This is a bad law, simply because of that "report to DHS" section, and it should be replaced with a better one.  No, we definitely don't need to comply with the DHS.  Yes, we need a stiff law against illegal immigration.  

 I expect that the police will be walking on tiptoe around this law until the question of its constitutionality gets settled.  In the meantime, let's draft a better anti-illegal-immigration law to replace this one when it gets knocked down.

--Leslie

I agree there are several important issues concerning why this bill is a bad piece of legislation.  However, I believe that most people have not realized the main, and most important issue.

There is specific language in this bill to that allows our various local and state agencies to volunteer information to federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. This is the same Federal Agency that, under the Patriot Act can snatch you off the street and hold you indefinitely , without due process.

Below I will paste the specific area of the Pearce Bill that should have been addressed to ensure the protection of our personal information from getting into the hands of Homeland Security. Homeland Security's ultimate goal is to have an accurate of every citizen and the GIS location of their residences in a national database. The majority of people in this country are law abiding citizens who are trying their best to survive the graft and corruption of our Federal Government.  

Despite repeated correspondence with our Representatives and Senators in Phoenix stating the "specific" wording of the Pearce Bill that most be changed to protect we the people, our legislator ignored our requests and believed Pearce's propaganda that stated that he had fixed that portion of the proposed bill.  At this point one has to wonder what Senator Pearce's true agenda really is.  Below I will paste the specific lines in the legislation that intentionally, because they do not explicitly prohibit it, the ability for sharing our personal information with Homeland Security. The bill is an embarrassing
piece of legislation to be sure, but honest citizens also need to be ever vigilant in keeping their personal information from getting into the hands of federal authorities.

1.  The specific area of the Pearce Bill, as I have enclosed several times is as follows:

F.  (In SB1070 it is subsection E.) Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1.  Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2.  Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

3.  Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

2.   SB1070 does not create a national ID card but it does embolden the federal government. States should not and must not depend or rely on the federal government when the states themselves can go a long way towards resolving the issue of citizenship.  There would be times when the federal government might be needed but first every state has a responsibility to only involve the federal government when all other means have been exhausted. Why a state would offer up or volunteer their own citizens personal information to a department of the federal government that has made their intentions clear is beyond my comprehension. (DHS)

A: According to Mark Lerner (whose article and explicit information was contained in my email to the Governor as well as verification of his “credentials”) the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has made their intentions clear.  They want the personal information of Americans either through direct electronic access or indirect access. I appreciate that currently the "federal government" has much of our personal information already.  The fact is "that information" is spread out over many departments and agencies of the federal government.  DHS wants a more centralized system and thus we have witnessed the Real ID Act 2005 and now the PASS ID Act.

Because the standards for both Real ID and PASS ID are the adopted standards of two international organizations, AAMVA and the ICAO, the driver's license would become not simply a national ID but more accurately an international ID.  International standards are only used to facilitate global information sharing. 

B: Mr. Lerner states in his email to Representative Burges, and I quote; “Reasonable suspicion is the lowest threshold possible.  It does not equate to probable cause.  I do understand that individuals are not detained indefinitely.  That being said the fact is citizens of the United States are protected against "searches" without warrants.  I do understand that there may not be Constitutional issues in so far as the courts have ruled but that does not make it right.  There was a time in this country that we were presumed to be innocent.  Further, it was said years back when FREEDOM meant something that we would rather let 9 guilty people go then convict one innocent person.  I will agree that the illegal alien/undocumented worker problem must be addressed.  I do not see the logic in going back to the same people (federal government) that caused the problem and asking them to help be a part of the solution.” 

3.  The information below comes from  a February 2006 GCN (Government Computer News) article in which an agent of DHS, named Robert Mocny  states:

A: "Mocny conceded that each of the 10 privacy laws currently in effect in the United States has an exemption clause for national-security purposes. He added that the department only resorts to its essentially unlimited authority under those clauses when officials decide that there are compelling reasons to do so."

