57% support Arizona law..17% want it even tougher!

[bucs90]

It could have 95% support and it would still be unconstitutional. This law has absolutely no chance in court. The Constitution is crystal clear on the issue. States have no authority to make their own immigration policies, period.

They are economic policies, not immigration policies. No hiring or renting to illegal aliens. They'll use the case of identification as justification. They'll say that due to local taxes being taken out of a business and apartment, the employee or tenant must have a valid and legal ID from one of the 50 states, or a valid and current passport. Illegals have neither. City will say they can't ensure proper tax collection without knowing who is working and living in a business and apartment.

Either that, or the Obama Admin will suffer through 2 years of hundreds of lawsuits, thus backing themselves into a corner of HAVING to act on immigration..........under a 2011/2012 Republican Congress. Obama has led his admin into a massive trap with this lawsuit. Immigration will be his final blow to a loss in 2012 b/c of the corner he's backing himself into with immigration. You can't sue a state that acted since the fed wouldn't......then as the fed refuse to act.

You're just making shit up here. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're just inventing it all on the fly. I hope doing that does a good job of making you feel better about things because it serves no other purpose. The things you just posted here have no earthly connection to the way the law works in the real world.

I was a cop for 8 years in Atlanta, 3 as a detective. I know plenty about the law and how it is applied by the "boots on the ground" and how it is argued in court. Far more than you I'm sure.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wonder how many corporations and contruction companies in AZ want illegals out?
And people have been moving out of AZ for the law few years, maybe they should try to hold on to people. Last time I checked, a business doesn't want to turn away paying customers when they are doing poorly. I have no idea why a state who is economic trouble would want to.

If illegals are so great............then why is California bitching about Arizona and making boycott threats?

Seriously. If having illegals is such a BENEFIT to society.......then California should be jumping for joy and running TV ads begging Arizona's illegal popluation to come live in California?

Can one liberal explain to me why states like Cali, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, etc, are bitching about the Arizona law when they should instead be in a recruiting war with the other states to aquire Arizona's illegal aliens, right? If they are indeed a benefit to society, then these states should be pursuing the Arizona illegals the same way NBA teams pursued Lebron James.....................right?

Hey pea brain...would you feel the same about this law, if everyone that LOOKED like this was under suspicion and could be stopped and detained???

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

Luckily this law does not allow enforcement officials to stop someone based on how they look, it actually specifically does not allow for racial profiling.

Only if a person is stopped by police due to breaking a law, other than immigation laws, and can not produce valid ID can they be asked citizenship status.

Who told you the lie that got you all fired up? I would be pissed too if I was fed that false information and believed it. Thankfully I read the actual law.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Do yourself a favor and get educated by reading the actual document so that you don't get made a fool by those online who would sell you lies.

 

[bucs90]

If illegals are so great............then why is California bitching about Arizona and making boycott threats?

Seriously. If having illegals is such a BENEFIT to society.......then California should be jumping for joy and running TV ads begging Arizona's illegal popluation to come live in California?

Can one liberal explain to me why states like Cali, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, etc, are bitching about the Arizona law when they should instead be in a recruiting war with the other states to aquire Arizona's illegal aliens, right? If they are indeed a benefit to society, then these states should be pursuing the Arizona illegals the same way NBA teams pursued Lebron James.....................right?

Hey pea brain...would you feel the same about this law, if everyone that LOOKED like this was under suspicion and could be stopped and detained???

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

Luckily this law does not allow enforcement officials to stop someone based on how they look, it actually specifically does not allow for racial profiling.

Only if a person is stopped by police due to breaking a law, other than immigation laws, and can not produce valid ID can they be asked citizenship status.

Who told you the lie that got you all fired up? I would be pissed too if I was fed that false information and believed it. Thankfully I read the actual law.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Do yourself a favor and get educated by reading the actual document so that you don't get made a fool by those online who would sell you lies.

Here is the mystery that I can't seem to figure out. The law forbids racial profiling, and it's wording does not single out any race. Yet, we keep hearing from the left about how this law will be harmful to Hispanics?

