April 26, 2010 11:26 PM

Thousands Rally against Ariz. Immigration Law

(CBS/AP)  Updated 9:01 p.m. ET

Civil rights activists called on President Barack Obama to fight a tough new Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants Sunday, promising to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply if the measure goes into effect.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona told about 3,500 protesters gathered at the state Capitol that the Obama administration can help defeat the law by refusing to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police and turned over to federal immigration officers.

"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," said Grijalva, a Democrat.

Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. It requires police to question people about their immigration status - including asking for identification - if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Opponents say it would undoubtedly lead to racial profiling, because officers would be more likely to ask people who look Hispanic.

Discomfort over the law was also expressed as well at some Sunday religious services.

"I'm not in the place to where I would root out those who are in the country without documentation and hand that over to the authorities," said Rev. John Flowers, co-pastor of First United Methodist Church.

A controversial sheriff well known for his tough policies says the new law is exactly what's needed, and he is prepared to act, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says his department has arrested some 38,000 illegal immigrants in the past three years and the new law will give him the tools to step up his efforts to combat the flood coming across Arizona's border with Mexico.

"I will arrest the people that are here under that new misdemeanor law and book them into our jails," Arpaio said.

But Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon says many supporters of the law are not just misguided, they are racist.

"It's just morally wrong," he told Blackstone. "This country is not about having people wear arm bands with Jewish stars or in this case Hispanic brown symbols," Gordon said. He also called the law "clearly unconstitutional."

Supporters have dismissed concerns of racial profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law Friday, has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion someone is in the U.S. illegally.

Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.

The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. It also allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws.

Arizona officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking Sunday in New York, said that just as freedom riders battled segregation in the 1960s, he would organize "freedom walkers" to challenge the Arizona law.

"We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest," Sharpton said.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon's office said in a statement Saturday that "the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law" and "the criminalization of migration, far from contributing to collaboration and cooperation between Mexico and the state of Arizona, represents an obstacle to solving the shared problems of the border region."

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.

© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 93 Comments
by govmess April 27, 2010 3:53 PM EDT
CBS...shame on you spending the time to report on a protest of thousands when you refuse to report on the TEA PARTY protests of tens of thousands. Of course, this little protest in Arizona required the riot police to show up...never has there been riot police at the TP protests. This whole issue is so lame. I'm white and when I'm pulled over, I'm asked for my ID...I don't object to this even if I wasn't doing anything wrong...my grandmother has to do it too...so why shouldn't everyone. Why is this considered racial profiling. All the police have to do is keep track of those they ask the question of and keep track of it so the stats show it isn't racial profiling and then they will still be able to catch all the illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place. Go...Go Go, Arizona. What you are doing is so right. Hope other states follow through.
Reply to this comment
by zoltaric2009 April 26, 2010 3:51 PM EDT
Why does it seem that so many white people are so racist.

In America they hate Latinos and blacks. In England, France, Denmark, Netherlands etc. they hate Pakistanis.

You never hear this type of racism in non-white majority countries.

Just an observation. Strange.
Reply to this comment
by isanyonefair April 26, 2010 4:49 PM EDT
"so many" or just a few? "racist", hate, dislike, fear, or maybe just uncomfortable around. I suspect there are many shades of gray.


Mike and the Mechanics :-) :
Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door

I know that I`m a prisoner
To all my Father held so dear
I know that I`m a hostage
To all his hopes and fears
...


And the "never hear" bit about non-white countries. Seriously?
Rawanda? Darfur? Bosnia? India? Pakistan? Afganistan?

I'm sure if the entire world were Muslim the Shia & Sunni's would be killing each other.

Hate will exist as long as humans breathe. Hopefully so will Hope & Change.
by isanyonefair April 26, 2010 11:27 AM EDT
This law and the people that are supporting are totally misguided.

The immigration problem and the "war" against drugs are very similar. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. For both problems the root cause is Americans. The ones doing drugs and the ones hiring illegal aliens.

And yet, each time the attempt is control the supply!!!! Why??? This strategy has been shown to repeatedly fail. Prohibition being the most glaring example.

Correct approach to controlling the illegal immigration issue is to enact laws to punish those that employ illegal aliens.

Common sense isn't easy to come by these days. People prefer instant gratification instead of responsibility.

Consider the amount of money has been spent on the "War on Drugs". Money well spent?

I wonder how much money the "War on Illegals" will cost Arizona? Money well spent? They're going to find out. Probably going to come out of the education budget. Seems everything tends to come out of that lately.
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 April 26, 2010 11:02 AM EDT
larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:48 AM EDT
I am white and I used the term "Anglo." Are the word police going to come and get me?

Word police have nothing to do with it but your choice of terminology seems to indicate you are not what you profess to be.
Reply to this comment
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 11:08 AM EDT
Now you are saying I am not truthful. Happened to have majored in medieval languages and history. The word 'Anglo" happens to be very natural to me. You must be of a small mind to not believe me. Perhaps I shouldn't believe anything you say in the future. Apology requested.
by endurorob_5 April 26, 2010 11:01 AM EDT
larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:47 AM EDT
Wonder why you asked. By law you aren't allowed to. But I'll answer. I live in North Carolina. I use Buster for balance assistance, because I get very dizzy and he is trained to brace against me so I can pull up on his leash for support. He also walks right by my side on a tight leash so I don't fall.


