Arizona's anti-imigration law...

Lue C Fur

Evil member
This bill relinquishes probable cause and doesn't require the authorities a reason to stop people.... Someone can come up to a Police Officer asking for directions, and that officer can, out of the blue, if you fit the profile, ask for multiple forms of ID and take you downtown if there's any discreptancies...that's racial profiling...BTW, I'm ok with the current law, ID'ing those who had real, reason to be stopped, questioned, and arrested....That's already on the books, why go one step further and relinkquish our liberties.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters.

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

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY


21
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22


STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23


UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24


WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25


PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Sounds like we need to adopt this law nationwide.




 

tieguy

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters.

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

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY


21
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22


STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23


UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24


WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25


PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Sounds like we need to adopt this law nationwide.





Diesel,

looks like the devil got you the details. :happy2:
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
How is that racial profiling?.. ...you're assuming that illegals are all Hispanic. They can be Irish, French, German etc. How does one fit the description of "illegal immigrant"? Just carry ID and you're good to go.

Clearly you are not that naive. This law was designed to deal with illegal immigrants coming here from Mexico. Text book racial profiling.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Clearly you are not that naive. This law was designed to deal with illegal immigrants coming here from Mexico. Text book racial profiling.

The Bill was written to deal with illegal immigrants from any country. Hardly Racial profiling. I have yet to read or hear of one person supporting this bill simply because they believe it cuts down on the number of Hispanics.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
The Bill was written to deal with illegal immigrants from any country. Hardly Racial profiling. I have yet to read or hear of one person supporting this bill simply because they believe it cuts down on the number of Hispanics.

This law was enacted solely for the state of Arizona which shares a common border with Mexico. While the language does not specifically state Hispanic illegal immigrants one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the intent behind this law. Illegal immigrants from European nations would most likely attempt to enter the US through the US/Canada border while those from South America would most likely attempt to enter through the states along the Gulf of Mexico. Central Americans would most likely attempt to enter through the southwestern US/Mexico border.

Brett, you are clearly not a stupid person. This is racial profiling defined.
 

tieguy

Banned
the police officers job is to profile possible criminal activity in conducting their duties. They are to profile the appearance , location and known activities of known criminal activity. As such they often post theirselvs at the mexican border looking for people crossing the border that are dressed and yes have the appearance of illegal aliens. it would be rediculous to have them post theirselves at the doors of a mormon church in utah in the interest of avoding the appearance of profiling.

racial profiling is a heinous term created to put honest hard working police officers back on their heels.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
All this defending and still the right crys out, "oh, no, were not prejudiced racist bigots!" Then why won't any of you vote for Alan Keyes?
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
All this defending and still the right crys out, "oh, no, were not prejudiced racist bigots!" Then why won't any of you vote for Alan Keyes?

Personally, I like Alan Keyes and would love to see him as President, but sometimes his over enthusiasm for certain subjects gets the best of him and turns some people off. His skin color has little to nothing to do with his unsuccessful attempts at becoming President.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
This law was enacted solely for the state of Arizona which shares a common border with Mexico. While the language does not specifically state Hispanic illegal immigrants one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the intent behind this law. Illegal immigrants from European nations would most likely attempt to enter the US through the US/Canada border while those from South America would most likely attempt to enter through the states along the Gulf of Mexico. Central Americans would most likely attempt to enter through the southwestern US/Mexico border.

Brett, you are clearly not a stupid person. This is racial profiling defined.

I don't see the intent of the law being any different if the majority of their illegal immigrants were from the UK, France, or Vietnam. If you are in this country, and are here illegally the state of Arizona has ordered you be removed from American soil. I see nothing wrong with that. Federal law also says this, only the federal government is made up of people lacking the political will to crack down on this problem as the State of Arizona has.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
This law was enacted solely for the state of Arizona which shares a common border with Mexico. While the language does not specifically state Hispanic illegal immigrants one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the intent behind this law. Illegal immigrants from European nations would most likely attempt to enter the US through the US/Canada border while those from South America would most likely attempt to enter through the states along the Gulf of Mexico. Central Americans would most likely attempt to enter through the southwestern US/Mexico border.

