Fate of 1070 is up to the courts now

[mike2810]

Those are some pretty weak loser's arguments.

Why would I answer such questions as if I didn't know the answer or if it changed ANYTHING. The reason people are opposed to this law is because it runs the risk of profiling INNOCENT americans. Our grandpappies came to this country so they WOULDN'T have to carry their papers on them all day. Unless you can tell me theres no risk of innocents being detained for not having papers and seeming like illegal immigrants (guilt based on some visual judgement) Im going to be opposed to this law.

See you can't prove a negative. What if, what if, ? So you have no logical, legal stance. Your done.

since you didn't answer, I will state you are pro illegal. You have contempt for federal and state laws. You support people who enter the US illegally. You have taken in misinformaiton as the truth. Sorry for you.

 

[teamosil]

One your wrong imo that the AZ is racial profiling.

Arpaio's department most definitely was when ICE empowered them to enforce immigration law and he is the sheriff of 60% of the population. I have no doubt he would again if the law ever actually goes into effect.

Two. I would be fine with the white drunk test., if they had a reason to stop me. See you forget that 1070 states that LE must have a reason to make contact, then they must also have a reason to think someone is illegal. How easy you forget this part or ignore it.

In theory. In practice Arpaio had even stricter restrictions when ICE had given him immigration enforcement powers previously. In that case he had to actually charge them with a crime before he could haul them in to run their immigration status. Guess what he did. Pulled over 1000s of hispanics and charged them with trumped up charges. His favorite was "poorly lit licensce plate".... 1070 is even less restrictive. All his deputies need to do now is claim that they wanted to check

You did not answer the question. But I will, if you search you will find that using race alone the courts have said that is racial profiling. If you include other descriptors it is not. So your point is not valid.

Descriptors is a whole different deal. If a specific person commits a specific crime, whatever description the cops have of that person they're free to use. If the cops are just guessing that somebody is more likely to commit a certain crime because of their race, that is racial profiling.

You never have answered my question, are you pro illegal immigration?

No, of course not. Certainly I think the right is blowing it crazily out of proportion and working themselves up into a totally unjustified hysteria... And they're willing to accept all sorts of sacrifices of civil rights, massive spending, etc, to fight this absurdly overblown charicature they've created of the problem. Illegal immigration is indeed a problem, just a much smaller problem than one would assume from watching Fox, listening to talk radio, reading white supremacist blogs, etc.

 

[mike2810]

It is your opinion about MCSO profiling, not fact.
Any law can be abused by LE. To bad you have such little trust in those that put their lives on the line each day for us.
IMO, LE will not be guessing when they quesiton a person on there legal status.
You seem want to ignore the fact that illegals have broken a federal law.
The AZ is not in place yet. When it becomes active, it seems it would have more safe guards than what you so much destain about MCSO procedures.
Just to let you know MCSO is not the largest LE in Maricopa country. Phoenix LE alone almost has as many employees, MCSO is minor in numbers compared to city LE. There is about 9300 sq mi, MCSO must patrol. Lot of area for a not so large LE organization.

 

[BmanMcfly]

BM and I don't agree on some issues. This we agree mostly on. I believe in securing our borders, finding a way to reduce/stop illegal immigration. I understand legal immigration needs reformed. It needs to start with securing the borders.

Immigration does not need to be REFORMED, it needs to be ENFORCED better.

Look, I want everyone to make a fair wage for a fair job, pay taxes and have an allegiance to the country, that allegiance being determined by your willingness to pass an exam.

As far as SB1070, I live in AZ and support the new law that will go into place the end of the month. I dislike the amount of disinformation and half truths said in the media and others who do not support the bill. If the Feds did their jobs, I still would support SB1070. Feds and States need to work togeather.

Yes... but that's not what's happening... the feds are trying to take over the states and tell them what to do... and that's why Obama (who claims to be a constitutional lawyer) is suing the state. The way this process has been done is through the taxes, the state taxes go to the feds, who then dole out a portion of that money back to the states WITH STRINGS attached. Examples : speed limits are the same, blood alcohol percentages are the same, etc.

It is the United States, or at least I think we still are.

Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like it's becoming the soviet states of america, and the longer it takes for most people to stop caring so much about sports, sex and beer, the worse it's going to get and the harder it's gonna be to turn it around.

The illegal immigrants are simply tools in this process.

Why would I answer such questions as if I didn't know the answer or if it changed ANYTHING. The reason people are opposed to this law is because it runs the risk of profiling INNOCENT americans. Our grandpappies came to this country so they WOULDN'T have to carry their papers on them all day. Unless you can tell me theres no risk of innocents being detained for not having papers and seeming like illegal immigrants (guilt based on some visual judgement) Im going to be opposed to this law.

