How predictable. The fed judge stops the law that enforces the fed law. Total fucking fraud. The will of the people of Arizona is thrown out like the trash. Well played global elite, well played.
It’s ok though it just exposes them that much more. Keep going global elite, your overreaching is going to be your downfall as one by one the people awaken.
The will of the Arizona people was unconstitutional, unfortunately.
for Elton John. This boycott is not only petty, it’s just counter-productive for everyone involved. Arizona gets screwed out of revenue, Arizonans get screwed out of seeing some bands regardless of their stance on the law, and the bands lose out on a place to play without actually accomplishing anything. I’m sure this, too, shall pass. If you read up on it, a large portion of Arizonans support the law, including a whole shitload of Hispanics. 
Imagine that.
And actually, the law was/is not unconstitutional. It’s just not “politically correct” to a lot of people, so they throw a shit-fit about it. Judge Bolton showed poor judgment in my opinion, and since the ruling is being appealed, it’s just going to be more headaches for everyone. If you actually read the legislative language, you will see that there is nothing in there that violates anyone’s Constitutional rights. Most legal Hispanics interviewed have said that they do not feel that their rights are threatened in any way. If you didn’t do anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about.
Wait aren’t you the one who complains about identity cards? This law would force immigrants to carry their identification papers at all times… 
Prediction. . .when marijuna becomes legal in CA a federal judge will block it. (different logic, they’ll use the interstate commerce to justify)
States can’t make any law they chose, if they could we’d make one to kill everyone that looked at me cross eyed.
^Possible. But doubtful.
True that states can’t make any law they could… but there is a process that isn’t quite as arbitrary as some of you are making it out to be, and that process centers around the civil liberties and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. There is a big difference between requiring U.S. citizens to produce “papers” (you know, the documents we all carry with us to prove we’re citizens? Wait… you aren’t carrying your documents??? WTF???) and allowing citizens to cultivate and consume a plant.
I’m not saying the Fed might not go after a state pot law… but it is a very, very different circumstance when it comes to constitutionality.
Great! When do we start random home searches in North Carolina? 
/jack-
I can’t believe he sang for Limbaugh.
With all the s#!t that Rush has said,…
Elton is a whore.
$$$ is all that matters i guess,…even if it goes against EVERY OUNCE of your integrity.
He has fallen far in my eyes. 
/end jack
^^ come on they’re not random, they’re targeted house searches. You know targeting the likely law breakers, between the ages of 16 and 28. Maybe those that fly confederate flags, maybe those who belong to “clubs” like stella blue or the peel, maybe those who have log ins at phish boards.
Also I agree it’s not apples to apples for the laws. But not many thought the original case of the hotel not renting a room to blacks was something that the federal government could regulate either. There is some president with abortion procedures as far as states have very different laws that are allowable and not covered by the interstate commerce provisions. But there’s still that pesky federal law classifying marijuna as a class one substance (and I think there’s a law or president that federal laws trump or state laws can’t contradict federal laws).
(I’m planning to vacation in CA if it does happen )
^You should read the op-ed article I posted in the Legal Marijuana thread from the La Times yesterday.
Thanks, missed that one yesterday.
Back to AZ (don’t want to hijack this thread).
the immigration solution proposed by the dems and pubs of which I have provided mainstream links in the past is the mandatory biometric national ID card For citizen and illegal alike.
So the solution proposed is actually worse than the AZ law IMO.
Show me where in the SB 1070 it says they can do random home searches. Oh wait, it doesn’t.
^It doesn’t. But, according to your logic, why shouldn’t it? Why shouldn’t every home in America be searched every so often, as to weed out the criminals and terrorists?
I mean, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about… right?
Bingo. That’s right up there with “Papers, please” in the list of creepy phrases I don’t ever want to hear in my country.
^ and ^^ I can see that what this comes down to is an ideological difference. But, I still want to point out some facts so that you might understand why I feel the way I do about this. You cleverly twisted what I said and made it into something that you know I wouldn’t agree to. Randomly searching someone’s home is quite different from asking for someone’s proof of legal status as a US resident.
You seem worried that these people’s rights will be violated. I’m not sure why you think that. There is a provision in the bill, in the actual legislative language, that says police officers are not allowed to use the person’s race as a basis for stopping them and asking for proof of residence. In fact, the way the bill is worded now that it has been amended, it is actually very difficult for an officer to attempt to establish a person’s immigration status without worrying about getting tied up in all kinds of legal red tape.
