MSNBC wants to know.

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

MSNBC is having a one question poll

Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?


msnbc.com U.S. & World News - Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?

hahahahah they deleted the access to the poll in that link.

guess they got found out http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/msnbc_online_poll_is_a_trap.html

 

[syrenn]

MSNBC is having a one question poll

Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?


msnbc.com U.S. & World News - Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?

hahahahah they deleted the access to the poll in that link.

guess they got found out American Thinker Blog: MSNBC online 'poll' is a trap!

Interesting, it says it was pulled by the author.

 

[JBeukema]

Everyone is "hassled" for their papers when they are pulled over....

and i have to show my passport when i enter and leave the country.

but not when i go to my local market to buy milk and eggs.

you know and understand the difference, dahlink.

If they have probably cause to believe I am committing a crime, they can stop me. Same thing here.

Been stopped before. Was always innocent. Never been a problem. Mild inconvenience, sure, but so is waiting for traffic to slow so I can cross the street.

 

[JBeukema]

2. if i am driving my car in the middle of the night, i understand i will have to show my drivers' license. but should i have to show my passport?

Not your passport. Your immigration documents that you're required by federal law to have on you, since you're an alien.

3. and if i don't have my passport, what happens when i am carted off to jail overnight if the police think i'm an illegal... even if i was born here.... or even if i'm a citizen?

They run your name, verify your identity, return your belonging, apologize for the inconvenience, and sent you on your way.

 

[JBeukema]

My father gets pretty dark. We were stopped some time ago driving north on the highway, at night, in a large van with darkly tinted windows.

Annoying, but understandable given the circumstances and the prevalence of smuggling in the are. They checked his DL, ran his name, and sent us on our way.

Took, like, three minutes. Annoying, sure, but no big fucking deal.

 

[JBeukema]

no different than today...

not so. today no one can arrest me for not having my passport during a traffic stop if i happen to speak spanish.

Learn what you're talking about.

Well, if you have no identification whatsoever, should the officer just let you go with a warning? Born here or not, they have to find out who you are, no?

if i am driving i should have northing but my license/registration and insurance card.

if i am walking, i need nothing.

Unless you're an alien, in which case federal requires you have documentation confirming your identity and status.

 

[Immanuel]

Everyone is "hassled" for their papers when they are pulled over....

and i have to show my passport when i enter and leave the country.

but not when i go to my local market to buy milk and eggs.

you know and understand the difference, dahlink.

More liberal fear mongering. Unless you are in violation of a law, going to the market will not get one stopped. You sheep seem to follow Obama's analogy of the ice cream shop and continue to use those poor analogies to gin up the fear.
If you read the bill you would find that it clearly states:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

It takes a big stretch of the imagination to state that while going to the market, you will be asked for papers. How many times have you been asked for ID while going to the market?

Reading that part of the law, it does say to me that if a LEO sees a Hispanic woman walking into a grocery store and doing nothing wrong except for looking Hispanic, he can stop her and demand to see proof of citizenship. That says nothing at all about even being stopped for a broken taillight. All it seems to say to me is that if an LEO sees someone (of course he is not going to stop every Caucasian or black person walking down the street, that would not be cost effective) he can stop them and demand proof of citizenship.

Maybe that is not the intent of the lawmakers, but reading it literally that is what it says. They need to either fix the wording or realize that some LEO's and courts are going to take them at their word.

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

no different than today...

not so. today no one can arrest me for not having my passport during a traffic stop if i happen to speak spanish.

Actually Jillian the law does not allow for that.

Here read the first page. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

 

[Lonestar_logic]

no different than today...

not so. today no one can arrest me for not having my passport during a traffic stop if i happen to speak spanish.

Well, if you have no identification whatsoever, should the officer just let you go with a warning? Born here or not, they have to find out who you are, no?

if i am driving i should have northing but my license/registration and insurance card.

if i am walking, i need nothing.

I prefer the french, 'tish...

mais oui, mon cher gomez. *wink*

I thought you were supposed to be an attorney. Try reading SB1070 and stop with the stupidity already!

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I don't really think that loitering qualifies as a serious crime.

If enough Mexicans are standing around, they'll probably be busted on suspicion of loitering.

Yeah, okay, they will make sure a crime is committed first.........

 

[Charles_Main]

Would you support a law that allows the detention of any "pseudo-american" unable to trace his/her origins to at least 1200 AD?

Racial profile of likely suspects:

Fair complexion, blond hair, blue eyes, freckles etc, etc...

White America:

HELL NO!!

NO just the ones who can not prove they are a citizen now. Numb Nuts.

 

[Charles_Main]

and i have to show my passport when i enter and leave the country.

but not when i go to my local market to buy milk and eggs.

you know and understand the difference, dahlink.

More liberal fear mongering. Unless you are in violation of a law, going to the market will not get one stopped. You sheep seem to follow Obama's analogy of the ice cream shop and continue to use those poor analogies to gin up the fear.
If you read the bill you would find that it clearly states:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

It takes a big stretch of the imagination to state that while going to the market, you will be asked for papers. How many times have you been asked for ID while going to the market?

Reading that part of the law, it does say to me that if a LEO sees a Hispanic woman walking into a grocery store and doing nothing wrong except for looking Hispanic, he can stop her and demand to see proof of citizenship. That says nothing at all about even being stopped for a broken taillight. All it seems to say to me is that if an LEO sees someone (of course he is not going to stop every Caucasian or black person walking down the street, that would not be cost effective) he can stop them and demand proof of citizenship.

Maybe that is not the intent of the lawmakers, but reading it literally that is what it says. They need to either fix the wording or realize that some LEO's and courts are going to take them at their word.

