Nothing, of course.  But there are 10.8 million potential reasonsvotes why pretending otherwise is appealing to the race hustlers.

You are of course correct.  It is actually not a new law.  It is a new enforcement policy.  In otherwords, the law is already on the books - at the federal level!

Obama hates Mexicans!  That is the only logical conclusion one can reach.

Maybe we should start a recall campaign.  it is obvious that Obama is at fault (it is the enforcement of a federal law), and he is in charge of the feds.  So by extension, he hates Hispanics (racist no less).  Since everyone knows that every illegal immigrant is Hispanic right Sharpton?

Good thing being a racist is not illegal.  That is the only thing saving Sharpton and Jackson from Jail.

Why not at all!

Let's do a quick example;

When I go outside for a run, I carry no identification on me. The only thing in my pockets is my house key, end of story. Legally, an officer can not randomly acost me and throw me in jail because I can't prove I am who I say I am. At least, that's how things are in Canada.

Under the law in Arizona, if I were to go for the same leisurely jog?

Well, I'd probably be fine. Since I'm a white guy in a running outfit, the chances that a cop is going to even stop me is slim to none. However, if I were latino that would be a bad idea. And, as with all things in life, the proof is in the pudding. And that would be;

"A Latino truck driver outside Phoenix was taken into custody by law enforcement at a weigh station. He pulled in to have the truck looked at, was apparently approached by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and asked for ID. He showed them his commercial driver’s license. They asked him for more ID. He told them his social security number. They cuffed him took him to the central office in Phoenix and called his wife to bring his social security card and birth certificate. The truckdiver is identifying himself to media only as “Abdon” and he is an American citizen born in the USA.

The ICE agents said this was all just standard procedure"

http://coloradoindependent.com/52039/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate

I guess if you were running with the bag of cash you stole from a near by bank, then yes. The law clearly states that it must be "lawful" contact. I.E. there must be a reason. In the case I described, I'm sure the police would give you a lift home to get your ID. What you and most liberals want is: No ID=immunity from the law. Visitors to the US (invited and uninvited) are REQUIRED by FEDERAL law to carry ID at all times. I'm sure police are not congregating at pools and gyms, looking for illegals. About the only time I don't carry ID is when I'm doing yard work, and then it is no problem for me to open my front door to get it. Even at the beach I lock my ID in my vehicle (because it is illegal to drive without your license). If you have some statistics as to how many illegals are apprehended while jogging, or swimming (across the Rio Grande excluded) I'd be interested to see them. Until then you are just making excuses for an illegal activity.

Edit:

Your story about the truck driver is sad but it really only tells half the story doesn't it? Was the driver's behavior suspicious? Did his drivers license picture appear in good shape and  reassemble his current appearance? This information might ruin an otherwise good harassing Hispanic's story or discrimination law suit ($$$). Did the weigh station do this to every Hispanic driver that passed through that day? Or only this one? Seems to me they had reason to question this particular man's identity. Maybe if his license is beat up or his appearance has changed, he should consider acquiring another form of photo ID (available at the DMV for a nominal charge). Personally, I always carry my military ID along with my drivers license. My wife carries the same, plus her green card. My step daughter is visiting for 4 months, she is carrying her Chinese passport and US visa (both have photos)...doesn't seem that hard to do for me. Of course laziness or lack of responsibility seem to be the new norm, so maybe it's just me.

Also Arty in response to the link you provided above, it might also be fair to show the authors (John Tomasic) leanings on other articles (no surprises). They can be found here: http://coloradoindependent.com/author/johntomasic/

Seems his position is clear enough, and that's OK since he is a commentator.

Yes they can.  if there was a robbery, rape  or other crime committed, they can lock you up until you can produce documentation.  They can do it just for the hell of it on a "suspicion".  "He was drinking your honor".  In none of those cases would you be convicted of a crime, but you would be locked up.

Yes, and easier. In canada, they do not have a law that explicitly forbids racial profiling.  In Arizona they do.

You would be fine as a white guy running down the street in a black neighborhood after a reporting of a shooting by a white guy? (actually just think non-black)?  Does not seem to be the case in NYC in 2003.  But then why confuse the issue with facts?  I can come up with as many anecdotal stories as you.

Oh, and I would like to see the rest of the story.  Because my BIL was driving home and was approaching a Border patrol station when he realized he had forgotten his wallet in his hotel room.  He did a u-turn to go back to retrieve it.  needless to say, he was pulled over.  But after explaining the situation to the agents, he was allowed to go on his way with a warning (illegal u-turn). 

