>>>>>I bet she would feel differently if she lived in Arizona.
>>>I doubt it. if the police stoped her, you would produce credentials an be on her way. This is not really an issue of profiling. It's an issue
>>>of them not wanting to get caught.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>For now, anyway. That AZ law will quickly be invalidated. For starters immigration is a federal matter, not under the auspices of >>individual states. If states could control it we would still have some states with Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, and so forth.
>>>
>>>Not hardly. The law is and will continue to be valid. The AZ law only echos what's already law at the federal level. And, 70% of the
>>>people support it.
>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration
>>>
>>>The one who oppose it are those who stand to lose by they or someome they know getting caught and deported.
>>
>>Please tell me what law(s) on the federal level say a person can be questioned by police on "suspicion" of being an illegal alien.
>>
>>The percentage of Arizona voters in favor of the law makes no difference to me. A similar percentage of the populations of Mississippi and Arkansas in the early 1960s probably favored segregated schools. One of the roles of the federal government is to uphold the rights of citizens. We do not live by mob rule.
>
>Right. Who cares what the majority in a state wants.
>
>What are we, a democracy? Of course not - we are ruled by the enlightened ones. Right Mike?

Please don't twist my words. I did not say that. To your point, a democracy is supposed to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority. Not an easy task to keep both happy.

Surely you are not against this principle all the time. We have seen how little good a 59-41 majority in the Senate has done the Democrats. They are consistently thwarted by the 41.