Dear Jan Brewer: SUCK IT!!! Now you have an inkling of how immigrants feel about life in AZ

[LynneSin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/29/jan-brewer-un-human-right_n_698427.html

Jan Brewer: UN Human Rights Report 'Downright Offensive', Remove Reference To Arizona Immigration Law

PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.

The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.

"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.

No Jan, unconstituional is when an unelected governor ruins her state by creating such a horrible law that anyone with even the slightest hint of tan or other features that might make them look non-white will be scruntized anytime a police officer crosses their path. Last time this world saw the horrors of racial profiling was WWII Germany. You, Jan Brewer, deserved to be singled out and embarassed - you caused this of yourself.

[Renew Deal]

1. This is another example of how Obama and Bush are exactly the same

:silly:

Kidding... This is great news. :bounce:

[dkf]

2. If the US had proper enforcement of immigration laws this would not be an issue.

Arizona shouldn't have to do it's own policing. It is yet another failure of the Federal Government.

[LynneSin]

3. The problem is we go after the people and not the companies and wealthy folks that hire them

If there were less jobs available to them or a work program that allowed them to come legally into the country then this would not be an issue.

[dkf]

12. Do we want every person looking for a yardman to ask if everyone on the job is here legally?

Is that racist? I've wondered myself. I think people might be offended should we ask.

[LynneSin]

24. Well, not for nothing but I had to show proof of birth when I got my job

I was required to present either my SSN card or Birth Certificate when I was hired along with my drivers license. It's been like that with every job I have ever owned and I"ve worked for some major US companies, in fact that is actually the hiring standard.

It seems those that make the laws tend to have the illegals tending their gardens and raising their kids.

[DeschutesRiver]

36. I just had to do the same for my driver's license renewal

Had to show a verification of my SSN (SS card or my tax return), verification of my address, and verification of my citizenship (either birth certificate or passport). To get a replacement copy of my SS card, I had to show my passport or birth certificate. Ended up taking most of the day waiting in long lines to get my "documentation" to prove I was a U.S. citizen with a valid SSN. I'm 52 and this is the first time it wasn't a 10 minute process to renew.

When I went to get my tax return (haven't seen my SS card since I was 16), my accountant said that the requirement here in Oregon for the DMV to check SSNs had something to do with a statute trying to track down deadbeat parents for child support.

[dkf]

43. Yikes I guess you can't cut it too close to expiration.

[DeschutesRiver]

50. Absolutely - be early, esp. here in Oregon.

The only good news was that after the first "lack of documentation", they gave me a yellow pass good until 4pm so that when I came back, I could go to the front of the very very long line (out the door). That should have been my first clue. It was a good thing to have - I got there at 10:30am, and no one told me the entire list of things I would need. So I left and came back three times, and finally finished around 3:30pm, after going home for my passport, then the SS office to wait for 1.5 hours before I gave up and drove to my accountant's office for the tax return with my SSN on it, and then the last time, when the guy told me I had one more trip to find a way to prove where I lived (same home address since 1985). At that point, I remembered reading about a guy here at the local DMV, going to get his license renewed when they first started these new requirements. He brought in his birth certificate, and they refused it - because his place of birth was on a military base. Took him 4 months and his congressman to straighten out that snafu in the law. Can you imagine - he had to have someone drive him to work during the interium! I remembered thinking, at the time I read it, that there must be more to the story, but now I think not.

My DMV guy even threw in a vision test. I wear reading glasses, which I had on, but had checked the box that certified they were only for close up vision, not distance. Guess he didn't believe me, but of course I passed the test for distance. And from the start, I'd had and kept on my happy face, not that it worked. Thankfully, I'd brought a good book with me and some patience:)

[flamingdem]

54. You've got to be kidding, yikes nt

[Historic NY]

27. You should ask the business owner....bet you'd find a lot of Repukes

are hiring illegals. I find the biggest complainers willing will hire them for low wages if they think they can save a buck. Enforcement also means going after the person doing the hiring. W/o any penalty they keep doing it.

