While I disagree with Arizona's Legislation, I think they are correct in passing legislation about immigration in their state, because it's not a federal issue, contrary to what liberals who don't understand the definition of "invasion" within the context of the constitution will tell you.
This is what I mean about not allowing my personal views to cause someone to jump to a totally retarded conclusion about my political leanings. I'm much more of a small-government conservative than any of the liberals who argue for a reinterpretation of the constitution to give the Federal government authority over that which is expressly retained by the states because the Federal governemnt only has authority over military matters (hence the correct definition of "invasion" I alluded to earlier, matters of interstate commerce, and diplomatic issues with foreign nations.
That is it. Only the individual State has a right to decide who is a legal resident of that state.
But these hyper-liberal anti-illegal immigration types who want the federal government to have the authority over the states are the biggest problem in this country because they dishonestly refer to themselves as "small-government" conservatives when they regularly **** on small-government conservative principles.
Personally, I will support legislation even if I don't agree with it when it upholds true small-government principles.
That's why I oppose the federal government stepping in and offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. It is not their purview.
Even though I am very much in favor of simplified immigration laws, I prefer them to be instituted by the states. I support any legislation in Illinois that makes it easier for Illegal immigrants to find amnesty here. Let other states decide if they want to bar these people at their leisure, and let the federal government keep their goddamn noses out of it.