The law does not make it a crime to be an illegal immigrant.  It basically is an enforcement method for existing laws.  As such, the state of Arizona went around its wrist to get to its elbow in order for it not to violate any civil rights.  We shall see if that stands up to the courts.  But it at least brings to the forefront the debate over illegal immigration.  If the US (Feds) are not going to do anything about it, why have a law on the books in the first place?

One thing the law does do (and one that has been pushed by many immigration reform people for years) is heavily fine firms that employ illegal immigrants.  That, more than trying to dot eyes and cross tees (so as not to violate civil rights) about picking up illegal immigrants will lower the states illegal immigrant population.  Some come here for crime (easy money drugs, and such), but most come for money.  And if there is no money, why risk the trip and hassle?

But the thing is, if policemen can ask anyone for their immigration paper, what if that person happens not to have them on hand? Of if he isn't even an immigrant, he is just somebody born in the U.S.. Does that person has to carry around his paper at all time just not to get arrested?

Yes, that was my poor attempt at being sarcastic. 

I found it interesting that Obama's first response is that this shouldn't be a state issue but a federal one.  Just another attempt of taking away state's rights showing how little he really knows of the constitution and the desire of our founding fathers. 

To me this has got to be the longest four year run of any President.  Is it over yet? 

Immigration and international border is Federal or State jurisdiction?

Policemen cannot.  They can only ask for ID (one ID, not an ever lasting string of IDs).  If the ID is not on hand, then the law provides for alternate ways to verify their residency status - with one exception. When it would hinder a criminal investigation (or the stopping of a crime).

What you are hearing is the false rhetoric of the race baiters.  It is the same tactic they used to try to destroy the voter ID law.  The strength of the law is in the truth, and unfortunately for race baiters, lies are not admissible in court (legally - it is called perjury), and when you have the truth in black and white, no one is stupid enough to try to lie in court about it.

Federal.  But each state is responsible for enforcing ALL laws, state and federal.  This law is not a new law, it is a new method of enforcing an existing federal law.

So.... ..... ..... what is the point of the federal government writing a new law, if it's the state who's going to be enforcing it anyway? (the fed intervention KFC is so pissed about)

AH!  I just read about the MSNBC headline (never visit or watch the site).  Their ignorance is mind boggling!

It is more of an administrative law and enforcement policy that the Feds have to write.  Yes, illegal immigrants already break the law (that is why they are called illegal).  But the feds are not doing anything about them (think of it as one of those old laws on the books that is never enforced any longer - like sodomy).  Since the Feds are not doing anything to enforce the law, the states (Arizona in this case) are writing procedures for enforcing the law.

The Fed intervention that KFC is upset about deals with the fact that the race hucksters at the feds are trying to interfere with the enforcement of their own law. (demigoging it). 

In other words, your government tells you to wear a seat belt.  Then when you do, they claim you are an elitist because you think your life is worth more than the idiots that do not use a seat belt.

American Politics.  You have to love it.

Even some conservative bloggers & commentators can't get it through their heads correctly.

This law does not permit police to randomly stop the proverbial 'innocent jogger in the park' & 'demand papers'.  It also does not make 'driving while brown' illegal or the basis for a police stop.  The demagoguery on this has been pathetic.

But if, in the course of a lawful stop for other probable cause, there is reason to suspect someone is here illegally, the cop can turn that person over to ICE if proof of citizenship cannot be provided.  This is exactly the same set of circumstances that already applies when a cop stops me for a broken taillight and I can't provide a drivers license or proof of insurance - I can get ticketed, even arrested, for things having nothing to do with the reason for the initial stop.

And as dopey as MSNBC's take on this has been, it is already a crime to be 'illegal'.  No 'new crime' has been created by this law.  To maintain that nobody should be questioned about their citizenship because some actual citizens will inevitably be asked, or because a cop 'might' abuse his privilege, is just stupid.

I'm a little mixed on this one.  I am for it because, AZ has the right to enforce laws within it's borders.  Yes, there are federal responsibilties here, but the state also has borders and jurisidiction to enforce the law within them.

The state also has the responsibility to enforce trespassing laws.  As it has been, land owners along the border have been prevented from doing anything about all the illegals trespassing, squatting and otherwise fouling up their property.   How would any defender of illegal aliens feel if people were allowed to camp in their yards.. and they were told they couldn't do anything about it?

On the other hand, I don't dismiss the accusations of "papers please" from the left.  If police officers have to establish legitimate "probably cause" to confront people, demanding their proof of citizenship, then it's not much different than police asking for proof of insurance, registration and drivers' licence during a traffic stop.

However, the line between that and stopping people just to challenge their citizenship is no small one.  If there aren't protections in the law against such actions by the police, then I am against it.

You lost me...

Since it's the state's responsability to enforce both State and Federal law, why is the federal government blamed for not enforcing its own law?

And again, how can the federal government disrupt the enforcement of its own law if the State government has jurisdiction over it?

It's exactly as you describe it.  No difference whatsoever.  Unless it's 'legal to be illegal'.

There are indeed such protections.  That doesn't mean a bad/cocky cop couldn't abuse such protections, but that's the case even without this law.  Some have argued, not without merit, that the temptation to ignore such protections was greater before this law was passed.

I think you answered your own question, because the Federal Gov't is not enforcing the law and therefor the State is forced to enforce it themselves. But to be sure people would not see it as Cops abusing the system, this law was passed to make it more legit. More legit because people these days take everything in a subjective way if it is not specific.

By criticizing the State Gov't for attempting to enforce the laws by pointing to the downside of the law while disregarding the purpose of the law. This basically has 2 purposes, the existance of the law is suppose to satisfy those who believe it should be illegal and criticizing those who would enforce it by pointing at the possible downside of these laws helps keep those who might be affected voting for them. It's like having your cake and eating too.