AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

[Spang]

Discuss.

[Aslanna]

Perhaps you should post details or perhaps a link that outlines things so we know what we're discussing!

[Winnow]

I hope the snowbirds stay away from Arizona in protest over this! They drive like shit!

If Obama would secure our borders we wouldn't have to get all medieval.

There's less border patrol agents along the entire Mexican border than there are cops in New York City. (it's a long border for you euros that might not realize it)

[Fairweather Pure]

Maybe residents of Mexican origin should wear some type of symbol on the sleeve of their shirt or perhaps a small tattoo on their forearm to help identify them as legal?

[Spang]

Perhaps you should post details or perhaps a link that outlines things so we know what we're discussing!

As you wish.

[Xatrei]

As you wish.

Does this really mean that you love Aslanna?

[Jice Virago]

And here I thought that they would have learned their lesson from the MLK day fiasco a while back.....

I am not exactly shocked. Whitey is losing control to the rapidly growing brown demographics and this is just the latest in a long line of voter caging tactics that the people behind this bill have been involved in. Plus (and this is purely annecdotal), nearly everyone I know from AZ is either racist or a massive douche, whether they happen to be white or not.

[Xatrei]

...
If Obama would secure our borders we wouldn't have to get all medieval.
...

If only a large block of anti-immigrant Republicans hadn't cock-blocked Bush's immigration reform efforts.

[Spang]

As you wish.

Does this really mean that you love Aslanna?

I don't love Aslanna, I just love Aslanna's panda style.

[Boogahz]

Part of me thinks that this was passed with no intent to enforce it. Basically something dumb to draw attention to issues that need to be addressed at a higher level.

[Winnow]

Part of me thinks that this was passed with no intent to enforce it. Basically something dumb to draw attention to issues that need to be addressed at a higher level.

It parallels federal law. People are just getting whiny about it because Arizona had the nads to do something about it and make it known that Obama has not interest in securing our borders.

If only a large block of anti-immigrant Republicans hadn't cock-blocked Bush's immigration reform efforts.

What's that have to do with Obama in the present?

[Canelek]

Maybe residents of Mexican origin should wear some type of symbol on the sleeve of their shirt or perhaps a small tattoo on their forearm to help identify them as legal?

Sounds pretty much right...

Doesn't Sun Devil Stadium come equipped with plenty of shower facilities?

[Winnow]

If AZ and TX ever formed an unholy alliance and shut off the illegal flow of lawn cutters, the rest of you people would have a very hard time finding someone to blow the leaves off your lawn or push around that wheelbarrow of cement for your back porch patio project that you don't want to pay top dollar for.

You cheapskates!

...and don't think you'll be able to just find some Irish immigrant to do the work for you instead!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Illegal does not equal Mexican. This is NOT just a hispanic problem and the hispanic community viewing it as such is retarded. We may get more Mexicans coming illegally than from other countries, but this issue stretches way past Mexicans.

Should they stop someone just because they appear to be hispanic? Probably not.
Should they immediately stop someone that speaks no English? Absolutely. It is a requirement that you can speak English before you can become a citizen. If you are merely here on a work visa, then expect to be stopped as part of your employment.

My belief is that our military and national guard should be used as a border patrol on both borders. All of our military bases should be moved to those borders and part of the training of every recruit should be working those borders. There is absolutely nothing wrong with removing anyone here illegally and forcing them to go through the proper process. This is not a ban on anyone coming to this country...it is attempts to remove the people who have no regards for the laws of this country.

[Zaelath]

So in the country that thought random breath tests were invasive, we're getting random SATs?

[Bubba Grizz]

My brother-in-law lives in AZ. He told us that the border towns are pretty much owned by the drug lords. Is this true Winnow?

Illegal is illegal regardless of country of origin. Damn Canadians have been invading our country for years taking jobs from all of us US Americans.

[Jice Virago]

The Tea Bagger hypocracy on this issue is so thick its ridiculous. You are against overwhelming government power and invasiveness, yet here is a "law" that requires law enforcement officers to spend time racial profiling (not that Sherrif Joe wasn't already doing that most of the time), requires people to carry papers (hello Nazi Police State), and if they do not have documentation on them at the time they can face up to a half a year in jail? So you are at the beach and you have to have the papers while you are swimming?

