Let's get this straight about this illegal immigration bill in Arizona: As I said earlier, the bill clearly states that law enforcement can only ask a person about their immigration status in the course of a lawful encounter and upon reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. Randomly pulling people over would be a violation of the new law and the left knows this but they keep telling the same lie over and over.

A blogger, Greg Patterson, dispels a few more myths that the ObamaMedia continues to spread:

The broad anti-immigrant bill passed by the Legislature this week makes it a crime to be in the country illegal:

Wrong. It's already a crime to be in the country illegally. SB 1070 made it a STATE crime by copying the federal language. This makes a huge difference because opponents used Dionne's quote to say that Arizona was adopting its own immigration policy as well as criminalizing being in the country illegally. Both of those assumptions are wrong.

The need to carry proper 'papers' falls squarely on Arizona's Latino population -- including those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State.

Wrong--and frankly outrageous. Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law doesn't apply to "those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State" because they are obviously citizens. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship one of which is a Driver's License. There is no needfor citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport. Once again, if you read the explanation in Sunday's Republic, you will see how incorrect the editorial is.

The bill invites racial profiling and ignores the fact that Latinos are an intrinsic part of Arizona's history and its future.

Wrong. Actually, the bill prohibits racial profiling by saying that race can only be considered to the "extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." And under no circumstances can the officer "solely" consider race, color or national origin. (He can "consider" race as a factor just like he can under federal and Arizona law now.) Sunday's version doesn't even address this point because the bill makes it so clear that racial profiling is NOT allowed that it wasn't even worth a mention--that's because there's no change in the law. Racial profiling was not allowed before the bill and it's not allowed after the bill.

Now Attorney General Eric Holder says that the federal government may challenge Arizona's new immigration law. My response? Bring it on. The Heritage Foundation argues that there is a constitutional case to be made for Arizona:

"Under the Tenth Amendment which preserves the traditional police powers of the states to control their own jurisdictions ... The Heritage Foundation has advocated for extensive innovation at the lowest levels of government in terms of immigration enforcement. A 2009 report of Matt Mayer highlights how "state and local governments must [and can] do more" to do something about the illegal immigration problem - a conclusion that came from a series of THF roundtables aimed at talking to state and local officials about pressing public policy problems."