Brett, you are clearly not a stupid person. This is racial profiling defined.
fear not Upstate, the Rev. Al Sharpton has taken up your cause.
The Rev. Al Sharpton says he will challenge Arizona's new immigration bill in court and on the streets.
Sharpton is joining Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation to announce a legal challenge to the bill. They say activists are also prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight the Arizona immigration bill.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Geraldo Rivera told a Latino Congressman Saturday that he might get stopped on the streets of Phoenix by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as a result of the new anti-immigration law signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer the previous day. Discussing the newly-passed legislation with guests Arpaio and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) on “Geraldo at Large,” the host ungraciously started the segment by asking, “Sheriff, how do you define reasonable suspicion? Is it like obscenity that you don’t exactly know how to define it but you know it when you see it?”
Arpaio responded, “[D]uring the course of the duties of law enforcement, my deputies, if someone doesn’t have a license, doesn’t speak English, ten guys stashed in back of a van, I think that’s reasonable action or probable cause to take action.”
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
I already own 17 guns.

Oooh 17 guns, does that make up for the size of your private part ?
Or Starting your own little family militia....:wink2:

Please tell me why the hell I should be required to wait 5-7 days for the government to give me permission to excercise my constitutional right to buy another one.

Because you may have committed a felony, or have been deemed mentality unstable recently, and a legitimate background, medical and fingerprint takes more time, and is more thorough then your standard internet program background check.

It is against the law to sell or posess marijuana, and I havent touched the stuff in 14 years....but if I wanted to buy some it would take me about 15 minutes to find it. The fact that its "illegal" isnt going to get in the way of me buying it if I want it bad enough.

You don't have a leg to stand on, if your comparing illegal weed possesion to illegal gun possesion. I'm still waiting to hear for the next victim mugged, mained, or killed by a bag of killer kyrpto....

If criminals arent going to obey laws about drugs, why the hell do you think they will obey laws about guns?

From the gun lobbiest who fillabuster gaping loopholes to the crooked Gun dealers who perform backroom yard sales to whomever, they are just as guilty as the drug dealers, and the blood is on their hands to...

Background checks and waiting periods serve no purpose other than to give the hand-wringers a warm and fuzzy feeling that they are "doing something" about crime by making all those bad, icky, poopy guns go away.

I agree, because the background check required for gun ownership is so watered down, I've been way more scrutinized for driving my Feeder Tractor on the Airport terminal.

If you need to feel all warm and fuzzy and safe, go buy a blanket. Those of us who live in the real world would prefer to arm ourselves.

Go ahead, bury your head in the sand, and just ignore there's a War going on just south of the border with the majority of the weapons bought, sold , and traded (many legally) in the good ole U S of A, by any Tom, Dick, or Harry. Or in this case any Juan, Julio, or Jose..

BTW... Your posting to a gun toting Lefty, avid hunter, home protector, who believes in the fabric of the 2nd Amendment to an extent, who has earn the right to purchase guns legally. If ever I purchased another gun, I will plan ahead, and expect a background check and cooling off period. If you feel the need to purchase a weapon and demand you need it "now", well, in the real world, that raises all kinds of red flag issues.....




Diesel,

looks like the devil got you the details. :happy2:

Hey Tie, Lue C Fer forgot to include and emphazise this part....:devillangel:
The bill allows police to question and arrest people without warrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" about their immigration status. It would become illegal for people to employ illegal immigrants or to transport them anywhere in the state, even unkowingly or if they are family members.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
BRett,

do you also like and support alan keyes children who have come out of the closet and declared themselves to be GAY?? How right wing is that??

Peace.
 

Lue C Fur

Evil member
Hey Tie, Lue C Fer forgot to include and emphazise this part....:devillangel:
The bill allows police to question and arrest people without warrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" about their immigration status. It would become illegal for people to employ illegal immigrants or to transport them anywhere in the state, even unkowingly or if they are family members.


Deez...nothing wrong with the "without warrent" or "reasonable suspicion" as this is really nothing new in law enforcement. Also there is nothing wrong with it being illegal to employ illegals or transporting illegals either. But could you show me where in the bill it says that it is illegal to "unknowingly" transport illegals? As far as family members transporting illegals if they know they are illegal...that should be against the law also if it is not already.