And lets call a spade a spade here. This immigration thing is almost EXCLUSIVELY aimed at latinos. There isn't an epidemic of fucking Canadians invading Arizona that people want contained. I don't see the midwesterners clamouring to build walls to keep out the Canadians, either. Its beaner bashing, plain and simple. The reasons for it are not as obvious. It has nothing to do with actual imigration reform (which would involve attacking the rich fuckers making money off the cheap labor), but instead is a last ditch effort to keep the legal latinos from achieving political power in (n)AZ(i). Its voter caging and its something the proponents of this bill have been involved in for years.

[Boogahz]

So you are at the beach and you have to have the papers while you are swimming?

Um, if you're at a beach in Arizona, you're doing something wrong.

[Funkmasterr]

So you are at the beach and you have to have the papers while you are swimming?

Um, if you're at a beach in Arizona, you're doing something wrong.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The Tea Bagger hypocracy on this issue is so thick its ridiculous. You are against overwhelming government power and invasiveness, yet here is a "law" that requires law enforcement officers to spend time racial profiling (not that Sherrif Joe wasn't already doing that most of the time), requires people to carry papers (hello Nazi Police State), and if they do not have documentation on them at the time they can face up to a half a year in jail? So you are at the beach and you have to have the papers while you are swimming?

And lets call a spade a spade here. This immigration thing is almost EXCLUSIVELY aimed at latinos. There isn't an epidemic of fucking Canadians invading Arizona that people want contained. I don't see the midwesterners clamouring to build walls to keep out the Canadians, either. Its beaner bashing, plain and simple. The reasons for it are not as obvious. It has nothing to do with actual imigration reform (which would involve attacking the rich fuckers making money off the cheap labor), but instead is a last ditch effort to keep the legal latinos from achieving political power in (n)AZ(i). Its voter caging and its something the proponents of this bill have been involved in for years.

You are full of shit. The Mexican government and the hispanic community is labeling it as such. The midwest has as much of an issue with illegal Africans and Asians as it does with Mexicans.

[masteen]

I have come to be of the opinion that if you are anywhere without some form of official picture ID, then odds are you are doing something wrong. I don't think the 4th means freedom from identifying yourself to a LEO.

[Syenye]

I have come to be of the opinion that if you are anywhere without some form of official picture ID, then odds are you are doing something wrong. I don't think the 4th means freedom from identifying yourself to a LEO.

I was denied a driver's license renewal because I didn't have my INS papers. Apparently my old driver's license and US Passport weren't enough to prove citizenship. It really sucks to be treated like shit for not being white.

Edit: I should note that I don't live in Arizona. I live in Oklahoma, where people hate women more than minorities.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Edit: I should note that I don't live in Arizona. I live in Oklahoma, where people hate women more than minorities.

that is because women are a menace to the roadways

[Psyloche]

Edit: I should note that I don't live in Arizona. I live in Oklahoma, where people hate women more than minorities.

that is because Asians are a menace to the roadways

[Winnow]

It's not a racial thing. If people from Mexico were blond haired, blue eyed aryans and hated Apple, I still wouldn't want them coming across the border illegally, causing trouble and selling drugs.

[Canelek]

You mean like the Mexicans?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

well the mexican drug cartels are one huge reason to get some real border security....but the anti-Illegal immigration bill is aiming to remove felons. I seriously doubt police are going to stop every single person they see to ask for papers, but it will have them checking any time they might have any other interactions with someone....especially if they "no comprende engles"


side note....a good friend of mine is a manager for a very large food processing plant up here. They hire tons of Africans and Asians through temp agencies or just flat hire them in. They are not required to run real checks on people and he would lay large sums of cash down that more than half the people they employ are illegal with fake credentials. Another plant not too long ago was busted by INS for having something like 200+ illegal immigrants there....which they rounded up and then put down the fine hammer on the plant.

[*~*stragi*~*]

the law is a waste of time and is designed for a few very simple reasons that emotional idiots can't seem to grasp.