[dkf]

29. I think I might be slugged if I asked that question. So many take offense to the

Idea of questioning someones citizenship. I wish it were all taken care of so we didn't have to ask.

[madmom]

34. I also remember having to show a social security ID as well as drivers license for every

job I have ever had. What is the problem,they need a ss# just for tax reasons, so there is another reason for asking. If employers don't have their employees ss# are the paying the right taxes? Who is the one at fault in that instance?

[blondeatlast]

7. ARizona doesn't do any policing, but you keep believing that .

I'm frequently at the border and a 35 year resident of AZ, btw.

[dkf]

15. If they don't they shouldn't have to. It's a federal responsibility.

[Dr. Strange]

25. Isn't that what the Obama administration just argued?

That the state's should NOT be policing--it should be done solely by the federal government.

[no limit]

11. What a bullshit talking point, I'm sad to see it posted here

It's not about enforcement of immigration laws. It's about the unconstitutional discrimination that is the basis of SB 1070.

[dkf]

16. 15 million incidences of violations means enforcement is lacking.

How can it be interpreted any other way?

[no limit]

17. This has nothing to do with your bullshit excuses for what Arizona did

It's not that Arizona decided to enforce immigration laws. It's that they did so while ignoring the constitution and discriminating against people based on skin color.

Any inaction by federal government is not an excuse for what Arizona did, period.

[dkf]

21. How do you propose we make sure everyone is here legally?

In all honesty I don't understand why it is more humane to make sure an illegal immigrant doesn't have a job. That seems more slow drip to me.

[no limit]

23. So just to clarify, you are ok with treating people differently based on skin color?

All in the name of immigration enforcement?

[dkf]

31. No but I see that every effort to enforce immigration will be attacked as racist.

If everyone had to show their ID I would be okay with that. Actually I prefer that.

[no limit]

33. So you don't think attacking this law as racist is fair?

Can you then explain why it's ok to treat people differently based on skin color?

If the law required that EVERYONE show their ID we would be having a different discussion. But that's not what the law says, the law is set up so only people that look like they are here illegally will be targetted. And you seem to be okay with that since you are quick to excuse this law by blaming it on the federal government.

[dkf]

35. I thought you needed to be committing another violation in order to be asked

About citizenship status.

I am pretty sure that is how the law reads.

[no limit]

37. The law reads that the cop has a right to ask that status if reasonable suspicion exists

that the person is here illegally.

How exactly do you establish reasonable suspicion of immigration status?

You are right that they can only ask this question when investigation another crime, but that's not the point. The point is what does reasonable suspicion mean.

[dkf]

39. I'd get rid of the reasonable suspicion part and check everyone.

Would that suffice for you?

[no limit]

40. So you agree, the current law is racist?

If it said everyone we would be having a different discussion, that's not what the law says.

[LynneSin]

41. BTW just read this subthread and +1 to you

:D

[dkf]

45. The law itself would not be racist but the enforcement could be.

The law says there should be no racial profiling. The key in enforcing these particular laws is the training and in making sure that violations are not significantly out of proportion

I imagine the only reasonable suspicion we will see is the lack of a drivers license or the forgery of one.

[no limit]

46. What is reasonable suspicion of an illegal immigrant. You keep ignoring this question

[dkf]

47. When a person is unable to produce their drivers license

Or produces a forgery.

[no limit]

48. Why didn't they just say that? Why use reasonable suspicion?

You are wrong, but lets see how well you actually thought this through. If the intent is that if you can't produce a license or if you can only produce a forgery why not simply say that? Why hide behind "reasonable suspicion".

[dkf]

51. I think that is typical of the language needed for police intervention.

The law itself states that the only evidence needed to prove citizenship is a valid license or ID from a state that verifies citizenship. That would be all states but 3.

[no limit]

52. No, it is not typical. Again, if it meant not being able to provide ID why not just say that?

You know why? Because that's not what reasonable suspicion means. And again, reasonable suspicion is used as justification for asking for ID. It is not the ID in itself.

[blondeatlast]

32. The poster is okay with posting some of the most outrageous talking points I've seen concerning

the "Ground Zero" "mosque" that is neither--I've drawn my own conclusion about the poster. I frequently disagree with you, but we're of the same mind concerning SB 1070.

