News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Anyone avoiding Arizona?

Started by golden eagle, April 28, 2010, 12:26:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

golden eagle

Will any of you road enthusiasts be avoiding Arizona due to the new law that requires persons in the state to prove their citizenship by showing proper documentation upon request? Some groups, as well as the congressman representing Tucson and the Mexican government, have called for boycotting the state. I don't have any personal connections (business or personal) with the state that would call for me to go there anytime soon, so me not being there isn't necessarily for the sake of boycotting.


corco

Nope- a large number of service workers in Arizona are Latinos. When I go to Arizona, the money I spend is usually in the service sector. Why would I boycott the Latino-populated service industry? That doesn't seem to help them out at all.

agentsteel53

the law has already been on the books for the federal government for years.  It's been unconstitutional from day 1 (a Soviet-style "your papers, please") but it's enforced regularly in the internal checkpoints along the border.

so now they're turning I-40 into I-8.  Ho, hum.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

mightyace

I have some apprehension about because it sounds a bit authoritarian.

However, if you are a citizen or otherwise in this country legitimately, I don't think proving it is an unreasonable request.  But, first, there needs to be 'probable cause.'  I don't think you should be able to stop someone just because the "look like a Mexican" or set up roadblocks to "check papers."

So, no I wouldn't avoid it.

But, we do need to start enforcing the laws against illegal presence that are constitutional.

EDIT:
If you're here legally, I don't care if your Latino, Chinese, purple, blue or pink.

But, it must be legally!
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

golden eagle

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 12:31:50 AM
the law has already been on the books for the federal government for years.  It's been unconstitutional from day 1 (a Soviet-style "your papers, please") but it's enforced regularly in the internal checkpoints along the border.

so now they're turning I-40 into I-8.  Ho, hum.

I road the Greyhound bus from California to Mississippi and remember going through a checkpoint in Arizona and another one in Texas. I didn't even know there were such checkpoints up until then. Since everyone was checked, I didn't have a problem with that.

agentsteel53

I've always thought it a bit inhuman to discriminate against someone based on where they happened to first play peek-a-boo.  Not like anyone has much of a choice over that ...

so in principle I'm going to be opposed to the border patrol.  Especially if they set up inland checkpoints, which to me seems a violation of the 4th amendment.  Checkpoints at the actual border crossing seem fairly iffy to me too.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

Quote from: golden eagle on April 28, 2010, 12:26:08 AMWill any of you road enthusiasts be avoiding Arizona due to the new law that requires persons in the state to prove their citizenship by showing proper documentation upon request?

In short, no.  I have relatives who live in Arizona and Arizona DOT is one of my major sources of signing plans, so a boycott along the lines suggested is not really practical for me.  I am, however, strongly opposed to the new law.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 12:31:50 AMthe law has already been on the books for the federal government for years.  It's been unconstitutional from day 1 (a Soviet-style "your papers, please") but it's enforced regularly in the internal checkpoints along the border.

I dislike internal Border Patrol checkpoints, but the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation regarding their constitutionality.  The Supreme Court has upheld checkpoints of all kinds, ranging from Border Patrol checkpoints (the constitutional basis for which comes from Congress' enumerated powers to provide for the national defense and to promulgate an uniform naturalization law) to sobriety checkpoints (which are an exercise of the general police power reserved to states).  Moreover, the Supreme Court has upheld Terry stops, which allow a LEO to stop you essentially on whim as long as the stop is brief and ends when no probable cause has been established for further search.

You do not actually need to be able to prove your citizenship at a Border Patrol checkpoint, so it is not a "your papers, please" affair in the European sense, i.e. where you actually become liable to criminal prosecution simply for not having your papers on your person.  All you have to do is to state your nationality and then it is the responsibility of the Border Patrol officer to find other evidence, subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions on search, that you are somehow violating the immigration law.  I do carry my passport in the glove compartment when I am travelling in border states (not just Arizona), but that is more as a quick way of settling arguments than because I think it is genuinely necessary.