B: In a 2007 article with the same publication Mocny stated "We're starting the process of biometrifying [sic] a good proportion of the world population."  Robert Mocny also stated that "information sharing is appropriate around the world, and DHS plans to create a "Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations."

C: Robert Mocny of the same DHS that has stated nearly all Americans are potentially domestic terrorists.  Under Real ID, the Secretary of DHS is given the authority in the "Official Purposes" section to add restrictions at his or hers own discretion.  Real ID currently restricts entrance to a federal facility, flying on a commercial airliner or entering a nuclear facility.  Tomorrow we could see restrictions on purchasing weapons, ammunition or even prescription drugs.  This kind of unfettered authority is unacceptable.  In Mocny's statement we see that DHS can decide when to ignore our privacy laws.  He never mentions consulting with Congress or even the President for that matter. It also seems apparent that they obviously bypass Congress as well – not that law abiding citizens have any protections from congress in the first place!

D: SB1070 is enabling DHS and worse yet feeding it's addiction for the personal information of citizens.  Domicile information is not the business of DHS. 

In closing I would like to say that I feel Mr. Lerner has proposed viable solutions to what you are attempting to accomplish. His proposal for digitizing birth certificates as well as starting the numbering system with a two digit state code is a common sense approach to nationwide security because,  One a birth certificate is presented to acquire a driver's license or other form of identification the birth certificate number would go into a databases as active.  If anyone else attempted to use that same numbered birth certificate the "system" would show that birth certificate had been used previously to obtain an ID document or driver's license.  At that point it would be very simple to determine if someone was attempting use another person's birth certificate or if a person was using a birth certificate that was not in the "system". 

Mr. Lerner continues by stating:

 Finally know that the SSN database is riddled with errors with estimates running as high as 13 million.  Admittedly most are not serious errors but that being said there is a problem with E-Verify identifies those in our country illegally less than 50% of the time correctly.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/27458614/Final-E-Verify-Report-12-16-09-2  This preceding link is of a report DHS sponsored. 

The following comes from an AP story:
“The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can't detect identity fraud, Westat said.”

Representative Burges I ask that you not support SB1070.  The issue is not whether SB1070 creates a national ID.  The issue is are states going to provide DHS with enough information about each of us that it, DHS will have a centralized database with our personal information in it. 

Sincerely,

Mark Lerner  Co-Founder of the Constitutional Alliance, an organization comprised of state lawmakers, state and national groups/organizations and private citizens.
http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/

In other words, if I may state my view more simplistically regarding SB1070 – I think Mr. Lerner is correct in his assessment. “If you cannot do it right in the first place, don’t do it at all”.

Thank you for emailing me for clarification.  I hope I have contributed to your better understanding of my point of view.

Paul Frankfurter

Cc: Governor Brewer

I agree there are several important issues concerning why this bill is a bad piece of legislation.  However, I believe that most people have not realized the main, and most important issue.

There is specific language in this bill to that allows our various local and state agencies to volunteer information to federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. This is the same Federal Agency that, under the Patriot Act can snatch you off the street and hold you indefinitely , without due process.

Below I will paste the specific area of the Pearce Bill that should have been addressed to ensure the protection of our personal information from getting into the hands of Homeland Security. Homeland Security's ultimate goal is to have an accurate of every citizen and the GIS location of their residences in a national database. The majority of people in this country are law abiding citizens who are trying their best to survive the graft and corruption of our Federal Government.  

Despite repeated correspondence with our Representatives and Senators in Phoenix stating the "specific" wording of the Pearce Bill that most be changed to protect we the people, our legislator ignored our requests and believed Pearce's propaganda that stated that he had fixed that portion of the proposed bill.  At this point one has to wonder what Senator Pearce's true agenda really is.  Below I will paste the specific lines in the legislation that intentionally, because they do not explicitly prohibit it, the ability for sharing our personal information with Homeland Security. The bill is an embarrassing
piece of legislation to be sure, but honest citizens also need to be ever vigilant in keeping their personal information from getting into the hands of federal authorities.