I don't understand? Does the left assume all illegal aliens are Hispanic or something? Is that why they are concerned it will affect Hispanics more, despite the law having no wording about race in it? I thought the left didn't racial profile people????

 

[The T]

They're not making policy, but bolstering Federal Policy for their own survival as a Sovereign State which has a right to defend itself.

When you enact new arrest and detention procedures you're making a policy. They are not bolstering federal policy. They are saying federal policy is insufficient and they're adding a new policy of their own. That's why they passed the law.

You're off base here. You might as well throw out the 9th And 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

See: Dual Soverignty.

Do know what an enumerated federal power is? The 9th and 10th amendments do not apply in cases involving enumerated powers which the Constitution gives to the federal government.

Technically, the law will "detain" an illegal for "criminal trespass". There IS a difference in "arrest" and "detain". A huge difference. Then AZ authorities will simply deliver the "detained" people to ICE. No illegal will face any type of immigration charge in any Arizona state or local court.

AZ is simply making it legal for AZ cops to "detain" someone suspected of being illegal (only after first being stopped for a seperate non-immigration offense), then handing them over to ICE. Before, that "detention" wasn't allowed without other charges. Now, it is. But they won't face a criminal charge from Arizona courts, thus, they aren't "enforcing" any law, but merely making "criminal trespassing" a circumstance in which a cop can "detain", not "arrest", and illegal for transfer to ICE.

It will be found legal. Cops do it all the time for "fugitive from justice" detentions when a person is wanted from another state and they "detain" them as a "fugitive from justice" (it's a circumstance, NOT a charge) to be held until they are handed over to other authority.

Thats all AZ is doing. Rhode Island has been doing it to illegal aliens for years and no lawsuit. Whats the difference in RI and AZ? None......except the lawsuit for some reason.

Interesting. A rhetorical answer is RI is a Blue State...AZ Red and a Border State...Purely political.

 

[Brubricker]

They are economic policies, not immigration policies. No hiring or renting to illegal aliens. They'll use the case of identification as justification. They'll say that due to local taxes being taken out of a business and apartment, the employee or tenant must have a valid and legal ID from one of the 50 states, or a valid and current passport. Illegals have neither. City will say they can't ensure proper tax collection without knowing who is working and living in a business and apartment.

Either that, or the Obama Admin will suffer through 2 years of hundreds of lawsuits, thus backing themselves into a corner of HAVING to act on immigration..........under a 2011/2012 Republican Congress. Obama has led his admin into a massive trap with this lawsuit. Immigration will be his final blow to a loss in 2012 b/c of the corner he's backing himself into with immigration. You can't sue a state that acted since the fed wouldn't......then as the fed refuse to act.

You're just making shit up here. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're just inventing it all on the fly. I hope doing that does a good job of making you feel better about things because it serves no other purpose. The things you just posted here have no earthly connection to the way the law works in the real world.

I was a cop for 8 years in Atlanta, 3 as a detective. I know plenty about the law and how it is applied by the "boots on the ground" and how it is argued in court. Far more than you I'm sure.

I don't care what job you held, calling Arizona's law an economic policy and NOT an immigration policy is untrue on its face. Any court would see through that spin. The law imposes immigration enforcement policy for arrest and detention. I'm surprised that your law enforcement background did not inform you that arresting someone is an enforcement function, not an economic one.

Furthermore, if you try to file a lawsuit ordering the president to change the way any law is being enforced the judge will summarily dismiss your suit on the grounds that you lack standing. No citizen can sue the president just because they're disappointed with law enforcement. If you don't like federal law enforcement policy then you air your grievances before Congress and Congress alone. That's a legal doctrine which is fundamental to the American system.

 

[The T]

Hey pea brain...would you feel the same about this law, if everyone that LOOKED like this was under suspicion and could be stopped and detained???

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

Luckily this law does not allow enforcement officials to stop someone based on how they look, it actually specifically does not allow for racial profiling.

Only if a person is stopped by police due to breaking a law, other than immigation laws, and can not produce valid ID can they be asked citizenship status.

Who told you the lie that got you all fired up? I would be pissed too if I was fed that false information and believed it. Thankfully I read the actual law.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Do yourself a favor and get educated by reading the actual document so that you don't get made a fool by those online who would sell you lies.