Immie

Wrong, It clearly says only if involved in another unrelated LAWFUL STOP!!!

 

[Immanuel]

More liberal fear mongering. Unless you are in violation of a law, going to the market will not get one stopped. You sheep seem to follow Obama's analogy of the ice cream shop and continue to use those poor analogies to gin up the fear.
If you read the bill you would find that it clearly states:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

It takes a big stretch of the imagination to state that while going to the market, you will be asked for papers. How many times have you been asked for ID while going to the market?

Reading that part of the law, it does say to me that if a LEO sees a Hispanic woman walking into a grocery store and doing nothing wrong except for looking Hispanic, he can stop her and demand to see proof of citizenship. That says nothing at all about even being stopped for a broken taillight. All it seems to say to me is that if an LEO sees someone (of course he is not going to stop every Caucasian or black person walking down the street, that would not be cost effective) he can stop them and demand proof of citizenship.

Maybe that is not the intent of the lawmakers, but reading it literally that is what it says. They need to either fix the wording or realize that some LEO's and courts are going to take them at their word.

Immie

Wrong, It clearly says only if involved in another unrelated LAWFUL STOP!!!

Wrong, it says "for any lawful contact", that could simply mean eye contact.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

Reading that part of the law, it does say to me that if a LEO sees a Hispanic woman walking into a grocery store and doing nothing wrong except for looking Hispanic, he can stop her and demand to see proof of citizenship. That says nothing at all about even being stopped for a broken taillight. All it seems to say to me is that if an LEO sees someone (of course he is not going to stop every Caucasian or black person walking down the street, that would not be cost effective) he can stop them and demand proof of citizenship.

Maybe that is not the intent of the lawmakers, but reading it literally that is what it says. They need to either fix the wording or realize that some LEO's and courts are going to take them at their word.

Immie

Wrong, It clearly says only if involved in another unrelated LAWFUL STOP!!!

Wrong, it says "for any lawful contact", that could simply mean eye contact.

Immie

Fail.

Not surprisingly, you once again arrived on the late bus and are standing there repeating what the talking heads told you a month ago.

Arizona Immigration Law Amended - Crime and Consequences Blog

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know......if the law was as just as AZ's governor said it was, they wouldn't have had to put in those amendments into the law to make it LESS LIKELY TO BE ABUSED BY RACISTS!!!!!!

 

[Immanuel]

Wrong, It clearly says only if involved in another unrelated LAWFUL STOP!!!

Wrong, it says "for any lawful contact", that could simply mean eye contact.

Immie

Fail.

Not surprisingly, you once again arrived on the late bus and are standing there repeating what the talking heads told you a month ago.

Arizona Immigration Law Amended - Crime and Consequences Blog

That change is not in the bill that I have seen. Where you got this is unknown to me and as far as I can tell is not accurate.

Show me the corrected version of the bill.

Here is the information from the link you presented:

This story from the ABC affiliate in Phoenix reports on some amendments to the controversial Arizona immigration law:

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

Regardless of where one stands on the law itself (and CJLF hasn't taken a position), these appear to be salutary changes. The "lawful contact" language particularly bugged me. Simply talking to a person on the sidewalk with no basis for suspicion whatever is a "lawful contact," but I suspected that was not what they meant. They meant Terry stops, traffic stops, and arrests. I haven't been able to find the actual amendment yet, but it appears from the story that they did fix this particular problem

This came from an ABC affiliate and so far is not substantiated.

Edit: the highlighted statements are what I was saying. Lawful contact can be anything from eye contact to actual traffic stops. As I stated earlier, I do not believe that is the intention of the law, but there are people who will later argue that is literally what the law states and will use it as justification for any "lawful contact".

Immie

 

[Avorysuds]

Reading that part of the law, it does say to me that if a LEO sees a Hispanic woman walking into a grocery store and doing nothing wrong except for looking Hispanic, he can stop her and demand to see proof of citizenship. That says nothing at all about even being stopped for a broken taillight. All it seems to say to me is that if an LEO sees someone (of course he is not going to stop every Caucasian or black person walking down the street, that would not be cost effective) he can stop them and demand proof of citizenship.

Maybe that is not the intent of the lawmakers, but reading it literally that is what it says. They need to either fix the wording or realize that some LEO's and courts are going to take them at their word.

Immie

Wrong, It clearly says only if involved in another unrelated LAWFUL STOP!!!

Wrong, it says "for any lawful contact", that could simply mean eye contact.

Immie

Wrong. Watch as the law fixes what everything else has failed to do, that's how wrong you are.

 

[daveman]

You know......if the law was as just as AZ's governor said it was, they wouldn't have had to put in those amendments into the law to make it LESS LIKELY TO BE ABUSED BY RACISTS!!!!!!

And yet they're in there, making the law less likely to be abused by racists.

So now you're bitching because they fixed it?

 

[Immanuel]

Wrong, It clearly says only if involved in another unrelated LAWFUL STOP!!!

Wrong, it says "for any lawful contact", that could simply mean eye contact.

Immie

Wrong. Watch as the law fixes what everything else has failed to do, that's how wrong you are.

Right... maybe in your little fantasy world, but it will do absolutely nothing good in the real world. Most likely it will spur racial tension and cause more problems than it solves.

Immie

 

[Angelhair]

MSNBC is having a one question poll

Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?


msnbc.com U.S. & World News - Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?

Of course I support this law. I just wish CA would do the same. I just returned from AZ where I spent 3 weeks spending, spending, spending. I will say this - in the city where I was at, I never saw ONE police car! I saw so many traffic violations and not ONE cop around to arrest them. I have been to this town every year and I can say the same every year that I'm there! NO visible cops anywhere!! The police should at least make themseleves visible as it does serve as a deterent.