1. jan brewer is fucking stupid but really wants to be elected. she has to be more racist and bigoted than joe arpio if she hopes to win the racist old people vote
2. to piss off the fed and make them do something

that's it. it's not racist/bigoted/unconsitutional because it's doing nothing that existing federal laws don't already do.

they can't pull you over for just being mexican, this bill isn't suddenly going to allow that. if it happens, and i'm sure it does, it already happens today. literally all this does now is make it legal for cops, if they want to, to detain you if you cannot prove you are a legal resident. guess how they do that? ask for your drivers license like every single cop in the country does already when they stop you.

and i doubt they are going to enforce it unless they are already racial profiling pieces of crap because

1. more paperwork
2. this state is fucking broke and they don't want to enforce it anyway which brings me back to the first #2 i put above.

so really, this bill isn't going to change much but it sure has set off a lot of crying over nothing.

[*~*stragi*~*]

dbl ur post dbl ur racist stragi u fucker

[*~*stragi*~*]

Maybe residents of Mexican origin should wear some type of symbol on the sleeve of their shirt or perhaps a small tattoo on their forearm to help identify them as legal?

face
palm

[masteen]

Much like the war on drugs, this issue cannot be solved unless we remove the demand for the product. Unlike the drug issue, that doesn't involve rewiring human desire, simply enforcing existing labor laws. But that would involve stomping on the profits of Wal-Mart and making racist white assholes raise their domestics above the poverty level, so it's never going to happen.

[Ashur]

drugs r bad, m'kay?

[Sueven]

It parallels federal law.

This is not true. It is true that federal law requires legal immigrants to carry documentation, and this law extends that requirement to state law. In that sense, it "parallels" federal law. However, it goes well beyond federal law in several ways, but I'll focus here on just two:

1. There are not a lot of federal law enforcement officers relative to the number of state law enforcement officers, and functionally, most people deal exclusively with state law enforcement. This law, by extending paper-check authority to state officers, drastically changes the practical consequences of the legal requirement. This is a difference in consequence, not technical legal requirement, but it is a very meaningful one for the day to day lives of real people.

2. This law goes well beyond federal law in several respects. For one, it requires law enforcement to check the papers of anyone they have "reasonable cause" to believe to be illegal. Federal law allows this, and the difference between "required" and "allowed" is pretty substantial, legally. For another, it permits individual citizens to sue any government entity that they feel is not enforcing immigration law to the full limits of the possible. This is an incredibly strong provision of law. Any individual anti-immigrant extremist who so pleases can file suit against local government entities-- including small, understaffed and underfunded entities, including police departments-- to force them to enforce the law more vigorously. In addition, the law provides for harsh financial penalties for any entity that loses a suit. Federal law provides for no similar private enforcement.

it's not racist/bigoted/unconsitutional because it's doing nothing that existing federal laws don't already do.

As stated above, the idea that it does nothing different than existing federal law is incorrect. In addition, the locus of a law's passage-- state versus federal-- has consequences on its constitutionality. Authority over immigration resides in the United States Congress (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). This does not mean that states may not legislate regarding immigration, but it does mean that states cannot pass legislation that contravenes federal immigration policy. So, if Arizona's law is found to conflict with federal law, then it is unconstitutional, even if the same law would be constitutional on a federal level. This, of course, is only one of several arguments against the constitutionality of the law.

and i doubt they are going to enforce it unless they are already racial profiling pieces of crap because

1. more paperwork
2. this state is fucking broke and they don't want to enforce it anyway which brings me back to the first #2 i put above.

If the law ever takes effect, this is simply not true, for the reasons I stated in response to Winnow above. To reiterate-- the law REQUIRES law enforcement to enforce the law, and it specifically provides a method of ensuring that enforcement is strong by authorizing citizen suits against noncompliant government entities. Don't like your government being broke? Well, get fucking used to it, because wasted law enforcement resources on enforcing this law and on defending against lawsuits from people who don't think that enough brown people are getting harassed are about to eat up even more of your budget, unless this law is stopped from going into effect.

Illegal does not equal Mexican. This is NOT just a hispanic problem and the hispanic community viewing it as such is retarded.

I'll grant you that this (with "this" meaning "figuring out how to manage immigration in the United States") is not just a hispanic problem, although it's largely a hispanic problem. But, I've got to say, going on about illegal Africans in the midwest is pretty fucking irrelevant to this law in Arizona. This is aimed largely at hispanic immigrants, it will be used to target largely hispanic immigrants, and its impact will be felt largely in the hispanic community. To argue otherwise is to be willfully blind.