That’s my problem with the current situation. There is a law in place which says that people are not allowed to cross into the United States willy-nilly without registering and becoming a legal resident, but when a state attempts to enforce that law, everyone freaks out. That’s why I said if you didn’t do anything wrong (by which I mean coming into the country illegally), then you have nothing to worry about. If they ask for your papers, show them your damn papers and move on. You don’t see me freaking out when they ask for my driver’s license in order to prove that I’m legally allowed to drive a car. That’s why I have the driver’s license. See what I mean? I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do want you to see that I base my opinions on facts and logic.
^I understand where you’re coming from and, yes, I disagree. Maybe you draw the line at demanding papers. Maybe someone else draws the line at random home searches. The thing is, in this country, the burden is not on the citizen to prove their innocence on a daily basis. It is the other way around.
And, ship, as easy as you think it is to “show your damn papers and move on”… would you be able to?
I mean, if I stopped you at set-break of a Phish show and asked for proof of citizenship, would you be able to “show your damn papers and move on”? Do you have even have any papers? Because I don’t. I have a passport, but I don’t take it everywhere I go. Many U.S. citizens don’t even have passports-- it’s not required.
Do you really think the burden should be on every U.S. citizen (including yourself) to be able to prove upon demand that they are in fact a citizen and, if they cannot, they should be detained until they can?
I do get where you’re coming from, Ed, and I don’t disagree that illegal immigration is a problem, that laws have to be enforced, or that the fine people of Arizona are in a hell of a shitty situation. I just don’t like their attempt to solve the problem with legislation like this.
A few months ago in this same thread, I posted Desmond Tutu’s letter regarding this issue, and I think it’s pretty interesting, given that he lived through “papers please” with apartheid. And like he said, a society doesn’t adopt something like apartheid overnight; it happens in small steps, beginning with laws like SB 1070. Is this law by itself automatically going to bring back drinking fountains with “Colored” signs? No, but it’s a step in the wrong direction IMO.
I think this is a key point.
Say you get stopped and don’t have your papers, but are in fact a citizen.
Then what?
So they take you to a holding cell and you stay there until you can.
Well, your a citizen right? Your rights are being infringed.
So you finally prove it somehow, then what?
People will start suing and bringing up lawsuits for wrongful imprisonment, etc.
It will/would be a clusterf#@k to say the least.
Yeah, because cops never abuse their power. 
Come on Ed.
Look at the way cops have treated kids with Dead & Phish stickers on their cars. Probable cause.
They say it’s not the reason heads get pulled over and harassed, but lets be honest here.
They say they can’t use race, but do you honestly think that cops will ask White people for their papers?
Truly. You even mention the legal red tape,…it is just a very bad law to make cops enforce
Look at what that crazy Arizona Sheriff Joe Arapo. He just does what he wants.
This is only gonna cost people, towns, and states tons of unneeded headaches, lawsuits, and $$$.
And for what? Because some people want a better life for their kids and self?
I’m all for getting these people on the books, but there are better ways to accomplish it then tearing families, communities, and this country apart.
Look out California, here comes Hawaii’s homeless…
Hawaii proposes to give homeless a one-way ticket out of the state
Jonathan Berr
Jul 29th 2010 at 4:00PM More Text SizeAAAFiled under: In the News
As the economy continues to stumble, homelessness has skyrocketed, leaving many states grappling with an expensive and delicate issue – what to do with the growing population of people finding refuge in shelters, parks and the streets. Hawaii, where a recent census showed that the homeless population on the island of Oahu skyrocketed by 15% in one year, has come up with a creative yet controversial plan to deal with its homeless problem: ship them to another state.
Hawaii’s government and many of its residents worry that the homeless encampments dotting its beaches sap precious state resources and scare away tourists – a source of income that the state desperately relies on. Many support a proposal that the state pay to send some of its homeless population back to where they came from, provided there is someone to take them in. The rationale: Spending $300 for a one-way ticket to the West Coast is far cheaper than the $35,000 per year it costs to provide a homeless person with social services, according to the Associated Press.
“If clear parameters are set – a verified family member willing to take them in, the homeless person actually wants to leave – then I think it makes perfect sense,” says John Cheever, a teacher at Punahou School who lives in Honolulu.
