olle

Yes it should when taxpayers could wind up having to pay for your heart. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I don't think it's a good idea when someone can barely support themselves to then bring another person who will be dependent on their income for at least a few months. I hope everyone here who needs a co-sponsor is able to find one willing to help out. But I don't want my tax dollars to become the co-sponsor for people who weren't financially able to support themselves.

I'd love to see a Lawsuit by all 50 states against the Federal Government for failing to even attempt to secure our borders thus subjecting the State Governments to the financial burden of providing free services to all of the illegal immigrants.

I think we need to look at the real circumstances when it comes to pulling out the race card. Arizona has a HUGE problem with illegals. Last I checked, there weren't too many Asians, or African-Americans running across the border. So, to say this law is racist is total BS. If Northern states were to adopt the law, would we have Caucasian Canadians being detained for being here illegally? Or if adopted by Florida, how many Hatians would be "targets"? I dare to bet that the mix of demographics will change from state to state based on where the illegals are coming from. Based on color? Possibly, but ONLY because of where said illegals are coming from. I support this law 100%.

I look Greek though I have no Greek heritage. Walking around in Greece, no one ever suspected me of wrong-doing, but if I were held by police for some sort of disturbance in Greece, or a traffic violation, or shoplifting, etc., I would have had to prove who I was. At that point, any ID I held would indicate my residency status. What's wrong with that? I knew people who lived in Greece illegally, and they were very careful not to break any laws or get themselves in any situations where they would be asked for ID by officials. It seems like common sense to me. Do illegals in the US actually expect to be able to be ticketed for speeding without their illegal presence being discovered? That's a sad commentary on how inefficient and ineffective our law enforcement is if that's the case.
In China, I was obviously a foreigner. If I hit another bike-rider with my bike and could not produce evidence of residency, I would have been deported after paying a hefty fine, paying off my victim, or serving time in Chinese prison. (My friend, a legal resident of China, was stopped at the airport from traveling abroad during holidays because he was embroiled in such a scenario.) What's wrong with that?
The AZ law specifically states that if the police apprehend someone for another reason, and they suspect that the person is not a legal resident, they are duty bound to pursue details of that person's residency status and detain any who cannot prove legal residency. I don't see anything wrong with that EXCEPT that it should include everyone, not just suspected illegals. EVERYONE who is EVER stopped by the police should have their details checked out. I'm shocked to learn this isn't common practice.
Once their details are checked and they are discovered to be illegal residents, are we supposed to ignore current federal law? I just don't get where the problem comes in.

I don't get the outrage, either. I have to show ID all the time - at the doctor's office, writing a check, to view an apartment, to lease an apartment, to get a job, to buy alcohol, to buy a car, to get my car inspected, to rent a car, to open a bank account, to fly, to register for a class, to take my daughter out of the hospital, etc. Years ago I was pulled over for speeding. I had to show my driver's license. It took forever because the police had to call in my details and wait to find there were no bench warrants out for my arrest.
I'm amazed anyone can get anything done in this country without proper ID, and I hope to G*d that the police are verifying IDs of everyone they stop for any reason. It's due to laxness with regard to that that serial murderers and child molestors slip through the hands of the police. On the other hand, how many times do we hear of a violent criminal being caught due to a traffic violation? Should we say everyone should be inspected except those we suspect might be here illegally? Or should we say that if we find they are here illegally, we should ignore that law completely? What's the problem?
In China, I had to show my passport with my visa to sleep anywhere but in my apartment. When I had visitors spending the night in my apartment, the apartment managers/landlord, had to photocopy their passports and register their stay with the foreign police. My husband carries his passport with him everywhere here because he expects he'll be asked for it at every turn. In his country, he had to carry his national ID with him at all times, and here his passport is the equivalent until he gets his GC.
Greeks also had to carry their national IDs everywhere they went, and I was supposed to carry my passport and GC. I didn't always carry them because I didn't want them to be stolen, but I was VERY WELL AWARE that if I got into any trouble it was going to be double because I didn't have my IDs. I knew I'd eventually be bailed out because I was there legally and could prove it after the fact, but of course I knew I'd be asked to prove it if I ever got into any other trouble. You'd have to be an idiot not to know that. Again, what's the problem?

Yes.
If you're not from Arizona, try to put yourself (I am from New York) in their shoes for a minute.
US immigration law exists (in this case) to prevent people from abusing their stay in the US,
but what in effect does that mean?
The law applies to all 50 states, but it is in the largest port-of-entry states and the states bordering
Mexico where this abuse has a disproportionately negative impact on the host state because those
here illegally are benefiting from programs (health, education & welfare) that only citizens have a right
to. In health care, for example, compassion has dictated that this be made available to illegals,
but it is not a right. It greatly reduces the quality of care available to US citizens.
That to me is the main reason that Arizona sought to take this action, not because they are racist
or not politically correct or worse, both. Should such a law be enacted in every state? Not every
state may need it but they should have the option to do so. Before this law came into prominence
I never imagined a special law would be needed for police to check on immigration status, but
evidently that's the way the government thinks.

He didn't follow the law and the law won - I see no issue here.
Did she think Obama would magically wave his wand and give her husband a GC?
Procedure must be followed. The ICE agents were following procedure. (there isn't enough info in the article to see the actual timeline of this case).
If he had followed the procedures, he would not be in this mess.

Julian, you would do America and it's residents a huge favor by staying in the UK. If you insist on coming to the US, at least have the common courtesy and manners to respect the fact that you are a guest in this country, and do not offend your hosts. If you come to the US and insist on flapping your jaw the way you have been in this thread, I expect one of those fat Americans is going to punch you in the face.

Well, if I really wanted to be rude about it I would have said her fiance was acting like a spoiled brat, and throwing a tantrum over a requirement they should have known about before they submitted the petition. He seems to feel he's being treated unfairly, and I wanted to remind him that he will be treated far more fairly than many others who are also waiting for a visa, for no other reason than the country he happens to come from. He should be grateful that his visa journey will likely be relatively painless. In that light, I think the comparison is a fair one to make.
Remember when your mom used to say "You should be thankful you HAVE spinach and cauliflower. There are kids starving in China!"