Here is the mystery that I can't seem to figure out. The law forbids racial profiling, and it's wording does not single out any race. Yet, we keep hearing from the left about how this law will be harmful to Hispanics?

I don't understand? Does the left assume all illegal aliens are Hispanic or something? Is that why they are concerned it will affect Hispanics more, despite the law having no wording about race in it? I thought the left didn't racial profile people????

And yet some of us are called racist for wanting to uphold the law?

One can assume whom the real 'Rascists' are...and it isn't those wishing to uphold the law.

Have any of these people ever watched just ONE episode of COPS?

What's the first thing they ask you for? And then what do they do with it?

 

[bucs90]

You're just making shit up here. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're just inventing it all on the fly. I hope doing that does a good job of making you feel better about things because it serves no other purpose. The things you just posted here have no earthly connection to the way the law works in the real world.

I was a cop for 8 years in Atlanta, 3 as a detective. I know plenty about the law and how it is applied by the "boots on the ground" and how it is argued in court. Far more than you I'm sure.

I don't care what job you held, calling Arizona's law an economic policy and NOT an immigration policy is untrue on its face. Any court would see through that spin. The law imposes immigration enforcement policy for arrest and detention. I'm surprised that your law enforcement background did not inform you that arresting someone is an enforcement function, not an economic one.

Furthermore, if you try to file a lawsuit ordering the president to change the way any law is being enforced the judge will summarily dismiss your suit on the grounds that you lack standing. No citizen can sue the president just because they're disappointed with law enforcement. If you don't like federal law enforcement policy then you air your grievances before Congress and Congress alone. That's a legal doctrine which is fundamental to the American system.

Oh, I think there was a misunderstanding. I was commenting on what I said about the Summerville, SC city law being voted on tonight that makes hiring or renting to an illegal unlawful by city law. Thought that was what you were referring to. Miscommunication, maybe on my part. I was commenting on that city's law in vote tonight with the economic/tax avenue to it.

No, AZ's law isn't economic, but it will pass legally. See, they aren't suing the president to make him enforce a law differently. They aren't suing anyone.

Arizona can't do jack squat about what happens to the illegals once ICE has them. THAT, the deportation, is solely the feds job. All AZ is doing is making it lawful for AZ cops to "detain" an illegal, who was stopped for another offense, and hand them over to ICE.

Now, they've been doing that for decades after an illegal was "arrested" for another crime. But now, lets say a simple speeding ticket is issued but you don't arrest for speeding tickets. Before, if the cop had suspicion during the traffic stop that the driver was illegal, he would just issue the ticket and let him go. Now, he can issue the un-arrestable traffic ticket, but then "detain" him to hand him over to ICE. What ICE does from there is not AZ's job or duty, thats the feds.

Again, Rhode Island has been doing this for years. Without a lawsuit. What Arizona is proposing is perfectly legal. All they did is allow for their cops to "detain" a person suspected of a federal crime and hand them over to ICE.

By the way, cops also have been "detaining" people for DECADES on suspicion of violating federal weapons charges and handing them over to the ATF. Get stopped with a fully-automatic AK47 with no license/permit for the gun? Cops will detain you and call ATF. From there, ATF does the enforcement.

Same logic here, and thats why it will pass easily in court.

 

[Brubricker]

Whats the difference in RI and AZ? None......except the lawsuit for some reason.

The difference between Rhode Island and Arizona is that Rhode Island actively sought to get approval from the Dept. of Homeland Security which says that their enforcement actions are in compliance with federal law. It's called a Memorandum of Agreement and it was granted to R.I. by DHS Secretary Napolitano. Arizona, on the other hand, has actively resisted this course of action. If they really believe their law is in compliance with federal law then why don't they go through the formal process which would give them that seal of approval?

 

[bucs90]

Luckily this law does not allow enforcement officials to stop someone based on how they look, it actually specifically does not allow for racial profiling.

Only if a person is stopped by police due to breaking a law, other than immigation laws, and can not produce valid ID can they be asked citizenship status.

