Creepy Claims Made By Dems About Arizona Immigration Law Are False

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Philobeado, May 7, 2010.

  1. Philobeado

    Philobeado Gold Member

    Apr 8, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Gulf of Mexico Coast, Texas
    As a matter of fact, Arizona legislators themselves didn't want the police to have the power to simply "ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers." So they set up not just one but two requirements. First, police must have "lawful contact," meaning officers must already have detained an individual they suspect violated some other law.

    Even then, authorities must have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien. This "reasonable suspicion" standard has regulated police behavior since the 1960s and is a rule that police nationwide already deal with every day. "Reasonable suspicion" requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of "reasonable prudence" that a crime has been committed.

    Opponents of the law claimed "lawful contact" was much boarder than the legislature intended and would allow police who were simply questioning an individual to ask for an ID. On Friday, April 30, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill clarifying the point, replacing “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

    We can look at the actual language used. After Friday's bill signing, the new Arizona law reads: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin." Before Friday, the bill said that police could not just consider race, color or national origin. But this was also superfluous, as every police officer who arrests someone or stops them for a traffic offense requests identification.

    Democrats are playing with fire by misleading the nation to stir up racial tensions. Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano, Rep. Rangel, and President Obama are all lawyers. They know what legal terms such as "reasonable suspicion" and “lawful stop, detention or arrest" mean. To quote Congressman Rangel, the distortions are "outrageous." The new law is so short, just four pages, and written in such plain English that they must hope that no one else bothers reading it. And the worst part of all this? The racial animosity Democrats are creating will last for years.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. rikules

    rikules fighting thugs and cons

    Feb 16, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:


    they pale in comparison to the LIES (claims) made by conservatives and republicans;

    liberals hate god
    liberals hate christians
    democrats hate god
    liberals and democrats LOVE terrorists
    libs and dems want the terrorists to win
    libs and dems are trying to destroy our nation

    apparently hate filled lies by scum like coulter and limbaugh and savage work so much better on incredibly stupid average conservative
  3. Dr Gregg

    Dr Gregg BANNED

    Jan 28, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Most of them being lawyers should of clarified what "suspicion of being illegal" meant. Who cares what they meant, what matters is how law enforcement and the courts would interpret it. and the wording is pretty vague.So I don't see how its lying.

    Everything else in the bill but that part I'm perfectly OK with. Should already be law.

    "any lawful stop". Well, we already know that cops will look for anything if they want to pull someone over, even if its real or not.

    Now, it does look like its being spun to be more of a big deal than the wording of the bill is, but what's known is how it can be misused. Anybody arrested should of already been checked to see if they were legal or not.
    Last edited: May 7, 2010

Share This Page