“The one-way plane fare is far less costly than the cost to support out-of-state residents and straining our social service infrastructure,” says Yvette Maskrey, a district manager for Honeywell who lives in Aiea, Hawaii. “Our charitable donations and tax monies should be prioritized and directed to local residents who are in dire need of these services.”
The plane-ticket proposal, which is estimated to cost about $100,000, is aimed at the growing non-resident homeless population. It’s estimated that 30% of Hawaii’s homeless come from out of state. The attraction of Hawaii to those down on their luck is fairly obvious. Besides featuring gorgeous weather, Hawaii has jobs at a time when many other states are suffering. Unemployment in June was 6.3%, the sixth lowest in the U.S., and well below the national rate of 9.5%. But like other states, Hawaii has plenty of fiscal woes. Officials garnered national headlines last year when the state was forced to close public schools to help close a $1 billion budget deficit.
Many of these new arrivals, who come via one-way plane tickets, don’t realize that life in paradise can be difficult. Kevin Morrissey came to Hawaii seeking a better life only to wind up homeless.“It was always a dream of mine to come to Hawaii so when I lost my job as a bartender in Ft. Lauderdale, I thought I might find something better here,” Morrissey told KITV 4 News.
“Once they get here, they are stuck,” says Rona Fukumoto of Catholic Charities Hawaii, who believes the plane-ticket program is a good idea but is skeptical that it will attract much interest from homeless people.
Flying the homeless home is the latest twist on an old idea. Some towns used to give the homeless who agree to leave a bus ticket. While the idea has a certain appeal, it is far from a perfect solution. Many of the homeless shipped to a new location just end up being homeless somewhere else, says Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
“Years ago, we used to call it ‘Greyhound Therapy,’” she says. She believes a better solution is to address the shortage of affordable housing that causes homelessness. A recent study found that housing someone in a shelter is more expensive than providing them with transitional housing or rent.
“Rather than be concerned with the visual impact of our state’s homeless problem on the tourism industry, we need to act with compassion,” says Melissa Data, a social worker from Kaneohe, Hawaii. “Instead of moving our homeless, regardless of where they came from, we need to provide better support services that address the root problems and end the cycle of homelessness.”
Soon after taking office, the Obama administration invested $1.5 billion in the new Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. Billions more have been spent on other housing programs, which officials say kept millions of people in their homes who might otherwise have wound up on the street. Yet, the effectiveness of some of these programs – especially those aimed at helping people lower their mortgage payments – have fallen short of expectations.
Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows a 10% reduction among people experiencing chronic homelessness in 2009, but a rise in the number of families seeking shelter. Many homeless programs in areas such as Chicago, Colorado, and California have either faced or are facing budgetary shortfalls as cash-strapped state and local governments look to balance their books.
Recently, the government release its first ever Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness that promises to “finish the job of ending chronic homelessness in five years.” However, there has yet to be any money attached to those brave words.
“On a single night in January 2009, there were an estimated 643,067 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide,” the report says. “In 2009, approximately 1,035,000 individuals used sheltered or transitional housing at some time during the year, as did 535,000 people who were there as part of a family.”
Given the current moribund state of the economy, being homeless on the sunny beaches of Hawaii doesn’t seem so bad.
Marie LaPointe, a homeless woman who moved to Hawaii from Oakland, Calif., put it this way: “I’m not going, because this is my home. I’ve been in Hawaii for a long time. They can’t force you. I’m not going back over there for nothing.”
^ Oh man that does not sound like a viable solution to their problem. And you can add them to the thousands upon thousands of Arizona illegals who have publicly stated that they’re headed for CA and other states.
And guys, as far as being approached at a Phish show, or anywhere for that matter, and asked for papers, it’s not gonna happen. They are not allowed to just randomly approach you and ask for papers for no reason. In fact, the only way they are allowed to determine immigration status is during the course of a separate arrest for an unrelated crime. I understand your concerns about abuse of power, but I truly believe that MOST police officers are good people who are not out to get anyone. MOST of them are just doing their job. I mean, the officers who already profile illegals every day will not be in any more of a position to do so after the law is passed. If anything, they will be less able to do so.
This law was an attempt, and maybe it wasn’t a perfect one (but what is perfect anyway), to curtail the illegal immigration problem that is absolutely enormous in Arizona. There have been a lot of Hispanics from Arizona who have stated that they have no problem whatsoever with the law because they will finally start to weed out the ones who didn’t go to the trouble to go through the legal immigration process. Those who came here legally are not too wild about illegals either.