Should they immediately stop someone that speaks no English? Absolutely. It is a requirement that you can speak English before you can become a citizen. If you are merely here on a work visa, then expect to be stopped as part of your employment.

Absolutely not. Believe it or not, you don't have to speak English to lawfully reside in the United States, or even to be a citizen. It's true that you need to know English to be naturalized, but guess what-- there are plenty of citizens who never learn English, and they're still citizens. There are plenty of legal residents-- here on work visas and otherwise-- who don't speak English. We have no official language, much as that fact might chap the asses of conservatives. The only reason that not knowing English would justify checking someone's papers is because someone who doesn't speak English is statistically more likely to be an illegal immigrant than someone who does speak English. But guess what-- someone who is hispanic is statistically more likely to be an illegal immigrant than someone who is white. Coincidentally, someone who doesn't speak English (especially if they instead speak Spanish) is statistically pretty likely to be hispanic. So, unless you want to argue for racial profiling, you need to find some other grounds for "reasonable cause."

If Obama would secure our borders we wouldn't have to get all medieval.

There is some truth to this, and to what Boogahz and others have said-- in part, this highlights the need for federal action on immigration. Your attempt to cast it in partisan terms is, as you know, retarded. Our last two Presidents-- the current Democrat and the former Republican-- have both supported immigration reform, and have both urged its passage in Congress. Both parties are split on immigration. A majority of Democratic politicians support reform, with a substantial minority opposed. A majority of Republican politicians oppose reform, with a substantial minority in favor. It's a cross-partisan issue. Obama wants immigration reform, and so does Harry Reid, although there are legitimate questions about whether they're willing to actually fight for it. But to pretend that it's all the fault of the Democrats is silly. Lindsey Graham-- formerly a supporter of both climate change legislation and comprehensive immigration reform-- is now demanding that immigration reform be killed as a precondition for him to not filibuster his own climate bill. His reasons are a bit bewildering-- it's impossible to get both done (not true if you vote for them, Lindsey), doing immigration will stoke partisan tensions (and?), and others. Or he's just trying to protect his buddy John McCain, by preventing him from voting against the immigration reform he's been in favor of for decades in order to pander to the right to win his primary (possible, but no evidence whatsoever). Other Republicans, like John Boehner, have admitted the necessity of comprehensive immigration reform, but say that they won't do it because partisan tensions are too high (seriously, this makes no sense). Both sides are not acting entirely in good faith on the federal reform issue. To see how complicated the partisan dynamics are, witness:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36383.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36457.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36501.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36520.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36558.html

Anyway, the broad outline of what's necessary in reform are clear: Provide a clear, simple, and doable pathway to citizenship or legal residency for those who are here (and are not felons, etc), while simultaneously securing the borders (via fence? troops? resources for border patrol?) There is plenty of room for negotiation about the specifics-- who should get to be on the pathway to citizenship, and how long should that path be? How do we go about securing the border? And people disagree on these specifics. But, the thing to do is to throw it open for debate and let those chips fall where they may through the political process. Democrats would love to do that right now, because they have a big numbers advantage in Congress. Republicans would love to wait for later, because they will have a better numbers situation after the midterms. The numbers have a big impact on what the final compromise will look like. That's it. That's the lay of the land. It's really pretty simple.

[Spang]

Apparently, Arizona's new anti-immigration law was racist and unconstitutional.

Ariz. gov signs immigration revision

PHOENIX - Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state's sweeping law against illegal immigration — changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.

The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The follow-on bill signed by Brewer makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

Court challenges remain
Stephen Montoya, a Phoenix lawyer representing a police officer whose lawsuit was one of three filed Thursday to challenge the law, said the changes wouldn't derail the lawsuit because the state is still unconstitutionally trying to regulate immigration, a federal responsibility.

Montoya said the strengthened restriction on factoring race and ethnicity makes enforcement "potentially less discriminatory" but that the local-law provision is troubling because it broadens when the law could be used.

Both the law and the changes to it will take effect July 29 unless blocked by a court or referendum filing.

Lawmakers approved the follow-on bill several hours before ending their 2010 session.