[dkf]

38. I've formed my own conclusions as well.

I am more solutions based than I used to be and none of these things exist in a bubble. All have implications beyond the first easy read.

For me I am more interested in the outcome and its impacts on us all.

[Arkana]

14. This is not a matter of "policing borders".

Brewer's victimizing Hispanics and anyone else with dark skin in order to score points with the Arpaio crowd. You're buying into the Republican line and that's shameful.

[dkf]

18. No it's a matter of letting a situation get out of hand.

I think a country has a right to say who is allowed to immigrate here or not. Right now we have no say as our policies are violated constantly. I know of people who have been waiting 20 years for their loved ones to get permission to immigrate legally. 20 freaking years.

[Arkana]

19. Exactly. Why do you think people come here illegally?

Because they can't come in legally. They know that they can either take their chances and sneak over the border in one day or they can wait 15 years to get in legally.

If we made it easier for people who want to come here, then illegal immigration would decline sharply. In the meantime, we target people who employ them so they have less incentive to come in illegally.

But the Arizona "papers please" law is Draconian, irresponsible, and racist. It's the absolute wrong way to do this.

[dkf]

26. The reason the fat cat owners want people here illegally is because huge over supply of labor

Drives down pay, especially at the lower end.

It is not in the country's best interest at this time of rampant unemployment to have all these extra workers.

This is definitely an economic issue that a country should be able to control but we can't because we don't have any say whatsoever in our immigration policies.

[Arkana]

30. I'm sure you said something there, but the sheer wall of equivocation

nearly knocked me flat. Explain to me, then, why your solution is rounding up 12 million illegals and attempting to throw them out, rather than going after the people that employ them.

[flamingdem]

55. Yes, it sure seems easier to go after the employers nt

[no limit]

20. So because the federal government didn't do a good job states have a right to discriminate?

[dkf]

42. No.

The act of checking a person's ID is necessary to a stop of any sort. Unless the police are pulling over white people and not checking their ID I don't see how this is a biased procedure.

If only a certain race is being pulled over that is racial profiling which should be prosecuted in itself.

I imagine that people without legal status will be extra careful to not break the laws. Theortically this should lead to more violations by whites.

[no limit]

44. What does reasonable suspicion of immigration status look like?

If a guy is eating a taco is that reasonable suspicion? Maybe it's the accent. Or is it the most obvious one? Skin color of course. Please, explain it to me.

[Iggo]

28. No. They'd still hate brown people.

[Rex]

4. Oh no Jan! It is the NWO come to take you to the secret courts and

detention houses! :crazy:

[lunatica]

5. So she Jingoistic too. What a surprise

:sarcasm:

[Canuckistanian]

6. You'd think she would be proud of her law

Not embarrassed and defensive.

And since when do conservatives give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks? Especially the (gasp) United Nations.

[blondeatlast]

8. She IS proud of it in her campaign. She's a two-faced devil with a split tongue

and a coward besides.

[SargeUNN]

9. keep your fingers crossed for Goddard

We can win this one if our Democrats will work hard and leave behind the we want a perfect candidate thought. Goddard is a good but not great candidate, but he would be far better so I urge all Democrats here in Arizona to unite and elect Goddard. Those outside of Arizona give us your encouragement. I know you can't donate directly to Goddard but do what you can to help send Brewer into retirement.

[LynneSin]

10. At this point Roadkill would be a better choice than Brewer

just saying!

[Brewman_Jax]

13. Remove it? She should be standing up for it!

as usual, freepers and repubs never take personal responsibility; that's for other people. :crazy:

[66 dmhlt]

22. OK, OK - it's crude. But your title ...

"Dear Jan Brewer: SUCK IT!!!"

Just brought this photo of Sister Sarah to mind:

[ItNerd4life]

49. Obama should NOT have included this in his report.

The state law matches the federal law. This law is NOTHING in comparison to what other countries immigration laws are. I think it's petty and foolish.

[EFerrari]

53. The law was drafted by a lawyer for a hate group.

That's what you're defending.