My BIL?  More Mexican than Vincente Fox.

Which is better odds than you have almost anywhere else in the country.  Cops can pull you and lock you up because they do not like your license plates!  They have 24 hours to come up with justification, but that does not stop them from doing so.  At least Arizona has spelled it out in black and white - in other words, you do have more rights there than you do in Canada.

Yes, given my experience and that of my family, I really do want to hear the rest of the story.  But you will never see it in print.  it is not PC.

Arty, Arty, Arty.  You are having to seriously stretch, and badly.

Non-sequitor, and an illogical one at that.

ICE stops of truckers @ weigh stations (just in case you don't know, which I doubt, truckers smuggle a shitload of drugs, not to mention humans, into this country through AZ) is hardly 'proof in the pudding' that a Latino going for a jog in Phoenix would be a 'bad idea'.

Furthermore, the law does not allow an officer to 'randomly accost' someone & 'throw them in jail' just because they 'can't prove they are who they say they are'.  That's just a load of hogwash, garbage, bullshit; whatever you want to call it, it's not the truth.

it is also a non-sequitur since the incident has nothing to do with the law.  It pre-dates the law.

The rules all change when you get behind the wheel of a comercial vehicle. Sorry dude, but even if this had happened after the law was enacted ... it wouldn't matter at all.

Actually Arty, Just John's response called my attention to something that makes your response non-nonsensical, not non-sequitur.

AZ passed a law that specifically prohibits racial profiling.  So technically the story is about nothing.  But it is more than that.  The story is about ICE, which is federal, not state (it is unaffected by any law passed by AZ).  So what this idiot John Tomasic is really saying with his article is that the AZ law is needed and necessary due to the abuses of the OBAMA regime!

Don't you love it when idiots make fools of themselves?  Even you Arty can appreciate how stupid Tomasic looks when the article is carefully read.

Sorry, was away the last couple days. I looked over most of the responses and here is the general consensus I got:

Now, this sums it up really well actually (thanks Chuck)

In my example I stated that when I go for a jog I don't carry any ID, just my house keys.

Now, the very correct assertion was made that if I happen to be passing through an area where a crime has just occurred, the police can and would detain me legally. I have no argument with this.

However, in the specific example I was using, there has been no crime. There has been no shooting, or rape, or robbery anywhere in the area. I don't even have to be going for a jog, let's say I'm walking two or three blocks away to pick up some milk from the corner store. There's quite literally nothing going on, other than the fact that I'm taking a casual stroll down the street.

The point I was going for is that under my present circumstances, a police officer -CAN NOT- just randomly stop me without reason and demand I prove my citizenship. If I'm driving a vehicle, that's a different matter. By law I'm required to have my driver's licence on me to prove that I'm not a hazard to society. Even if I do get stopped while driving and I don't have my license on me at the time (or let's say I'm a miscreant who's not actually licenced) I will end up having to pay a fine, perform community service or quite possibly do a month or two in jail. I will not, however, get deported.

Now, this law kind of turns things on it's head. You know that time honored phrase?

Innocent until proven guilty.

That's the whole basis of much of the legal system. The onus must be on the police/prosecutor to prove that you are guilty of something.

Now, however, the onus has been put on the average joe to prove that they are innocent. To prove that you belong, and you are not one of "them"

I find it really fascinating that this law is being championed by much of the right, who supposedly are against "big government" and continually chant that the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

And Chuck is also absolutely right that this is not about race. This law is about keeping the growing underclass fractured and at each other's throats by making it about race.

At the end of the day, deporting millions of the poorest and dis-advantaged folks in your country is not only outright mean, it will not fix anything. It will not fix your economy, with a real unemployment rate creeping up on 20% that is still based entirely on financialized schemes and unsustainable debt. It will not lower the crime rate or 'break' the gangs as domestic groups will simply move in to fill any vacuum (if any) is created.

It -will- polarize your nation even more than it already is, creating even more fractures between the working poor, and keeping their attentions focused on the poor schmuck who breaks his back for minimum wage or less as a criminal simply for being there, and never, ever asking the tough questions about who the REAL criminals are.... like Goldman Sachs and BP, and why what they are doing is causing far more irreparable damage to send your country down the crapper! (no offense)

Arty, you're proving that you can't read.  Or comprehend, anyway.  Then again, ignorance (not in the pejorative sense) is sometimes a choice.