The sponsor, Sen. Russell Pearce, unveiled the changes at a House-Senate conference committee Thursday. He later said the revisions would not change how the law is implemented but provide clarifications on intent and to make the bill more defensible in court.

"There will be no profiling," Pearce, R-Mesa, said in an interview.

Pearce said the change from the "contact" wording doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed.

"You have to have a real legitimate reason based on some violation or some suspicious activity based on some legitimate reason. It cannot be just on how you look."

Racial profiling concerns
There was little debate by lawmakers when the bill was considered, but Democrats opposed to the law criticized the new bill, too.

Rep. Ben Miranda, an attorney who is helping representing a group of Latino clergy who are behind one of three lawsuits filed Thursday to challenge the law, said the Republican-led Legislature's approach to illegal immigration is misguided.

"All parts of Arizona cry out for law enforcement that is reasonable and directed at the most serious crimes that we have in the community," the Phoenix Democrat said Thursday night. "The racial profiling element is real."

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said the new wording regarding local civil ordinances could spur complaints of racial profiling based on complaints about cars parked on lawns and debris in yards.

Organizers of two referendum campaigns challenging the original law have said they will adjust their filings to reflect new provisions added by the Legislature.

Filing of referendum petitions by July 29 would put implementation of the legislation on hold pending a vote. That vote would either be in November or in 2012, depending largely on when the petitions are filed.

[Winnow]

Spang's gearing up for college! The word count is going up! (ref: Sueven, 4 years ago, Nick 2 years ago)

[Sueven]

4 years ago I was a college graduate.

[Winnow]

4 years ago I was a college graduate.

You're a special case due to your additional pursuit of being a jurisconsultus and Bolshevik fetish.

[Spang]

SB1070 is still unconstitutional.

[Spang]

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

From what I can see, the bill is basically only copying the federal law and making it state law. Illegal immigrants are not covered by the Constitution. There is nothing that gives them any rights here when they have not had any reason to be here.

this from another forum:

Well, looking at this situation from a legal alien standpoint, I have to admit, that in my wallet, I have my US drivers license and CCW permit (woo!) along side my LPR (Legal Permanent Resident (green-card) card) which currently has on it...*gets it out to look*...

My alien number
my thumb print
a small hologrammatic picture on the back, thats a copy of the colour picture on the front
My country of Origin (UK)
Date I entered into the US.

If someone emigrates here to the US, they must all have this LPR card, and either carry it, or a copy of it, where ever they go. It is a part of the "laws" if you want to put it that way, of being a Legal Permanent Resident. At any point, during a legal encounter (terry stop, ICE raid ( ) etc etc, I can be called upon by a member of law enforcement (not had that yet!) or a member of either DHS or ICE, to provide this document. I have yet to produce the card, as I've always got my drivers license, and I'm polite and I SPEAK ENGLISH!! But should I have to produce it I know I'm in the clear as its always on me. In fact, I'm damn proud of having this card. I'm proud to be a member of the USA's community. If the bloody process wasn't so expensive, I would have gotten my US citizenship a while ago.

But I digress...

If a member of another country wants to emigrate to the US, then they need to do it bloody legally. It took me a year to get here from the UK. All that while, my missus was here, and I was there. It sucked. But I did it legally. Anyone who just wanders over the border, looking for a free meal ticket, a house, and a bunch of cash, that the US citizens and legal residents (ya know, the ones that get royally screwed in taxes!!!) provide, deserves to be looked into. If this involves randomly checking the "non-stereotypical" looking person (the ones that hang around on streets, looking really dodgy, looking for work under the table and answering you with "no hablo espanol senor" when you ask them why they are hanging around (which incidentally, can be a crime at home. It's known as "loitering with intent" Intent to do what..?? I don't know, but there we go. that's the UK's legal system for you!!)), then I'm all for it. The LPR's that are here know full well that they may have to provide the green-card at some point, therefore they should have it on them at all times, and shouldn't really get riled about being asked for it. After all, we are here on the approval of the US government (in one form or another) so should be more than happy to provide the document that states that.

Of course, those who are not here legally, at that point should start passing large bricks through their lower intestines, into their pants.

