Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="trplnkl" data-source="post: 739031" data-attributes="member: 13254">I guess I'm gonna have to start calling you Chubby Checker.[FONT=&quot]And now you know the difference between Nationality and Race for law purposes. Good.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] That is the definition I have been using from the beginning so don't start trying to take credit for "teaching"' me.lol[/FONT][FONT=&quot]No one has questioned it is to curtail illegal immigrants. But, we have been debating as how it does, and the possible violations around it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The possibilities are endless, on being that there will be few if any cases of your so feared discrimination.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is obvious that you have not read the law, oh you know who wrote it, yada yada yadda....but you haven't read all of the law nor followed the links contained in the foot notes to the US Code that the law supports.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You think boycotting a state is not a problem? They’ve been implementing this law without it being official, but will it be legal to target a certain group of people now that they signed it? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The target is clear, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS , plain and simple. The boycott are political moves by LA, this did not come about because of a law that does not  have to effect one person living in LA. Az is willing to take the chances in what revenue they might lose, that is their choice. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You have doubts that it might be unconstitutional. What do you think might be the problem? That the execution of immigration laws are a Federal issue? Or what do you think it could lead SB1070 to be an unconstitutional bill?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]  [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I said way back at the first that IF the law was to be declared unconstitutional it would be on the grounds of separation of powers([/FONT][FONT=&quot]that may not be the exact term but you know what I mean being the Constitutional expert that you think you are[/FONT][FONT=&quot]). The Supremacy Clause could well be used. However that is not carved in stone yet. People much smarter than you and I will make the decision.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I didn’t say you have to support the UN to know what rights you could have in other countries. You might learn what rights you could have when visiting other countries by other means. But, they might have been implemented by the UN and you never know. The thing is to care what’s around your world. You can even learn something from what one could think are absurd organizations or people; I have learned things even from you, Texan.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Naww, next time I go out of the country I will call you or Klein to check where to get a free meal.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What’s a public offense for you, Texan?[/FONT][FONT=&quot] A violation of local, county, state or federal law. A range from jaywalking to murder should cover it pretty well. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yes, and some of the other ones had filed law suits against SB1070 because they understand how this law opens more of that profiling you just mentioned.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] They only people who believe SB1070 opens for more profiling haven't read the law.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Here's a jaw dropper, anyone can sue for anything, doesn't mean they will win the suite. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]That sounds pretty, but it’s romanticism, Cowboy. We don't run by romanticism ideas. That's why we need good laws. Is the Sheriff included, by the way? I can't say for where you live, be here that is reality not "romanticism".[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Of all the reports I have read about the "Sheriff", it's about 50/50. He's either a great American patriot or slimy bigot racist.Unless you have had an actual encounter with him, all you know is what you read.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Have they been violated before, I mean not officially or legally?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sorry but that's just a <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2    :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /> question, of course they have been violated both officially and legally. However not by SB1070.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I hope we won’t.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Well pardner, the law suits that you mentioned earlier may well be pushed to the SCotUS, and then we will see.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I’m wondering if your point is that SB1070 will stop officers from targeting a certain group of people because of their color, looks, accent, etc. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Not exactly my point, but yea I think it may help. At least now there is verbiage that speaks against profiling. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Because without the law, that’s what they’ve been doing. I wonder if you’re that naïve to believe that his law will stop them now from doing such things, or may be this law will make it legal to target certain people.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The law doesn’t make it legal to target certain people. Actually with the wording as it is, actual profiling would give the subject something to fight the allegations. [/FONT]</blockquote>

Verification