Border Patrol checkpoints are less severe than the internal Customs checkpoints in Mexico.  For those you have to have actual proof of nationality, douaniers in general have very broad powers of search and seizure (no requirement for probable cause even by Mexican legal standards), and the documentation you have to have in hand is quite extensive.  If you are driving your own car, for example, you need passport or other citizenship proof, FMT-3, and temporary vehicle import certificate.  Internal Customs checkpoints are additional to other checkpoints run by the PGR, state judicial police, and the Mexican army, which are procedurally similar to state police checkpoints in the US.

I dislike checkpoints in general but the jurisprudence in this country just does not favor their absolute elimination.  I am just happy that the majority of the US, with the new exception of Arizona, no longer operates the types of checkpoints described in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.  There is a passage in there where the Joad family enters Arizona en route to California and have to stop at a checkpoint where a state highway patrol officer makes sure that they are just passing through and not planning to stay in Arizona.  That is an unconstitutional restriction on the right of free movement which is also patently unjust.  The new law is almost a revival of this practice.

Quoteso now they're turning I-40 into I-8.  Ho, hum.

No, I think it is worse.  I haven't actually read the bill that has been signed into law, but my understanding from press reports is that its probable unconstitutionality results from the requirement for citizens to carry actual proof of citizenship with them.  This means that checkpoints operated under this law will actually be more restrictive than Border Patrol checkpoints.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Dougtone

I won't be avoiding Arizona, but I don't make it there often.  However, when I went to Arizona in January, I brought my passport with me just in case I decided to visit Mexico while I was out there.  I usually bring my passport with me when I visit Buffalo for a similar reason, since there is always a possibility that I may visit Canada.

realjd

There's an inland border border control checkpoint between San Diego and Los Angeles on I-5. I've always been waved through - as horrible as it sounds, I figure it's because I'm not hispanic or driving a vehicle that looks like it's loaded with drugs. I imagine that the same thing would happen for me in Arizona. I fell really bad for all the legal immigrants and hispanic citizens in AZ though. They're essentially going to have to carry a passport/green card just to go to the store.

shoptb1

#9
Papiere bitte!  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsO1KwF64Ow

This is not what I want to see the United States become, and therefore I oppose this legislation in practice & principle, and I definitely don't want to see it spread.

But to answer the question, I wasn't planning a trip to Arizona in the future anyway, so I can't say that my travel plans will be changed as a result of the recent legislation.  I will, however, keep this in mind when making future plans to send the appropriate 'middle-finger-message' to those lawmakers that felt it necessary to step on everyone's rights in the interest of state control/xenophobia.  For some reason, it seems that people always listen more effectively when it hits their pocketbook.




usends

I notice most of you who have contributed to this thread live a long way from the Mexican border.  So I'm curious: do you feel that you have an adequate grasp on the situation with illegal immigration in border states?  Or the role of Mexico in the narcotics trade?  I'm sure lawmakers in Arizona are no more and no less reasonable than lawmakers elsewhere in the US.  I imagine the situation must be pretty desperate if they felt they had to resort to such a drastic law.  Arizona is on the front lines of a battle that most people do not understand, because they have not yet been impacted by the consequences.  But I think the situation in Mexico is a huge problem that will increasingly affect those of us in the US, and I don't see any easy solutions... partly because of the role we in the US play in the narcotics trade.
usends.com - US highway endpoints, photos, maps, and history

shoptb1

Quote from: usends on April 28, 2010, 09:44:52 AM
I notice most of you who have contributed to this thread live a long way from the Mexican border.  So I'm curious: do you feel that you have an adequate grasp on the situation with illegal immigration in border states?  Or the role of Mexico in the narcotics trade?  I'm sure lawmakers in Arizona are no more and no less reasonable than lawmakers elsewhere in the US.  I imagine the situation must be pretty desperate if they felt they had to resort to such a drastic law.  Arizona is on the front lines of a battle that most people do not understand, because they have not yet been impacted by the consequences.  But I think the situation in Mexico is a huge problem that will increasingly affect those of us in the US, and I don't see any easy solutions... partly because of the role we in the US play in the narcotics trade.