Who told you the lie that got you all fired up? I would be pissed too if I was fed that false information and believed it. Thankfully I read the actual law.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Do yourself a favor and get educated by reading the actual document so that you don't get made a fool by those online who would sell you lies.

Here is the mystery that I can't seem to figure out. The law forbids racial profiling, and it's wording does not single out any race. Yet, we keep hearing from the left about how this law will be harmful to Hispanics?

I don't understand? Does the left assume all illegal aliens are Hispanic or something? Is that why they are concerned it will affect Hispanics more, despite the law having no wording about race in it? I thought the left didn't racial profile people????

And yet some of us are called racist for wanting to uphold the law?

One can assume whom the real 'Rascists' are...and it isn't those wishing to uphold the law.

Have any of these people ever watched just ONE episode of COPS?

What's the first thing they ask you for? And then what do they do with it?

In their protest, they are committing the exact offense of racial profiling that they say they are afraid cops will do???

It's just comical.

The law says:

- Race/ethnicity cannot be a factor in the stop.
- No race/ethnicity is singled out for specific enforcement upon.

Thus, illegal aliens of all races and ethnicities are subject to this law, and their race/ethnicity cannot be a factor in the stop.

Yet, we are told Hispanics will be harmed in the enforcement.

And I can't understand why the left is assuming that only Hispanic illegal immigrants will be affected.

Lefties, please, tell this dumb Tea Party member why Hispanics will be affected in such a larger way than other races under this law? Please, I'm baffled, explain!!

 

[Bfgrn]

If illegals are so great............then why is California bitching about Arizona and making boycott threats?

Seriously. If having illegals is such a BENEFIT to society.......then California should be jumping for joy and running TV ads begging Arizona's illegal popluation to come live in California?

Can one liberal explain to me why states like Cali, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, etc, are bitching about the Arizona law when they should instead be in a recruiting war with the other states to aquire Arizona's illegal aliens, right? If they are indeed a benefit to society, then these states should be pursuing the Arizona illegals the same way NBA teams pursued Lebron James.....................right?

Hey pea brain...would you feel the same about this law, if everyone that LOOKED like this was under suspicion and could be stopped and detained???

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

Well, dumbass, you like Eric Holder must not have read the law. No person can be stopped or detained based on race or ethnicity. Period. So, I have two questions for you:

1- Since the law forbids racial and ethnic profiling, do you also assume all cops will do it anyway? If so, that says a lot about you.

2- Since you assume this law is discriminatory against Hispanics despite it forbidding the use of race................then you must assume that most illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic, no? If not, why would you logically assume it discriminates against any one race over another, unless YOU YOURSELF have already assumed most illegals in AZ to be Hispanic......then preach of the horrors that will occur should a cop make the same assumption in enforcement that you yourself have already made in protest to it?

God-damn liberal hypocrite. A law forbids racial profiling while enforcing laws on illegal immigration. You say it will discriminate against Hispanics. Thus, you must assume most illegal aliens to be Hispanic.........but then protest at the chance a cop may come to the same assumption your racist, hypocritical ass has just done.

1- YES, there is no doubt the police WILL use racial profiling. But to naive devout Statists like you, that only happens in movies...

2- YES, most illegal immigrants in AZ are Hispanic. SO, ALL Hispanics will be targets, even if they are birthright citizens or naturalized citizens.

God damn racist right wing fascist assholes...

President Kennedy said it best when he made his civil right address to the nation in 1962.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?

YOU would not have the color of YOUR skin changed and stand in their place, now would you asshole?

You right wing fascists don't even know you ARE fascists. You are not tough on crime, you are tough on freedom and liberty. AND, your epiphany will never occur until YOU are a target, then you will squeal like a fucking pig...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

your Rhode Island comment reminded me of this article

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-something-new-york-city-versus-arizona.html

 

[bucs90]

Whats the difference in RI and AZ? None......except the lawsuit for some reason.

The difference between Rhode Island and Arizona is that Rhode Island actively sought to get approval from the Dept. of Homeland Security which says that their enforcement actions are in compliance with federal law. It's called a Memorandum of Agreement and it was granted to R.I. by DHS Secretary Napolitano. Arizona, on the other hand, has actively resisted this course of action. If they really believe their law is in compliance with federal law then why don't they go through the formal process which would give them that seal of approval?