1.  The specific area of the Pearce Bill, as I have enclosed several times is as follows:

F.  (In SB1070 it is subsection E.) Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1.  Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2.  Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

3.  Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

2.   SB1070 does not create a national ID card but it does embolden the federal government. States should not and must not depend or rely on the federal government when the states themselves can go a long way towards resolving the issue of citizenship.  There would be times when the federal government might be needed but first every state has a responsibility to only involve the federal government when all other means have been exhausted. Why a state would offer up or volunteer their own citizens personal information to a department of the federal government that has made their intentions clear is beyond my comprehension. (DHS)

A: According to Mark Lerner (whose article and explicit information was contained in my email to the Governor as well as verification of his “credentials”) the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has made their intentions clear.  They want the personal information of Americans either through direct electronic access or indirect access. I appreciate that currently the "federal government" has much of our personal information already.  The fact is "that information" is spread out over many departments and agencies of the federal government.  DHS wants a more centralized system and thus we have witnessed the Real ID Act 2005 and now the PASS ID Act.

Because the standards for both Real ID and PASS ID are the adopted standards of two international organizations, AAMVA and the ICAO, the driver's license would become not simply a national ID but more accurately an international ID.  International standards are only used to facilitate global information sharing. 

B: Mr. Lerner states in his email to Representative Burges, and I quote; “Reasonable suspicion is the lowest threshold possible.  It does not equate to probable cause.  I do understand that individuals are not detained indefinitely.  That being said the fact is citizens of the United States are protected against "searches" without warrants.  I do understand that there may not be Constitutional issues in so far as the courts have ruled but that does not make it right.  There was a time in this country that we were presumed to be innocent.  Further, it was said years back when FREEDOM meant something that we would rather let 9 guilty people go then convict one innocent person.  I will agree that the illegal alien/undocumented worker problem must be addressed.  I do not see the logic in going back to the same people (federal government) that caused the problem and asking them to help be a part of the solution.” 

3.  The information below comes from  a February 2006 GCN (Government Computer News) article in which an agent of DHS, named Robert Mocny  states:

A: "Mocny conceded that each of the 10 privacy laws currently in effect in the United States has an exemption clause for national-security purposes. He added that the department only resorts to its essentially unlimited authority under those clauses when officials decide that there are compelling reasons to do so."

B: In a 2007 article with the same publication Mocny stated "We're starting the process of biometrifying [sic] a good proportion of the world population."  Robert Mocny also stated that "information sharing is appropriate around the world, and DHS plans to create a "Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations."

C: Robert Mocny of the same DHS that has stated nearly all Americans are potentially domestic terrorists.  Under Real ID, the Secretary of DHS is given the authority in the "Official Purposes" section to add restrictions at his or hers own discretion.  Real ID currently restricts entrance to a federal facility, flying on a commercial airliner or entering a nuclear facility.  Tomorrow we could see restrictions on purchasing weapons, ammunition or even prescription drugs.  This kind of unfettered authority is unacceptable.  In Mocny's statement we see that DHS can decide when to ignore our privacy laws.  He never mentions consulting with Congress or even the President for that matter. It also seems apparent that they obviously bypass Congress as well – not that law abiding citizens have any protections from congress in the first place!

D: SB1070 is enabling DHS and worse yet feeding it's addiction for the personal information of citizens.  Domicile information is not the business of DHS. 

In closing I would like to say that I feel Mr. Lerner has proposed viable solutions to what you are attempting to accomplish. His proposal for digitizing birth certificates as well as starting the numbering system with a two digit state code is a common sense approach to nationwide security because,  One a birth certificate is presented to acquire a driver's license or other form of identification the birth certificate number would go into a databases as active.  If anyone else attempted to use that same numbered birth certificate the "system" would show that birth certificate had been used previously to obtain an ID document or driver's license.  At that point it would be very simple to determine if someone was attempting use another person's birth certificate or if a person was using a birth certificate that was not in the "system". 