Here's the deal though, if you are driving, because you 'opt-in' to driving on the roads (like you have much choice) you have to have your ID on you anyway.

Now, let's say you've committed a minor crime, drinking in public... a cop comes, sees your drunk so starts asking questions, he can then ask for your id, you don't have it... so, you get taken in to the drunk tank, and while you're there you have your identification checked along with your immigration status... if you're in the country illegally, you gotta deal with the extra crime.

If the cops are doing a good job, it will be irrelevant if they are individually racist or not, because they can only ask for those papers if you're being pulled over for another crime / misdemeanor.

It's pretty much a mirror of the federal law.

 

[Republicanideal]

Sure. Just like I said, it says they cannot ONLY use race as cause for suspicion:

Now you are changing the wording. The word "only" is not equal to "solely." Lets change the words and see how it affects the meaning of the text.

"The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,"

"The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based only on race,"

When you change the word "solely" to "only" as you and other liberals do the clause changes to what you want it to say. That Race or other can be a factor.

When the word "Solely" is kept in the wording it excludes claims that are based on Race or other. It necessitates that there must be a reason other than race to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause. IOW, the person being suspected must do something to bring about the suspicion of illegality as opposed to being singled out because they are solely of a certain race, etc. You are not gonna change the words like that and not expect a response from one of us who recognizes this.

The house revised that by taking out the word "solely" so that it now prohibits racial profiling.

No they removed it because of liberals like you who like to change and misconstrue words and play the racism or discrimination card any time you don't like something. the presence of the word "Solely" does not promote profiling it merely states that there must be something other than race that prompts police action and any action cannot be based solely upon the color of ones skin or their race.

That's ridiculous... Are you seriously going to contend that Sheriff Arpaio, who is the sheriff of 60% of the population of the state, is not racially profiling? He was found to be racially profiling by ICE, he is currently being investigated for it by a federal grand jury and the FBI...

This is simply a composition fallacy argument. I don't need to say anymore. Fallacy: Composition

LOL. Somebody listens to too much talk radio.... You would do well to make fewer assumptions and research things better instead.

I did in fact why don't you look at the ruling in Edgar v. Mite Corp which set out guidelines for which State laws and Federal laws can be congruent and what constitutes a conflict between them.

You can find this under section 3 of Justice Whites opinion which it states:"a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute; and
[a] conflict will be found 'where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility . . . ,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 373 U. S. 142-143 (1963), or where the state 'law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 312 U. S. 67 (1941); 430 U. S. 526, 430 U. S. 540-541 [(1977)]. Accord, De Canas v. Bica,@ 424 U. S. 351, 424 U. S. 363 (1976)." EDGAR V. MITE CORP., 457 U. S. 624 :: Volume 457 :: 1982 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

The bolded parts are the conditions established by the court to measure whether the law is in fact in conflict with Federal law. The Arizona Law does not meet these requirements and will thus not be overturned.

 

[liblady]

"The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,"

"The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based only on race,"

When you change the word "solely" to "only" as you and other liberals do the clause changes to what you want it to say. That Race or other can be a factor.

When the word "Solely" is kept in the wording it excludes claims that are based on Race or other. It necessitates that there must be a reason other than race to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause. IOW, the person being suspected must do something to bring about the suspicion of illegality as opposed to being singled out because they are solely of a certain race, etc. You are not gonna change the words like that and not expect a response from one of us who recognizes this.

lmao:

on·ly   /ˈoʊnli/ Show Spelled[ohn-lee] Show IPA
–adverb
1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively: This information is for your eyes only.
2. no more than; merely; just: If it were only true! I cook only on weekends.
3. as recently as: I read that article only yesterday.
4. in the final outcome or decision: You will only regret your harsh words to me.

 

[Republicanideal]

lmao:

on·ly   /ˈoʊnli/ Show Spelled[ohn-lee] Show IPA
–adverb
1. without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively: This information is for your eyes only.
2. no more than; merely; just: If it were only true! I cook only on weekends.
3. as recently as: I read that article only yesterday.
4. in the final outcome or decision: You will only regret your harsh words to me.

Or you could look at the 2nd definition without laughing your ass off and rephrase it even further as in the Liberal mindset and in its usage here.

"The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based just or merely on race," But then again it would not be excluding race as a factor of the investigation would it, based on using the synonyms of the second definition?

If Liberals use the first definition "solely" is a synonym and there should not be a problem as it completely excludes the possibility of including racial profiling as i said before, but that isnt what they go for is it they see the second definition place the word "only" as a synonym for "solely" and say "look it includes racial profiling because it doesn't exclude the possibility under this definition!" What nonsense!