So, the action has been found legal, all Arizona needs to do is follow Rhode Islands paperwork trail, and DHS will grant them permission to perform the same action Rhode Island is doing.....which is EXACTLY the same action Arizona's law is going to allow?

Well, if the action has been found constitutional, the law to allow it will also.

They won't go through that formal process because they know DHS and Napolitano WILL NOT grant them the same permission. In fact, Georgia and Oklahoma applied for that same Memorandum of Agreement and were denied. They followed with what was at the time the strictest illegal immigration laws in the nation, that was in 05 or 06 I believe.

The feds will grant that permisson to states with small illegal populations (see: Rhode Island) but not to ones with larger ones. Why? THEY DON"T WANT ILLEGALS DEPORTED! They want votes and want to avoid the immigration hot potatoe.

There are laws all over the country in local cities that ban automatic weapons, although the feds have already done so. Thats a city doing the feds job. But when a person is caught with that weapon, they can't be charged locally with the ATF Class 3 weapon violation, but can be detained and handed over to the ATF if that state, city or police department allows it by their law (which almost all do). That is 100% equal to what AZ is doing with immigration. If the ATF/local detention of people for weapon laws by local authorities has passed, then this will also, as the logic and execution of the law is the same.

 

[bucs90]

.

1- YES, there is no doubt the police WILL use racial profiling. But to naive devout Statists like you, that only happens in movies...

2- YES, most illegal immigrants in AZ are Hispanic. SO, ALL Hispanics will be targets, even if they are birthright citizens or naturalized citizens.

God damn racist right wing fascist assholes...

President Kennedy said it best when he made his civil right address to the nation in 1962.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?

YOU would not have the color of YOUR skin changed and stand in their place, now would you asshole?

You right wing fascists don't even know you ARE fascists. You are not tough on crime, you are tough on freedom and liberty. AND, your epiphany will never occur until YOU are a target, then you will squeal like a fucking pig...

#1- WOW!!! "FU** THA POLICE" right brother!!! Power to the people, down with the man!!"
Well, I was a cop for 8 years in Atlanta, and racial profiling was seldom seen (but sometimes, yes). So, are you profiling all cops now? Thought you lefties didn't do that. So your argument is basically going to stand on your assertion that "without a doubt" all police are going to racially profile? Thats all you got?

#2- You just profiled all illegals yourself. You said most illegals in Arizona are Hispanic. YOU just used racial profiling, what you said all cops would do, to describe all Arizona illegals, THEN you call me a racist asshole? I'm not the one who assumed all illegals are Hispanics, you racist.

#3- Your Kennedy speech reference. He said "All Americans" are entitled to all that. Illegal immigrants are citizens of their home nation. Until legally done, they are not "Americans". A Chinese national visiting our soil is not an "American".

#4- I don't care about the color of my skin or theirs. I'm not a race obsessed bigot like you. Sorry.

#5- Your last comment: "You right wing fascists don't even know you ARE fascists. You are not tough on crime, you are tough on freedom and liberty. AND, your epiphany will never occur until YOU are a target, then you will squeal like a fucking pig"

I don't even know where to start. So, I'm a fascist, but I'm soft on crime???? And I'm soft on crime.....but tough on freedom???? How......can I be against freedom....while being soft on crime??????

By the way.....to date, only ONE US president has targeted and profiled a race of people, rounded them up, put them in detainment camps, indefinitely, with no charges, for the sole offense of being of their race.

That would be LEFT WING liberal hero FDR who rounded up Japanese and German looking people and imprisoned them.

But, I guess I'm the right wing fascist racist who didn't profile a race like YOU did, and who is somehow soft on crime but yet tough on freedom

 

[Brubricker]

So, the action has been found legal, all Arizona needs to do is follow Rhode Islands paperwork trail, and DHS will grant them permission to perform the same action Rhode Island is doing.....which is EXACTLY the same action Arizona's law is going to allow?

Arizona's action has not been found legal. The people who are telling you the two states are identical are telling you a whopper. I googled the Rhode Island order and it doesn't go nearly as far as Arizona. RI does not try to impose new policy priorities for arrest and detention. Arizona attempts to impose new policies which directly differ from federal law. In strict legal terms, that's as big a difference as night and day. Anyone who told you the two states are exactly the same in how they treat the issue was selling you a bill of goods.

 

[bucs90]

So, the action has been found legal, all Arizona needs to do is follow Rhode Islands paperwork trail, and DHS will grant them permission to perform the same action Rhode Island is doing.....which is EXACTLY the same action Arizona's law is going to allow?

Arizona's action has not been found legal. The people who are telling you the two states are identical are telling you a whopper. I googled the Rhode Island order and it doesn't go nearly as far as Arizona. RI does not try to impose new policy priorities for arrest and detention. Arizona attempts to impose new policies which directly differ from federal law. In strict legal terms, that's as big a difference as night and day. Anyone who told you the two states are exactly the same in how they treat the issue was selling you a bill of goods.

OMG.

OK, lets see how to explain this to you.

Gun law: A local cop pulls a guy over with a fully auto AK47 in his trunk. Citizens can legally have rifles in their trunks. But federal law bans full auto. Thats the fed job, not state/local. As been practiced for decades, local cop detains driver and hands him over to ATF.

AZ law: A local cop pulls a guy over for simple speeding, and since he speaks no English, presents a Mexican DL, and his name and birth-date are not coming up in computer, he asks him if he is here illegally. Driver answers "Si". Cop detains him and hands him over to ICE.

Terrorism: A local cop pulls a guy over for simple speeding. The guy appears Muslim, speaks Arabic, had a laptop open while driving but quickly shuts it when cop approaches, and has pipes, fireworks, wires in the trunk. He's driving towards a military base. Cop detains him and hands him over to the FBI (actual case in SC).

None of the 3 differ. All involve a local cop, who realized a federal law which he cannot enforce may be violated, and he detains them and hands them over to proper federal authority. Thats what Arizona is doing. They are making new immigration law. They aren't making Obama's enforcement priorities. Obama is free to release all of AZ's detainees right the hell in the middle of Phoenix if they want.

The lesson is: You can't commit a federal offense right in front of a local cop and just be let go because there isn't a federal agent nearby. Local cops can and do detain people for federal offenses. This is the same thing. Thats why it will hold up in court.

 

[bucs90]

Well, fellas, I gotta go for now. But at the end of my day, here is the finality:

Bfgrn........You did the following:

You committed occupational profiling by saying "YES all cops will no doubt profile Hispanic". You profiled all cops and assumed they are all prejudice.

You committed racial profiling by saying "Yes most illegals in Arizona are Hispanic". Thus, committing the exact same racial profiling offense you are accusing the right of doing. You bigot.

You then said I was soft on crime, as I was saying we need to enforce immigration laws........then called me a fascist, who is soft on crime.............then said I was anti-freedom....right after saying I was soft on crime.

Well, boys, when the true liberal mind shows itself as it did in Bfgrn's meltdown, it's time to call it a day.

See you later.

 

[Sinatra]

Liberals have minds??

Surely you meant simply a brain stem...


Obama approved!!!!!

 

[Brubricker]

So, the action has been found legal, all Arizona needs to do is follow Rhode Islands paperwork trail, and DHS will grant them permission to perform the same action Rhode Island is doing.....which is EXACTLY the same action Arizona's law is going to allow?

Arizona's action has not been found legal. The people who are telling you the two states are identical are telling you a whopper. I googled the Rhode Island order and it doesn't go nearly as far as Arizona. RI does not try to impose new policy priorities for arrest and detention. Arizona attempts to impose new policies which directly differ from federal law. In strict legal terms, that's as big a difference as night and day. Anyone who told you the two states are exactly the same in how they treat the issue was selling you a bill of goods.

OMG.

OK, lets see how to explain this to you.

Gun law: A local cop pulls a guy over with a fully auto AK47 in his trunk. Citizens can legally have rifles in their trunks. But federal law bans full auto. Thats the fed job, not state/local. As been practiced for decades, local cop detains driver and hands him over to ATF.

