Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You asked me why I thought this is a bad law and I told you. It's my opinion, isn't it? And let's wait for the inevitable test case to demonstrate this bad laws effects on the rights of American citizens.This law opens up racial profiling. If your name is Pete Martin and you're on the streets of Tuscon, you probably won't get rousted for ID. If your name is Pedro Martinez, look out! And it doesn't really matter if you, Pedro, are an American citizen or not. You look like an immigrant, so the door is open for this little harassment.What makes it a bad law?
the illegal immigrant problem isn't one that I want to ignore. But this law makes you available for police inquiry for looking Mexican. The problem is lack of enforcement at the border. But there is also a lack of enforcement at the employer. The Mexicans are here for jobs. Why not crack down on their 'enablers'? The employers hiring illegal immigrants? Dry up their source of money to send out of the country to their families in Mexico.
But that would criminalize the activities of a lot of rich White folks, wouldn't it? It is so easy to roust the Brown skinned folks rather than their employer, huh?
And that's why this is a bad law.
You're stating an opinion not a fact. Nice try but you fail!
Do yourself a favor and read the bill before you make a complete and utter ass out of yourself.
WHy don't you cite some examples of racial profiling that SB1070 has caused. Even though it hasn't been implemented yet.
Speaking of diversions, why haven't you answered the question posed to you by at least three of us?
You asked me why I thought this is a bad law and I told you. It's my opinion, isn't it? And let's wait for the inevitable test case to demonstrate this bad laws effects on the rights of American citizens.This law opens up racial profiling. If your name is Pete Martin and you're on the streets of Tuscon, you probably won't get rousted for ID. If your name is Pedro Martinez, look out! And it doesn't really matter if you, Pedro, are an American citizen or not. You look like an immigrant, so the door is open for this little harassment.
the illegal immigrant problem isn't one that I want to ignore. But this law makes you available for police inquiry for looking Mexican. The problem is lack of enforcement at the border. But there is also a lack of enforcement at the employer. The Mexicans are here for jobs. Why not crack down on their 'enablers'? The employers hiring illegal immigrants? Dry up their source of money to send out of the country to their families in Mexico.
But that would criminalize the activities of a lot of rich White folks, wouldn't it? It is so easy to roust the Brown skinned folks rather than their employer, huh?
And that's why this is a bad law.
You're stating an opinion not a fact. Nice try but you fail!
Do yourself a favor and read the bill before you make a complete and utter ass out of yourself.
WHy don't you cite some examples of racial profiling that SB1070 has caused. Even though it hasn't been implemented yet.
I believe this law targets the ones easiest to harass and ignores the reason illegals are here in the first place: unscrupulous employers.
You asked me why I thought this is a bad law and I told you. It's my opinion, isn't it? And let's wait for the inevitable test case to demonstrate this bad laws effects on the rights of American citizens.This law opens up racial profiling. If your name is Pete Martin and you're on the streets of Tuscon, you probably won't get rousted for ID. If your name is Pedro Martinez, look out! And it doesn't really matter if you, Pedro, are an American citizen or not. You look like an immigrant, so the door is open for this little harassment.
the illegal immigrant problem isn't one that I want to ignore. But this law makes you available for police inquiry for looking Mexican. The problem is lack of enforcement at the border. But there is also a lack of enforcement at the employer. The Mexicans are here for jobs. Why not crack down on their 'enablers'? The employers hiring illegal immigrants? Dry up their source of money to send out of the country to their families in Mexico.
But that would criminalize the activities of a lot of rich White folks, wouldn't it? It is so easy to roust the Brown skinned folks rather than their employer, huh?
And that's why this is a bad law.
You're stating an opinion not a fact. Nice try but you fail!
Do yourself a favor and read the bill before you make a complete and utter ass out of yourself.
WHy don't you cite some examples of racial profiling that SB1070 has caused. Even though it hasn't been implemented yet.
I believe this law targets the ones easiest to harass and ignores the reason illegals are here in the first place: unscrupulous employers.
Speaking of diversions, why haven't you answered the question posed to you by at least three of us?
I did, on several occasions, but since you all apparently didn't put 2 and 2 together from what I stated, see my example in my last post.
specious ad hominem attackah, jeesh, she's got palin's pic on her website. Good place for palin to hide with the oil gusher in the gulf.
If brewer is taking things into her own hands then she is free to pay for a fence along the border herself.
Good luck, dingbat.