Mr. Lerner continues by stating:

 Finally know that the SSN database is riddled with errors with estimates running as high as 13 million.  Admittedly most are not serious errors but that being said there is a problem with E-Verify identifies those in our country illegally less than 50% of the time correctly.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/27458614/Final-E-Verify-Report-12-16-09-2  This preceding link is of a report DHS sponsored. 

The following comes from an AP story:
“The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can't detect identity fraud, Westat said.”

Representative Burges I ask that you not support SB1070.  The issue is not whether SB1070 creates a national ID.  The issue is are states going to provide DHS with enough information about each of us that it, DHS will have a centralized database with our personal information in it. 

Sincerely,

Mark Lerner  Co-Founder of the Constitutional Alliance, an organization comprised of state lawmakers, state and national groups/organizations and private citizens.
http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/

In other words, if I may state my view more simplistically regarding SB1070 – I think Mr. Lerner is correct in his assessment. “If you cannot do it right in the first place, don’t do it at all”.

Thank you for emailing me for clarification.  I hope I have contributed to your better understanding of my point of view.

Paul Frankfurter

Cc: Governor Brewer

This is a terrible law.

In this country when a police officer suspects a crime his evidence is submitted to his superiors, then to a prosecutor. At this time the suspect does not have to  defend himself or give any testimony or even show ID (5th amendment). The prosecutor then presents the evidence to the Grand Jury, yet another check and balance the people have toward the government gone wild. Still the suspect/accused does not have to supply any testimony or evidence. The if the charges appear to be reasonable the case goes back for prosecution and perhaps before a Judge and Jury. At trial the Prosecutor presents evidence. If the accused thinks it is in his best interest he may provide defending evidence if he likes. But he does NOT have to do so.
   This new law bypasses all that. It makes the police officer into a Prosecutor,  Grand Jury,Judge and Jury AND still requires you, stopped while walking on the street, to present evidence to defend yourself. If that is not unconstitutional then I don't know what is anymore!!

These low life invaders Abandoned their own country..what good will such people do for America?.NADA!!

If they won`t fight for their own country,why do they think they can come here and Take ours?

I know our elected leaders are making it easy for these cowards to prevail...I wonder why,when their own families will also suffer the consequences.

I gotta say Ernie, you got assigned the most non-innovative and boring troll of them all so far. At least my troll posted things you MIGHT just believe came from me. My troll at least had a nuance of literary pizazz.

I'm sorry but I'll PAY for better trolls than this. I'll offer troll workshops and classes to help them improve.

Sometimes I think Frosty is trolling us but that really sets the standard for what a Freedoms Phoenix troll should be. Freedoms Phoenix trollery should be publishable literary works in their own right.

The bar is quite high for authors and trolls alike.

I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO LEAVE, I'M ASKING YOU TO PUT SOME EFFORT INTO IT AND AT LEAST ACT LIKE YOU CARE. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. This is your work product. Show some freaking pride in craftsmanship for the love of God. You only have on life to troll in so troll like you mean it and not like some slob who sits on his couch all day.

now if only new mexico would do the same thing we cant handle all of this trash here

even the governor is trash along with his wetback family send them all packing with obama on the life saver in the amazon river as well more the  merrier scum suckers we can do with out even the bottom feeding carp that they are

gee the govt cant do anything right in the first place would you let them protect your wife and children no way they are so irresponsible that is why the state should control and run the wetbacks or illegals out no green cards allowed either 

now maybe we can go look at the phony balony president legal standing as a foreign wetback who should be given the bums rush out of our country and given a life saver

to swim in the amazon river gee that would attract alot of attention for the parranyah

they like a nice stinky morsel of raw what ever it is!

Somebody was posting as me a few days ago but I think they figured out I'm not a good target. I was having too much fun with it. Oyate has been a shared persona in the past so it didn't seem all that abnormal. Just in the past there was a certain degree of collusion among the Oyates. So I wasn't sure if it was malicoius or somebody pulling my leg as I'm known to do to others.