What do you mean by law I am not allowed to ask? I am not an employer, you are not applying for a loan or any service from me. I can ask you any question I want and you can shoose to answer or not answer. Seems to me a cane would be a more sensible assistance device than a dog in your case.
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-3 April 26, 2010 11:10 AM EDT
Are you a doctor now, in addition to a highly uninformed partisan hack?

Or did Glenn Beck tell you that larrryshrine doesn't really need a dog, like he tells you everything else?
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 11:10 AM EDT
Good God, man. Tried a cane. It didn't work. So I got the dog. That worked. Get it? You know nothing about my condition, so don't presume.
by endurorob_5 April 26, 2010 10:42 AM EDT
larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:38 AM EDT
I did. With the police and with the ADA. Don't assume I didn't. You have no knowledge of that. Do you know what it feels like to be discriminated against? I am disabled, and truly have been discriminated against.


Where do you live and what is your disability?
Reply to this comment
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:47 AM EDT
Wonder why you asked. By law you aren't allowed to. But I'll answer. I live in North Carolina. I use Buster for balance assistance, because I get very dizzy and he is trained to brace against me so I can pull up on his leash for support. He also walks right by my side on a tight leash so I don't fall.
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:35 AM EDT
by drivelphobe April 26, 2010 9:43 AM EDT
You gave yourself away when you described yourself as "anglo". I believe white or caucasian is the American terminology. In this time of rampant border jumping by illegals, a request for ID and proof of legal entry is appropriate and legal. These are criminals and it is unbelievable that there is any resistance to enforcement except from the illegals themselves and perhaps some of their friends and family. Quite frankly, they don't count. Jan's law is the best thing to happen on this issue and if Hussein, Mr. Oneterm, keeps pushing the issue, he will have more egg on his face than he already has.

-----------

Actually I did refer to my self as Anglo, as in White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Anglo is a perfectly fine word, just as good as "white." Learn the language before you spout off. I am "white" by the way if that makes you feel better.
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 April 26, 2010 10:41 AM EDT
Pay attemtion to what he said. He said whites do not use the term anglo in describing themselves. Hispanics use the term anglo when refering to whites.
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:48 AM EDT
I am white and I used the term "Anglo." Are the word police going to come and get me?
by endurorob_5 April 26, 2010 10:26 AM EDT
larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:16 AM EDT
Not sure my first reply went through, so I will say it again. Become familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act. By law, the only "proof" I have to show is my service dog's vest and my word. Before you make such pronouncements learn the law. www.ada.gov is a good place to start.



Then if you believe your rights were violated why didn't you file a comnplaint?
Reply to this comment
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:38 AM EDT
I did. With the police and with the ADA. Don't assume I didn't. You have no knowledge of that. Do you know what it feels like to be discriminated against? I am disabled, and truly have been discriminated against.
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:26 AM EDT
Just for the record, I was taken to task a few moments ago because a rude, authoritative security guard kicked me out of the mall because, after he became abuse, I refused to show him "papers" concerning my service dog. (Bear with me, there is a parallel here.) I refused because it is my right to refuse under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The law there says the only "proof" I have to give is my word and the service dog's vest. I called the police. The officer sided with the guard. I went home, talked to a supervisor who said they had researched the law and I was correct. No i.d. required. The police officer came to my house and apologized. Haven't heard a word from the guard so I filed a complaint with the ADA against the mall. It will be investigated. Don't much like fascists. The mall management did get in touch with me as well and told me they were happy to have my dog there. All is well, but I almost had to go to jail to prove me point. Sorry for the long post, but I'm still a bit mad.
Reply to this comment
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:02 AM EDT
by BigMykul April 26, 2010 7:59 AM EDT
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 4:07 AM EDT
Actually, I don't "need" a drivers license in this country to prove who I am. If I am walking down the side of a road, I do not need any "papers." (Though the cops hate things like that.) We live in a free country - I think - and are not required to carry state-supplied documents. The Arizona law violates this principle. Of course, I am an Anglo, look like an Anglo, but I could be, God forbid, a Canadian.

Actually many states require that those over 18 carry identification outside their homes and must present them when requested by law enforcement.

I would appreciate it if you would tell me which states. Federal law does not require identification. Of course, we are turning into a fascist country. Last week I was kicked out of a mall and almost arrested because I refused, as I have the right to do, to show documents for my service dog. It's the same principle. Fascist security guard with an authority complex. Doesn't know a thing about the Americans with Disabilities act.
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 April 26, 2010 10:04 AM EDT
What makes you think you have the right not to show documents that allow you to take a dog into a private establishment that does not normally allow dogs? By your logic people parking in handicap parking should not be required to display a placard or special plates.
by larrryshrine April 26, 2010 10:12 AM EDT
I followed the law under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The law specifically allows me to refuse to provide "documentation." My word and the service dog's vest are proof enough. That is the law. Look it up on the ADA website before you post.
See all 93 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook