Read the Arizona law before you complain about it |

Read the Arizona law before you complain about it

In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld by 9-0 in Muehler vs. Mena, “We have held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure. Florida v Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage. Bostick, supra, at 434-435 (citations omitted). Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.”

Arizona’s 15-page law takes less than an hour to read and holds their officers to a much stricter standard. “Reasonable suspicion” must first be suspected before holding an individual. Those of you complaining about Arizona’s law need to look at the more lenient federal law before condemning Arizona.

Thanks to AG Eric Holder, HMS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and President Obama for not reading the Arizona law, distorting the facts, and for not being aware of the federal law. I guess we should also thank the Democrats in the U.S. Congress who stood up and applauded the president of Mexico when he denounced the Arizona law. Anybody read Mexico’s draconian immigration law recently?

The Democrats’ actions were disgusting to applaud a foreign dignitary and not support Arizona to the rest of the world despite their disagreement. Instead they played partisan politics. I guess Congress will only “protect and defend” the other 49 states as long as you agree with them.

Papers, please.

Ken Anderson

Hot Sulphur Springs

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.