Ryan who?

Talk about embarrassing... I said I was making the post to piss you off. You actually think I'm going to criticize a State for taking some initiative in this matter? Please... I thought we were friends and that we understood each other better than that?

Had you been reading past posts, you'd have seen that I did admit to thinking the law was going to have a tough ride through the court system, but that much of it was sound. I still think you are taking too much of your own data from biased sources, since I did read the entire of the legislation AND the related SCOTUS decisions that relate to it (linked therein). "Stop and Identify" laws are legal, constitutional regulations that have stood the test... and requiring non-citizens to maintain proof of status was never a contention of mine even when I wasn't posting a sarcastic, "devil's advocate" position. I still feel the law will face its biggest challenge when the first American citizen is detained for not being able to immediately prove status. Using your example, if the Santa Clause-clad people being questioned for a robbery are detained when they can't show residency status that meets the State's criteria, and any of those Santas are legal citizens (not resident aliens) and decide to file suit, AZ loses. The Court has already determined that the most you can demand of a CITIZEN during the investigative process is his/her name to satisfy the "Stop and Identify" statutes... detaining them for failure to deliver is then a violation of their civil rights and grounds for repeal of the law. THAT was all I had issue with, and if AZ can ensure that this never happens, then the law will remain in place (with my very real and measurable support) in perpetuitas.

Regarding your comments on my post concerning racial profiling, I will say the following:

You wrote: "YES, race is a factor in determining a potential terrorist. They are in general of a certain ethnic background, a certain age, and a certain gender. To ignore such facts to satisfy your civil liberty concerns doesn't help me sleep at night, nor the US effectively protect her citizens. Using race as ONE tool among others is not just necessary, it's common sense."

I am rational enough to understand that your point is valid, but it doesn't invalidate the point I made. The question is difficult because the risk to individual freedom is very real. In making your defense of racial profiling as an integral part of national security doctrine and procedure, you are making the case that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and while I admire your ability to employ such jewels from the Star Trek cannon into your daily life, the sentiment is false and is, in fact, antithetical to the conservative agenda as I understand it to be.

Let's maintain some perspective here and know that I have not CONDEMNED any aspect of our current security policies, I have only questioned what would happen if such a civil rights violation did occur (which I maintain hasn't occurred). It has kept us safe in our post-9/11 America and has not, to the best of my knowledge, infringed on any individual or minority rights to any measurable degree. Your feelings that my opinions are nothing more than worthless "wishing-upon-a-star" fantasies aside, I still think that ALL focus by the Federal government in matters of "rule of law" should focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual, rather than the limitations of the same for the "greater good of the whole society". Want to see a reduction in the kidnapping rate in southern AZ? Legalize concealed carry of firearms for anyone over the age of 21, and remove all regulations limiting the number and type of firearms that individuals may keep in their homes, cars or places of employment, and expand the "Castle Doctrine" to include any personal property held by the individual rather than limiting it to home or automobile (meaning you can shoot trespassers you find anywhere on your property, and not just those that have broken into your house or car). Want to see illegal border crossings reduced? Withhold Federal tax revenue from the State and use it to build the wall the Feds are legally required to build by employing State contractors (thus, keeping the money IN the State and ensuring that the job is done to the State's satisfaction).

How can you NOT see (and agree with the idea) that EVERYTHING the Federal government does in regards to "border security" and "illegal immigration problems" does almost NOTHING to fix the problem and only compounds it by bring the mess closer and closer to the homes and hearts of individual taxpayers? It is MY TAX DOLLARS that are being wasted on an unfinished fence, and the risk I am taking in being kidnapped by rogue Mexican drug lords is far less than that risked by someone living in Brownsville, TX or Tuscon, AZ... so of course I am going to defer MY opinion on the subject to those that are living with the danger and threats, but as long as it is MY tax dollars are work (or waste), then I still have the right to express my opinion, and there is no debating that opinion without reasonable, measurable and specific alternative ideas presented.

I am calling for solutions, while you are supporting the status quo. You maintain that the status quo has never been adequately implemented by the Feds (and you are correct)... but it DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE STATUS QUO ISN'T WORKING!!! Obama won't build the fence, the Feds won't stop adding additional regulations and limitations on individual rights, so it is up to the States to force the change, and I support that effort 100%... INCLUDING the AZ laws as they stand now and as long as they stand up to the standards of the Constitution's protective clauses.