>>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>From Merriam-Webster..
>>
>>Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
>>Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
>>Function: noun
>>Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
>>Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
>>Date: 1576
>>1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
>
>Yes, that is the definition of democracy. I think you know we do not live in a true democracy. The ancient Greeks gathered on hillsides and everyone voted. We elect representatives.
>
>Our system also includes significant protection for the minority. "Rule of the majority" does not mean the side with 51% gets everything it wants. Many of our guiding principles, such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our laws, are if anything more designed to protect the minority than the majority. Which makes sense given that many of our settlers came here as persecuted minorities.

Rule by the minority is more like it here.

The offended ones.

By the way, our settlers came here and became US Citizens (once there was a US). They didn't apologize for the US. They didn't bend over for every other nation. They fought for this country and were proud of it.

They also learned English (common language that helped greatly to make this country the once great country it was).

They enacted laws and expected people to abide by them.

Laws like immigration laws.

Mexicans want to ignore the laws and get the benefits of the US (without paying taxes). Then they want to fly their flag proudly (proud of the dirthole corrupt country they ran from - nice). We wouldn't want them to feel unappreciated now would we?

The gubmint should pay them to come in. Then allow them to vote. That would keep the Messiah in power.