The problem, in my opinion, is that the rest of the United States that borders Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, and California) has built fencing along the border.  My understanding is that Arizona has not.  This creates a physical funnel to the Arizona border for those wishing to easily "jump the fence".  Instead of sacrificing liberties and turning this into a police-state, how about just completing the fence?  Sorry, I just don't think there's any excuse for the legislation that has been enacted.


golden eagle


vdeane

Especially since internal checkpoints have been shown to be ineffective.  Their only purpose is to turn the US into a police state.  But until the majority of people realize this, nothing can be done to stop it (the same probably applies to the TSA).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

agentsteel53

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 05:35:19 AM
You do not actually need to be able to prove your citizenship at a Border Patrol checkpoint, so it is not a "your papers, please" affair in the European sense, i.e. where you actually become liable to criminal prosecution simply for not having your papers on your person.  All you have to do is to state your nationality and then it is the responsibility of the Border Patrol officer to find other evidence, subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions on search, that you are somehow violating the immigration law.  I do carry my passport in the glove compartment when I am travelling in border states (not just Arizona), but that is more as a quick way of settling arguments than because I think it is genuinely necessary.

given that I'm a Hungarian citizen with a green card, either I flat-out lie when asked my citizenship, or I am immediately required to show my papers.  Since the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies to everyone in the US, not just citizens (Boumediene v. Bush, etc) then my fourth amendment rights are being violated.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

as for the Mexican checkpoints being much harsher, well, that's neither here nor there.  I figure "when in Rome..." and therefore am not bothered by their checkpoints. 

I do not know how constitutional they are according to Mexican law, but that's my fault for not doing the research.  I'm figuring their constitution allows them just fine.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

#16
Quote from: shoptb1 on April 28, 2010, 10:02:53 AM
The problem, in my opinion, is that the rest of the United States that borders Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, and California) has built fencing along the border.  My understanding is that Arizona has not.  This creates a physical funnel to the Arizona border for those wishing to easily "jump the fence".  Instead of sacrificing liberties and turning this into a police-state, how about just completing the fence?  Sorry, I just don't think there's any excuse for the legislation that has been enacted.


is a fence not enough of an indication of a police state?

I'm of the persuasion that if someone lives in a place, obeys their laws, pays their taxes, etc ... it should not matter if they arrived pre- or post-birth.

(now as for illegals in the US that do not pay their taxes, I put them in the same category of trash as American citizens who do not pay their taxes - but I do wonder how they manage to sign up for welfare, a driver's license, etc ... without a couple of basic checks going through.  If we're going to become a police state, the least we can do is poke around people's backgrounds effectively.)
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

Quote from: usends on April 28, 2010, 09:44:52 AM
Or the role of Mexico in the narcotics trade?

which gives rise to the question "what's wrong with narcotics in the first place?"  Yes, they can kill you.  Well, life is 100% fatal in the end ... people shouldn't have their personal responsibilities dictated to them.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

shoptb1

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:06:58 AM
is a fence not enough of an indication of a police state?

I'm of the persuasion that if someone lives in a place, obeys their laws, pays their taxes, etc ... it should not matter if they arrived pre- or post-birth.

(now as for illegals in the US that do not pay their taxes, I put them in the same category of trash as American citizens who do not pay their taxes - but I do wonder how they manage to sign up for welfare, a driver's license, etc ... without a couple of basic checks going through.  If we're going to become a police state, the least we can do is poke around people's backgrounds effectively.)

