suspects you want to give them tea and cookies or just let them go.” “If you’re against health care reform you want poor sick people to just drop dead.” Clearly, these are bogus arguments whichever side they come from. Again, I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of making this argument.

Monday at 10:59am via Email Reply ·
Jeff Lint

Jeff Lint

Tom. Remember that “lawful stop” is a very vague term and can cover almost any contact between a police officer and an individual. The real question is what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that a person may be illegal? Surely you don’t think that you or I would be required to prove our status. Latinos will be required to show their papers not… See More Anglos like you and me. That is profiling.I still haven’t heard anyone explain what happens when the police question a native born US citizen who doesn’t have immigration papers. What if a citizen isn’t carrying a drivers license (which doesn’t really prove citizenship anyway)? Americans are not required to carry proof of citizenship at all times, nor should we be.

Monday at 11:34am ·

Lee Lowry

Lee Lowry

ya its ok jeff i understand it is a tough world with complex issues not like when we were kids for sure. we can agree to disagree. i dont have all the answers but i sure have plenty of opinions LOL. its all good brother no matter what, I love u and gene like family.

Monday at 4:03pm ·

Advertisement