 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...fight-violence-with-national-guards-help.html
Two state representatives called on Gov. Pat Quinn Sunday to deploy the Illinois National Guard to safeguard Chicago's streets.
Chicago Democrats John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford said they want Quinn, Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis to allow guardsmen to patrol streets and help quell violence. Weis said he did not support the idea because the military and police operate under different rules.
"Is this a drastic call to action? Of course it is," Fritchey said. "Is it warranted when we are losing residents to gun violence at such an alarming rate?

yet no one wants to put troops on our southern border which today is a war zone.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
BTW... Your posting to a gun toting Lefty, avid hunter, home protector, who believes in the fabric of the 2nd Amendment to an extent, who has earn the right to purchase guns legally. If ever I purchased another gun, I will plan ahead, and expect a background check and cooling off period. If you feel the need to purchase a weapon and demand you need it "now", well, in the real world, that raises all kinds of red flag issues.....

"To an extent?"

In other words....you "sort of" believe that you can "earn" the right to excercise a constitutional right... but only as long as the Government decides that its OK for you to do so.

Lets pretend we are talking about the First Amendment instead of the Second.

Using your "logic"....you should first "earn" the right to attend a church, or write and editorial to your local newspaper, or attend a town hall meeting to express your opinion on a local issue.

Having "earned" this right, you should then pay a fee, undergo a background check, and wait for some arbitrary length of time while an unaccountable bureacrat reviews your request and decides whether or not to grant you permission to excercise your "right".

And then...having paid the fee, undergone the background check, and gained the approval of your government master....you should be required to repeat the process every time you wish to excercise that right again.

I'm glad I'm not living in your little utopia!
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
[B
Oooh 17 guns, does that make up for the size of your private part ?
Or Starting your own little family militia....:wink2:
.

Many of them are family heirlooms that were passed down from my grandfather....who fought in WW2.

Im not forming a militia or making up for any anotomical shortcomings.

If we are going to throw around some ignorant stereotypes, lets talk about all the yuppie, Hell's Angel wannabe "bikers" who spend $15K on an "American made" Harley full of Japanese parts, just because they want to make a lot of noise and go real fast on a big, bad motorcycle.:wink2:

I think those bikes ought to be banned, because I just dont like them. They scare me. They serve no legitimate sporting purpose, they go way too fast, they arent safe, and they are icky and yucky and poopy. Thousands of people per year die on them. If You are going to own one, you should be required to take a background check every time you ride it in order to make sure that you are safe and responsible. We can no longer trust individuals to decide such things for themselves, we need the goverment to do it for us in order to keep us safe.

How does that shoe feel on the other foot?
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Go ahead, bury your head in the sand, and just ignore there's a War going on just south of the border with the majority of the weapons bought, sold , and traded (many legally) in the good ole U S of A, by any Tom, Dick, or Harry. Or in this case any Juan, Julio, or Jose..
[

You are wrong about that.

The majority of the weapons are being bought on the international black market. A lot of them are actually being obtained from corrupt Mexican Army soldiers. The smugglers arent buying the grenades, the grenade launchers and the belt-fed machine guns from US gun shops, despite what the gun-hating liberal media wants you to believe. Such items are not legal or available here.

In any case, the violence is a case study in the failure of gun control. Guns are, for all practical purpose, illegal in Mexico...yet the murder rate down there is hundreds of times higher than anywhere here in the states.

Apparently, Mexican criminals arent any more likely to obey gun laws than American criminals are.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member

This has happened before. Arizona's decision two decades ago not to honor the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday cost the state 170 conventions and a Superbowl – a grand total of $360 million – and Arizona was forced to reverse its stance.



ABC and NBC Champion 'Growing National Backlash' Against 'Laughing ...

Deez...nothing wrong with the "without warrent" or "reasonable suspicion" as this is really nothing new in law enforcement. Also there is nothing wrong with it being illegal to employ illegals or transporting illegals either. But could you show me where in the bill it says that it is illegal to "unknowingly" transport illegals? As far as family members transporting illegals if they know they are illegal...that should be against the law also if it is not already.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/stewart-hammers-arizona-f_n_553157.html

BTW... Your posting to a gun toting Lefty, avid hunter, home protector, who believes in the fabric of the 2nd Amendment to an extent, who has earn the right to purchase guns legally. If ever I purchased another gun, I will plan ahead, and expect a background check and cooling off period. If you feel the need to purchase a weapon and demand you need it "now", well, in the real world, that raises all kinds of red flag issues.....