Jake -- not going to disagree with you there, but to me, the construction of the fence is a foregone thing of the past for 75% of the states involved, so my point is only to state that I would much prefer that the first option be completing that endeavor (since I can't reverse it in Texas, New Mexico, or California) instead of enacting some 4th Amendment violating legislation prior to doing so.   I would much prefer if the stupid fence was taken down altogether, but that's apparently not happening.  But since my tax dollars were used to construct said fence....I just don't think that there's any point in the fence if there's a big gaping hole in it.   :-D

J N Winkler

Quote from: usends on April 28, 2010, 09:44:52 AMI notice most of you who have contributed to this thread live a long way from the Mexican border.  So I'm curious: do you feel that you have an adequate grasp on the situation with illegal immigration in border states?  Or the role of Mexico in the narcotics trade?

Speaking for myself:  yes and yes.  I have been following this issue for a number of years and have supplemented my reading in the news media with a couple of books.  I am aware, for example, that on a per capita basis Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the Western Hemisphere.  Even in Kansas the inward migrant flow has brought about noticeable social changes, such as the conversion of inner-city Catholic parishes from majority white (generally German descent) to Hispanic.  Like many states a significant distance away from the border, Kansas has relatively liberal policies toward migrants of uncertain immigration status (such as tuition fees at the in-state rate), but a backlash has become evident in measures such as the recent adoption of English as an official language (which is designed to discourage state agencies from providing official materials in Spanish except as required by overriding federal legislation such as the Voting Rights Act).

QuoteI'm sure lawmakers in Arizona are no more and no less reasonable than lawmakers elsewhere in the US.

This is true but there is less to it than meets the eye.  Rational choice is rational choice, yes, but the choices a rational actor makes will depend on the specific circumstances, including institutional structure and availability of information.  There is also the ever-present question of whether elected politicians are maximizing social utility or their own electoral advantage.

Arizona has had long-standing racial problems--SB 1070 is just the latest in a long list of incidents which includes non-observance of MLK Day, election of Evan Mecham as governor ("I've got black friends. I employ black people. I don't employ them because they are black; I employ them because they are the best people who applied for the cotton-picking job"), Proposition 200 in 2004, etc.

Arizona is a snowbird state with a significant transient population.  As a result, the voters as a body have little institutional memory and it is easy for opportunistic crazies to get a turn at the wheel, especially if they have a cadre of committed supporters (usually quite conservative--quite a high proportion of born-in-Arizona residents are Mormon, and the state has traditionally been hospitable territory for Birchers) and promise tax cuts.  This is essentially how Mecham got elected in 1986.

Arizona tends to have high taxes because its super-rapid growth and desert location make it necessary to spend heavily to provide the infrastructure required to support an ordinary American standard of living.  Therefore, most political battles in Arizona are indirectly about taxes.  The forerunner of SB 1070 was Proposition 200, which was very similar in that it tried to link provision of public services (as well as certain networked services provided by private entities, like utilities) to proof of citizenship.  A "here today, gone tomorrow" electorate has little invested in the community, less of a sense of community to begin with, and tends to be unresponsive to moral imperatives because it tends to think it has the option of leaving before the consequences of bad decisions arrive.  This breeds myopic thinking--people support citizenship verification for basic public services as a way of cutting spending and thus taxes, not realizing that even illegal immigrants contribute to state GDP, let alone considering the moral debt society owes to those who have benefited the economy despite being present illegally.

Because it is so easy to elect crazy politicians, and because the electorate considers itself footloose, the persistent pattern in Arizona politics (going back well before the current mess) is to promulgate a really extremist policy, wait and see what the blowback is in terms of boycotts, economic sanctions, adverse court rulings, etc., and row back as required.

QuoteI imagine the situation must be pretty desperate if they felt they had to resort to such a drastic law.  Arizona is on the front lines of a battle that most people do not understand, because they have not yet been impacted by the consequences.