Now remember, before you start flaming me...this is the opinion from a bona fide legal alien and not a US citizen (yet), and how I view the situation, so please be gentle with me. Knowing I'm not a US citizen yet, I'm still thankful that the US constitution supports me as a legal personage. It when the illegals come along and expect the constitution to support them, and get the same treatment as I do, after I went through all the proper channels to get here, that I get miffed.

And PS...I don't send any money back home, as they get less when it converts over, because the economy is crap there too! In fact, my parents send me money sometimes!!

[Canelek]

It's not about whether someone is illegal or legal, it is about profiling. When is the last time someone from the UK was asked for identification in AZ, unless it was for a traffic stop?

[Funkmasterr]

Fuckin Touche, Mr. Mexican protester.

[Soreali]

Fuckin Touche, Mr. Mexican protester.

That made me at work

[Spang]

Illegal immigrants are better at spelling than teabaggers.

[Zaelath]

Anyone that thinks giving cops unlimited harassment powers is ok has never met more than one, or is one. The profession attracts giant children with personality traits that has historically given just about every segment of the community reason to distrust them. Everything from graft and corruption to the way the fuckers speed everywhere (like this morning a car with 4 cops in front of me at the lights peeled off and was 20 clicks over the limit before the next set). There were multiple involved in sexual assault cases back home when I was a kid that you never hear about outside the "youth" community. Etc, ad nauseum.

NOW, before you start, that doesn't mean they're all bad... BUT, they're not perfect enough to be given the kind of wide ranging powers we have already given them, let alone more.

[Forthe]

Make the police verify the legallity of EVERYONE and the racist issue goes away. I'm sure white legal residents will do their part and accept the risk of short stints in jail anytime they forget their papers.

Was it OK that passed a law encouraging doctors to hide birth defects from parents? Surprise!! Your baby has no brain and will die in hours or days but aren't you glad we didn't tell you?

I'm not sure if it is the recession or the black guy in the white house but the US is showcasing it's crazy in a big way these days.

[Zaelath]

Make the police verify the legallity of EVERYONE and the racist issue goes away. I'm sure white legal residents will do their part and accept the risk of short stints in jail anytime they forget their papers.

That would be a 4th ammendment issue, and no, I don't think any legal resident that got jail time for failing to produce his papers would accept it at all.

[Sueven]

Aaaaand the Suns are officially my (second) favorite basketball team.

PHOENIX -- The Phoenix Suns will wear "Los Suns" on their jerseys in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals on Wednesday night, owner Robert Sarver said, "to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation."

The decision to wear the jerseys on the Cinco de Mayo holiday stems from a law passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer that has drawn widespread criticism from Latino organizations and civil rights groups that say it could lead to racial profiling of Hispanics.

Sarver came up with the "Los Suns" jersey idea but left it up to the players for the final decision, Suns guard Steve Nash said, and all of them were for it.

"I think it's fantastic," Nash said after Tuesday's practice. "I think the law is very misguided. I think it's, unfortunately, to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties. I think it's very important for us to stand up for things we believe in. As a team and as an organization, we have a lot of love and support for all of our fans. The league is very multicultural. We have players from all over the world, and our Latino community here is very strong and important to us."

I'm against it, you know, I think that this is a bill that, you know, really damages our civil liberties, I think it opens up the potential for racial profiling and racism, I think that's a bad precedent to set for our young people, I think it represents our poorly, in the nation and the world, I think we have a lot of great attributes here and I think it's something we can do without.

San Antonio becomes number 3:

San Antonio coach Gregg Popovich said his team was interested in taking part but couldn't get new "Los Spurs" road jerseys in time for the game.

"It's a wonderful idea," Popovich said. "because it kind of shows what we all should be about. Sure there needs to be a lot of work done, obviously. A lot of administrations have done nothing about the immigration deal and now everybody's paying the price, especially a lot of people in Arizona. That's a bad thing, but the reaction is important, too, and this reaction [the Arizona law], I believe with Mr. Sarver, is inappropriate."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... id=5162380

[Keverian FireCry]

That's beautiful.

[Boogahz]

dunno, but I think it is a bad publicity stunt. You would think that he would at least have the sense to find out what the name of the team would actually BE in Spanish. It is like the idiots who think that adding "o" on the end of the word automatically translates into Spanish. If he were getting jerseys that said Los Soles, I might view it differently.