Once again, you show your ignorance of the Arizona law. It is very specific that color of skin and race can not be a determining factor in "lawful contact." Want to try again to show your ignorance?
Or maybe you should just read the law and stop looking like a complete fool of the media.
Rick
may not solely consider race, color, or national origin... except to the extent permitted by the United States or the Arizona Constitution.
Baloney. Have you read the law?
Speaking of diversions, why haven't you answered the question posed to you by at least three of us?
I did, on several occasions, but since you all apparently didn't put 2 and 2 together from what I stated, see my example in my last post.
No you haven't answered the question. I'll ask once more and please be specific in your answer and support it with factual evidence not assumptions.
What part of SB1070 is unconstitutional?
Baloney. Have you read the law?
No he hasn't read the law.
Which once again is a flat out lie, since the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. But, since you haven't read the law I don't expect you to understand that, because you've been lied to by the media and the White House.
Sarah Palin never "blames President Obama for lack of proper immigration laws." She blames this administration for not ENFORCING the existing immigration laws.
Rick
Once again, you show your ignorance of the Arizona law. It is very specific that color of skin and race can not be a determining factor in "lawful contact." Want to try again to show your ignorance?
Or maybe you should just read the law and stop looking like a complete fool of the media.
Rick
No, I read the law. I really did.
The specific paragraph you are referring to follows, though I have to type it out, as I cannot find it anywhere in cut-and-paste-able format;
may not solely consider race, color, or national origin... except to the extent permitted by the United States or the Arizona Constitution.
Note the gaping loopholes in that.
First of all, the word "Solely" specifically allows for all kinds of bullshit secondary reasoning, but can include race, color or national origin.
So, let's say the policeman saw the person in question and started up a conversation with him, because he thought the person might be an illegal.
The officer would not have made any type of investigation or arrest at that point, they are just striking up a conversation, right?
Now the officer discovers that the person in question has an accent. The "solely" qualification dissolves because there are at least two factors now at play.
Now the officer is within his rights to ask for an ID.
Not to mention the "except to the extent" portion, which allows racial profiling as long as it adheres to whatever rules the Arizona constitution has in it to deal with the issue, which I suspect don't really exist.
I did, on several occasions, but since you all apparently didn't put 2 and 2 together from what I stated, see my example in my last post.
No you haven't answered the question. I'll ask once more and please be specific in your answer and support it with factual evidence not assumptions.
What part of SB1070 is unconstitutional?
Is this your new tactic? To ignore any posts that I make answering your question, and then accuse me of not answering your question?
I must admit, that is an interesting tactic.
Which once again is a flat out lie, since the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. But, since you haven't read the law I don't expect you to understand that, because you've been lied to by the media and the White House.
No, it doesn't, it specifies certain circumstances that a person cannot be suspected due to, but includes the word "solely", which means that any combination of those circumstances can be used, as well as any combination of those circumstances with anything else an officer considers "suspicious activity", which could include ANYTHING.
In addition, it further allows for any exceptions that would not violate the state constitution.
Sarah Palin never "blames President Obama for lack of proper immigration laws." She blames this administration for not ENFORCING the existing immigration laws.
Rick
And how, praytell would she have him enforce the existing law in a way that would not be unconstitutional? Hmm?
Baloney. Have you read the law?
No he hasn't read the law.
Yes, he has read the law.
Still refusing to answer my question I see. You claim you have answered it and perhaps you have but not directly to me. I'm asking the question I expect to be the one you answer. If you have to answer it forty times then so be it.
Once again, what part of SB1070 is unconstitutional?
I'll make it real easy for you, I've provided the revised bill so please cite section and line number.
SB1070
As the law has not yet been enforced, you don't have anything but opinion in your corner either. And here I thought this was a message board where the members voice their opinions on the topics of the day!You asked me why I thought this is a bad law and I told you. It's my opinion, isn't it? And let's wait for the inevitable test case to demonstrate this bad laws effects on the rights of American citizens.You're stating an opinion not a fact. Nice try but you fail!
Do yourself a favor and read the bill before you make a complete and utter ass out of yourself.
WHy don't you cite some examples of racial profiling that SB1070 has caused. Even though it hasn't been implemented yet.
I believe this law targets the ones easiest to harass and ignores the reason illegals are here in the first place: unscrupulous employers.
You believe it's a bad law (your opinion) but you have no facts to support your opinion. Is that about right?