Looked at in terms of the underlying secular trends, the situation is not more desperate now (in 2010) than it was in 2008, 2004, or the late 1990's when the Clinton administration's intensification of border enforcement in California and Texas shifted the illegal crossings to the inland desert.  Moreover, Arizona is not the only state with a desert border which has seen a significant increase in crossing traffic since the Clinton-era enforcement changes.  New Mexico has had similar problems with illegal immigrants crossing through the desert and a few years ago increases in the number of people crossing prompted the governors of both Arizona and New Mexico to declare states of emergency.

The huge difference is that New Mexico, unlike Arizona, has had a stable population with a minimal number of snowbirds and transients, a stable power structure, institutional memory within the electorate, etc.  Extremist policies of the kind seen in Arizona never get traction in New Mexico even though, if you accepted the justifications for those policies at face value, you would have to argue that they are just as necessary in New Mexico as in Arizona.  (Yeah, yeah, you could argue that since the power structure in NM favors Hispanics, policies that penalize the brothers and sisters south of the border will never get adopted--but if that is so, why don't you hear about the usual Anglo coalitions lobbying for them anyway?)

Therefore, I reject absolutely the claim that SB 1070 is the result of policymakers sitting down soberly to weigh the net costs and benefits of illegal immigration and devising measures of control which obtain the greatest benefit for the least cost of intervention.  It is, instead, the result of opportunistic policymakers trying to exploit a local flashpoint (the death of the rancher last March), and it is comparable in this respect to the health-care nullification measures being considered in other Republican-dominated state legislatures which have not been fortunate enough to receive such a gift from God.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

J N Winkler

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:03:53 AMgiven that I'm a Hungarian citizen with a green card, either I flat-out lie when asked my citizenship, or I am immediately required to show my papers.  Since the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies to everyone in the US, not just citizens (Boumediene v. Bush, etc) then my fourth amendment rights are being violated.

I freely admit I don't know what USC Title 8 has to say about foreign citizens on US soil, but in your case I think the honest admission that you are not a US citizen is adequate cause to justify a demand for you to show your papers that is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment.  Now, if you lied and said you were a US citizen, they would not be able to require you to show your papers, and they would not be able to search you or detain you to verify your citizenship status unless there were some other reason to believe you were not an US citizen which could be cited as probable cause.  Similarly, if I drive up and say I am a US citizen, they have to let me go unless they have probable cause to believe I am lying.

The experiment I would really like to try is to daub walnut oil all over my skin, run black shoe polish through my hair and beard, put on sombrero and serape, and drive through a Border Patrol checkpoint and say, "Sí, estoy un ciudadano de los Estados Unidos de América" in a really thick Tabasco accent.  I assume they would want to double-check I was not an illegal immigrant but I am not sure where they would get the probable cause for further search without racial profiling, which I think is probably both illegal and unconstitutional.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

J N Winkler

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:05:53 AMas for the Mexican checkpoints being much harsher, well, that's neither here nor there.  I figure "when in Rome..." and therefore am not bothered by their checkpoints.

It is relevant.  Think about it.  "When in Rome . . ." applies to the US just as it does to Mexico.  If you don't object to the way they do things down in Mexico, why are you objecting to the way we do it in the US?  It can't be because one side of the border has a greater surfeit of self-congratulation or hypocrisy than the other.  Mexicans are very proud of their human-rights record!

I usually insert a mention of Mexican internal frontier controls into discussions like this as a way of keeping matters in perspective.  The point has already been made that it is easy for people living away from the border to have uninformed opinions about what things are really like at the border, and that observation is even more true about the Mexican side of the border than it is about the American side of it.  Americans who visit the border zone tend to be outraged the very first time they pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint--"What is this Soviet-style restriction on free movement doing here?" was my reaction when I went through the semi-permanent one at I-10 MP 118 near Columbus, NM--but the reality is that the controls we have now are less severe than they used to be during the Depression, when state police agencies got in on the act and tried to impose entirely illegal and unconstitutional restraints on free movement.  Moreover, as a country we have chosen to impose a difficult crossing at the border itself in order to avoid massively inconveniencing domestic-to-domestic traffic at internal frontier checkpoints.  In Mexico, and in Latin America in general, the reverse tends to be the norm--the border area tends to be a free-travel zone while the check at the Km 30 internal frontier is tight.