Temper, without quoting source, this violates our right to be free of warrantless searches and siezures (an arrest is the siezure of your liberty, so hold the courts), to be secure in our persons and our PAPERS (please!), this has violated at least one real live person's right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law (the term here means more than being "processed" into a correctional facity), it takes the whole concept of "probable cause" and throws it out the window and if being of a certain colour is "reasonable suspicion" in and of itself we might as well just start up the internment camps of WWII.

I see this as being contrary to the letter, the spirit and the intent of our founding documents. The three great tests. I don't see how it can be construed (or applied) otherwise.

We would have never had this problem if the FEDS had done their job. Problem is, where is ever the accountability of those we elect that go to DC?  I am fed up with those in DC that constantly have no Vision! NONE! Remember Eisenhower sent back all those illegals in the 50's? Why is it so hard for those who call themselves Americans to not see that anyone that comes into this country illegally are breaking the law! HELLO!!! Lets just say those communist and socialist are the domestic enemies of our Country sprewing out double speak words to get away with not obeying the law. If we were only a white nation I doubt big time we would be having the race issues we are having today. Those that hate this country are the ones that create their own brand of rights the Constitution never intended for them to make up! Example: Freedom of Religion. Never in my life have I seen the most blatant twisted words of those that say freedom of religion means all religion? Give me a break. Our founding fathers only had one God and not Allah or any other make up god. I don't care how those others will attack me on this because its their Ideology against mine and mine is what the true American Culture is about. Its about what we are as Americans first in name especially, not a secondary name like black American, white American, Mexican American. We are Americans First! 

Ahhhhh, Ernest Hancock said What? :)

I have the webmasters tracking down the.... perpetrator. I guess we are doing something right :)

Someone has been posting unappropriate racial comments on Freedom's Phoenix purporting to be Ernest Hancock. While we try to keep this site open to all for the purpose of having a free press, some chose to use it to misguide others. Ernest Hancock is not posting these comments, and we apologize to all who were exposed to such a falsehood. All you have to do is look at the articles and listen to Ernest's radio shows ('Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock') archived on this site to know that Ernest has ALWAYS stood up for the smallest minority, the individual.

We have addressed this issue with our webmaster and will block further attempts from this person to post additional comments using Ernest Hancock's name.

I read many who claim the new AZ immigration law is unconstitutional.  Really?  What, specifically, is unconstitutional about it?

And, I've noticed that the same people who complain about the racists possibilities of the law are themselves the  most bigoted.  

This new law in Arizona is Unconstitutional Period. Yes, the whole thing is a mass. More chaos will result just the way those that rule us want it. Divide and conquer is the strategy. Patriots in Arizona and nation wide should be a little smarter. While they cherish their constitutional rights and demand they be respected, don't seem to mind that legitimate American citizens(of brown skin) rights will certainly be violated. Arizona will soon burn down in more ways than one, terrific! Illegal immigration is a problem no doubt, but who caused it? Our government did, both parties are guilty period. I am a Hispanic citizen of this country who fought in Desert Storm one. I don't want to be racially profiled so I am leaving Arizona as soon as possible. The illegals were already leaving Arizona because of the stinking economy. It was something like 18% that have left. So why do this Arizona politicians and certain ego-maniac individuals champion this detestable law. Because they are in it, to bring down this state and the whole nation. Terrific more police powers in the name of controlling illegal immigration. Don't we all fear a police state already. If they really, really, care to fix this problem and send a message to the Federal Government, the governor of AZ should have declared Arizona to be an Independent Republic and demand our Arizonians serving in the military out of this state be immediately returned so they can seal the border and take care of Arizona. That would have sent a message to the Feds and to the world. America is broken, yes, who broke it, the immigrants, no. It was THOSE who stole trillions upon trillions and trillions of dollars. How stupid can we be, are we really going to take this new bait so that America is destroyed. We must be united, by respecting and supporting each others God given freedoms and gifts. If brown skin people will have to show papers on demand what makes makes white skin people thinkthat they will not eventually have to as well. Has anybody heard yet that they have been trying to give us all a National ID. (Papers Please).