AZ law: A local cop pulls a guy over for simple speeding, and since he speaks no English, presents a Mexican DL, and his name and birth-date are not coming up in computer, he asks him if he is here illegally. Driver answers "Si". Cop detains him and hands him over to ICE.

Terrorism: A local cop pulls a guy over for simple speeding. The guy appears Muslim, speaks Arabic, had a laptop open while driving but quickly shuts it when cop approaches, and has pipes, fireworks, wires in the trunk. He's driving towards a military base. Cop detains him and hands him over to the FBI (actual case in SC).

None of the 3 differ. All involve a local cop, who realized a federal law which he cannot enforce may be violated, and he detains them and hands them over to proper federal authority. Thats what Arizona is doing. They are making new immigration law. They aren't making Obama's enforcement priorities. Obama is free to release all of AZ's detainees right the hell in the middle of Phoenix if they want.

The lesson is: You can't commit a federal offense right in front of a local cop and just be let go because there isn't a federal agent nearby. Local cops can and do detain people for federal offenses. This is the same thing. Thats why it will hold up in court.

You obviously do not know the ways in which Arizona's law differs from federal law. It also appears that you have not read Rhode Island's executive order. I suggest you read all of them and then you'll see the obvious differences.

 

[Bfgrn]

If illegals are so great............then why is California bitching about Arizona and making boycott threats?

Seriously. If having illegals is such a BENEFIT to society.......then California should be jumping for joy and running TV ads begging Arizona's illegal popluation to come live in California?

Can one liberal explain to me why states like Cali, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, etc, are bitching about the Arizona law when they should instead be in a recruiting war with the other states to aquire Arizona's illegal aliens, right? If they are indeed a benefit to society, then these states should be pursuing the Arizona illegals the same way NBA teams pursued Lebron James.....................right?

Hey pea brain...would you feel the same about this law, if everyone that LOOKED like this was under suspicion and could be stopped and detained???

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

Luckily this law does not allow enforcement officials to stop someone based on how they look, it actually specifically does not allow for racial profiling.

Only if a person is stopped by police due to breaking a law, other than immigation laws, and can not produce valid ID can they be asked citizenship status.

Who told you the lie that got you all fired up? I would be pissed too if I was fed that false information and believed it. Thankfully I read the actual law.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Do yourself a favor and get educated by reading the actual document so that you don't get made a fool by those online who would sell you lies.

Who told me? L-I-F-E you naive asshole. Profiling happens every day without draconian fascist laws like this one...



The Dupnik rebellion: Pima's top cop says "no" to SB 1070

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."

Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9's Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisions of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free. "We're going to keep doing what we've been doing all along," Dupnik said. "We're going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol."

The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn't comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. "So we're kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. It's just a stupid law."

Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. "If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."



About Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik

A veteran of over 50 years in local law enforcement, Clarence W. Dupnik has served as the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, since his appointment in February 1980. County voters endorsed the choice nine months later by electing him to his first four-year term, and ratified that decision by re-electing him six additional times.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, fellas, I gotta go for now. But at the end of my day, here is the finality:

Bfgrn........You did the following:

You committed occupational profiling by saying "YES all cops will no doubt profile Hispanic". You profiled all cops and assumed they are all prejudice.

You committed racial profiling by saying "Yes most illegals in Arizona are Hispanic". Thus, committing the exact same racial profiling offense you are accusing the right of doing. You bigot.

You then said I was soft on crime, as I was saying we need to enforce immigration laws........then called me a fascist, who is soft on crime.............then said I was anti-freedom....right after saying I was soft on crime.

Well, boys, when the true liberal mind shows itself as it did in Bfgrn's meltdown, it's time to call it a day.

See you later.

You ignorant moron. ALL cops have one thing citizens don't have...POWER.

I am stating FACTS. You can try to twist it anyway your little right wing pea brain prefers...but it doesn't change the fact you right wing assholes are fascists.

Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik
Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. "If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."



About Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik

A veteran of over 50 years in local law enforcement, Clarence W. Dupnik has served as the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, since his appointment in February 1980. County voters endorsed the choice nine months later by electing him to his first four-year term, and ratified that decision by re-electing him six additional times.