The underlying point is that there is an Anglo-American way of doing things, and there is a separate Latin American way of doing things which is in some ways more bureaucratic, more legalistic, more closely attuned to patron/client relationships, and more susceptible to corruption.  For a variety of historical and institutional reasons, it is unequipped to support freedom of movement either as a basic human right or as a fundamental economic freedom.  So while I dislike Border Patrol checkpoints, I think our system in its totality serves our needs and our conception of human rights better than a clone of the Latin American system for managing cross-border flows.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

realjd

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2010, 11:06:58 AM
(now as for illegals in the US that do not pay their taxes, I put them in the same category of trash as American citizens who do not pay their taxes - but I do wonder how they manage to sign up for welfare, a driver's license, etc ... without a couple of basic checks going through.  If we're going to become a police state, the least we can do is poke around people's backgrounds effectively.)

For what it's worth, a large number of illegal immigrants DO pay taxes, even those paid in cash who don't have automatic withholding: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

In fact, a number of them overpay taxes because they're afraid to file a return and get a refund.

I'm not saying that I agree with illegal immigration (and I don't think a fence on our southern border is unreasonable), but I also have a hard time being upset with someone who comes here, works hard to provide for his or her family, and even files taxes even though there would be no ramifications for not doing so. It's the system I hate, not the people themselves.

Now the narcotics smuggling, that's some scary stuff, and one of the reasons why I'm OK with the fence. I think we should make it easier for the regular folks to come and make a living, but at the same time make it harder for the criminals to enter. I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on who enters and leaves the country. Once they're in though, they shouldn't have to worry about being hassled by the cops simply because they left their ID at home.

I'm with you on legalizing the drugs, or at least changing the way we approach it as a nation. We've lost the war on drugs. Lets legalize it, regulate it, and start treating drug addiction the same way we do alcohol and nicotine addiction - a public health issue, not a criminal issue. It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves. I think that doing this would go a long way to reducing the violent crime, both here and in Mexico.

Where I live, the largest group of immigrants is from Puerto Rico. I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever I hear one of the idiots around here referring to "those damn illegal Puerto Ricans."

J N Winkler

Quote from: realjd on April 28, 2010, 12:33:04 PMWhere I live, the largest group of immigrants is from Puerto Rico. I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever I hear one of the idiots around here referring to "those damn illegal Puerto Ricans."

Have you considered saying something along the lines of, "These Puerto Ricans are full US citizens just like you and me?"  Not your responsibility to help them out of their ignorance, of course, but evil requires only that good people do nothing . . .
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

mgk920

#24
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2010, 12:54:38 PM
Quote from: realjd on April 28, 2010, 12:33:04 PMWhere I live, the largest group of immigrants is from Puerto Rico. I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever I hear one of the idiots around here referring to "those damn illegal Puerto Ricans."

Have you considered saying something along the lines of, "These Puerto Ricans are full US citizens just like you and me?"  Not your responsibility to help them out of their ignorance, of course, but evil requires only that good people do nothing . . .

Agreed, Puerto Rico is a part of the USA (a territory that is on a statehood track) and Puerto Ricans are FULL USA citizens with the right to freely travel and live throughout the rest of the USA.  You also have the right to freely travel to Puerto Rico with no more hassles than with any other domestic destination.

As for the Mexican border, I would favor a 100% reciprocity WRT to travel, commerce and migration between Mexico and the USA - the exact same laws applying in both directions.  Also, I strongly favor repealing the Drug War™ - as with the 18th Amendment 80 years ago, it is the *ONLY* thing that will stop the extreme violence that is threatening to bring down Mexico's government (Can you say 'unfriendly junta', 'USA military action to deal with it' and 'refugees by the tens of millions'???  Mexico's current population is in the 105M-110M range).

Mike



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.