"To an extent?"

In other words....you "sort of" believe that you can "earn" the right to excercise a constitutional right... but only as long as the Government decides that its OK for you to do so.

Lets pretend we are talking about the First Amendment instead of the Second.

Using your "logic"....you should first "earn" the right to attend a church, or write and editorial to your local newspaper, or attend a town hall meeting to express your opinion on a local issue.

Having "earned" this right, you should then pay a fee, undergo a background check, and wait for some arbitrary length of time while an unaccountable bureacrat reviews your request and decides whether or not to grant you permission to excercise your "right".

And then...having paid the fee, undergone the background check, and gained the approval of your government master....you should be required to repeat the process every time you wish to excercise that right again.

I'm glad I'm not living in your little utopia!

Your hypotheticals are all over the place.... But I'll play your game. You see, words may hurt, they don't kill.....There are no "Word Detector" security machines to walk thru for access into the Whitehouse or a Courthouse....

I used "to an extent" where over-reaching lobbiest Org's like NRA over step the boundries of the 2nd Amendment.

I was married to "The Law" between 82' thru 97' and I can tell you first hand the unappreciatition Law Enforcement had for armor-piercing bullets (cop killers), and the assault weapons ban lapse. Why should I support gun show loopholes, so you can go to a gun show and buy a gun cash and carry that you couldn't buy walking into a gun shop.
Guns on College Campuses. I should know that my kid is safe at college. If teachers determine that a child is a danger, the school should be able to take them off the campus.There are many more examples..

Many of them are family heirlooms that were passed down from my grandfather....who fought in WW2.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=453112&#3599602
My father's Army unit was the "Hells on Wheels"during Korea...Unfortunately, he couldn't take a Tank home with him. I wonder why not...

Im not forming a militia or making up for any anotomical shortcomings.

If we are going to throw around some ignorant stereotypes, lets talk about all the yuppie, Hell's Angel wannabe "bikers" who spend $15K on an "American made" Harley full of Japanese parts, just because they want to make a lot of noise and go real fast on a big, bad motorcycle.:wink2:

I think those bikes ought to be banned, because I just dont like them. They scare me. They serve no legitimate sporting purpose, they go way too fast, they arent safe, and they are icky and yucky and poopy. Thousands of people per year die on them. If You are going to own one, you should be required to take a background check every time you ride it in order to make sure that you are safe and responsible. We can no longer trust individuals to decide such things for themselves, we need the goverment to do it for us in order to keep us safe.

How does that shoe feel on the other foot?

If your going to stereotype Harleys, at least get your stereotype accurate....First off, "Harley" and or "Metric Cruiser" motorcycling is a lifestyle, not a sport, nor a "sport bike"....Harley's are made for crusing not for speed, unless you install a Screaming Eagle Big Bore kit or buy a water cooled V-Rod. The 1450 CC V-Twin is as American as it gets...It's the after market parts that maybe from Japan or China if your not careful where you purchase. But can you tell me why my 1 motorcycle is more regulated than your 17 guns...

You are wrong about that.

The majority of the weapons are being bought on the international black market. A lot of them are actually being obtained from corrupt Mexican Army soldiers. The smugglers arent buying the grenades, the grenade launchers and the belt-fed machine guns from US gun shops, despite what the gun-hating liberal media wants you to believe. Such items are not legal or available here.

In any case, the violence is a case study in the failure of gun control. Guns are, for all practical purpose, illegal in Mexico...yet the murder rate down there is hundreds of times higher than anywhere here in the states.

Apparently, Mexican criminals arent any more likely to obey gun laws than American criminals are.

Ok, so rocket science tells us they get guns from where? Great Britain, Japan ?

Before you go on a liberal hating media tyranical rant, Is Fox, NRA, Gun Lobbiest ever going to reveal their sources ? Or we just have to take them for their word because your scared of more talk of an assault weapons ban....the ATF and Mexican authorities have their sources, it's actual captured arms from the drug Cartels and the bullets they dig out from dead mexican police offiers....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/us/15guns.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
 
Top