Live Q&As

Thank you for the history lesson. It's something that should never happen in America again.

That question should be posed to the Tea Party crowd. They say that they see Big Government taking away our individual rights. Well, in Arizona, the government will have the right to stop you, and interrogate you, and demand to see your "papers," even if you are a born-and-bred American citizen who looks "suspiciously" like an illegal immigrant -- which means, a citizen who looks Mexican. Why isn't this a Tea Party cause celebre?

The law is racist because blond-haired, blue-eyed Arizonans won't be stopped on suspicion of being illegals. Only Latinos will be. As for the xenophobic part, I've been to Arizona to report on immigration issues and I've met a couple of the big proponents of this bill, and I stand by the characterization.

You're referring to former congressman Tom Tancredo, who I thought was as anti-immigrant as anyone could be -- but who doesn't approve of the Arizona law. All I can say is that if it's too extreme for Tancredo, that should settle the issue.

This is always one of the problems -- we can't do X until we do Y, and we can't do Y until we do Z, and that can't happen until A and B are fixed. I do not believe that any American president, from either party, is going to believe that it is in the strategic interest of the United States to build an impregnable fortress-like wall along the entire border with Mexico. So I doubt that the border will ever be totally secure. It would be more secure if there were a workable system through which Mexicans could legally immigrate, but from the point of view of someone who wants to come north, that looks hopeless. Meanwhile, we all know that there are millions of people here without documents, and we're not going to find all those people and send them home. So with the exception of the few who are criminals or otherwise undesirable, why not give them a "path to citizenship," which is what amnesty will be called? I mean, it's already the case that people who come here illegally believe they're going to be able to find a way to stay. Why would something like Kennedy/McCain make a difference?

Well, that's a good question. Illegal migrants would not come to this country unless they believed they could find work. If nobody hired them, they'd go home.

As I understand it, that was a Rasmussen poll of "likely voters" in Arizona. Rasmussen is a recognized and respected polling firm, but I have seen some blogs questioning the methodology and the relatively small sample size (around 500, apparently). I assume there will be more polling in the coming days and weeks.

Your question doesn't quite parse. I don't feel that people here illegally should be exempt from obeying the law. You are not required to carry a national identity card or any other sort of document proving that you are a citizen. There would be massive opposition to any proposal to make it mandatory for all U.S. citizens to carry i.d. documents on their person at all times. Yet some U.S. citizens in Arizona are being put in that position, because if a policeman thinks they look like they might be illegal aliens, he can challenge them to prove that they're not.

I have to admit that I laugh out loud whenever I hear Gov. Brewer say that. The whole POINT of the law is racial profiling -- detaining and questioning people who look like illegals, which means people who look Mexican.

I agree that the supply of illegal immigrant workers is chasing the demand from employers. And no, there's hasn't been a serious attempt to crack down on employers, with real consequences. I give credit to George W. Bush (!) for at least trying to come up with something -- his guest-worker idea. But it didn't fly.

I'm not the only one in Washington trying to figure out just what's up with John McCain. Is all of this to keep from getting outflanked by J.D. Hayworth on his right? But why is he even so intent on reelection, at his age and at this point in his career? If he wants to stay in the Senate because there's something specific he wants to accomplish, how can he do it while at the same time renouncing so much of what he always said he believed?

Just a quick point of clarification. I wrote that it was understandable that Arizona would try to do something -- but not that this terrible law was in any way understandable or justifiable. I really don't understand the provision about suing the police for not enforcing the law. Obviously it was inserted because most police officials -- aside from the publicity-loving sheriff, Joe Arpaio -- hate this new law and believe it will make their jobs much, much harder.

It is breathtaking how short-sighted Republicans are being. It will be very hard for the party to win national elections if it insists on driving Latinos further into the arms of the Democrats. Just when some Latino leaders were getting frustrated with the Obama administration for not moving fast enough on immigration reform, here comes this Arizona law -- and once again, the Dems, at a minimum, look like the lesser of two evils.

That would have to be accompanied by immigration reform that provided some kind of amnesty. Otherwise, employers would balk at losing valued employees.

Some opponents of the bill have already called on people not to spend their tourist dollars in Arizona. Boycotts are crude instruments, and they inflict a lot of collateral damage on innocent people. Then again, years ago, it was the threat of a tourist boycott -- and the threat of denying Arizona the Super Bowl -- that helped convince the state to reinstate its Martin Luther King Day holiday.

My time is up, folks. Thanks for participating, and see you again next week.