Exactly! That's what I was talking about. I just needed someone to confirm it.
Confirm what? that is is a political discussion? My 14 year old grandson could have told you that. YES it is political as all issues involving laws.
It seems that you guys don't even care what the law says, or what it does.
Why would you say this? That's gotta be one of the stupidest things you've said on here...well maybe not. Of course we care what the law says and what it does.
You're just pointing fingers on the current Federal Administration using SB1070 (With its modifications). That's what I perceive in many of these posts, if not all of them. You've mixed this political garbage between two groups fighting for power with how this law could work or how it doesn't; you're between this fight and can't see what is around it.
Again, you are incorrect, the finger pointing is not just toward the current administration. There have been several comments that the lack of enforcement of the federal immigration laws is equally on past administrations as well. Bush didn't protect the boarders, neither did Clinton nor Bush Sr. Don't kind yourself that the reasons for NOT enforcing the laws is anything but political, it always has been and always will be.
I've already read what's in the link before you placed here, and I've even read more than that. And still, I can't see why you're so assure that there's already a Federal Law like SB1070 with its modifications. I still want to see that Federal Law you proclaim is the same as SB1070.
What you are looking for does not exist in a law in and of itself(that I know of), but in the US codes from that link.
If you're saying that SB1070, with its modifications of course, reinforces Federal Law, then that's a different story.
DUH! THAT is exactly what I and others here HAVE been saying from the start.
The thing here is how it reinforces it, not that it reinforces it.
NOW we may be getting some where, please make a post with your concerns on HOW it is to be enforced with none of the extra gibberish and then we can talk.
Um... How dare can you insult our Constitution by saying that it does not have anti-profiling, saying that it does not protect people from being victims of profiling or racism.
You need to show me where I made any such comment, good luck on finding it because I never said that.
Our Constitution protects all people under every jurisdiction with the same individual rights under law. See?
See what? I see that you have no idea what I have and haven't said. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
You're still wrong in saying that HB2162 "protects legal citizens from profiling and possible... blah blah blah."
How is that statement incorrect, the law clearly does not allow profiling, period.
You should have said the same thing but instead of "legal citizens" you should have mention "any person living under our jurisdiction." That would sound a little better for HB2162 in your statement.
I was not quoting the law, I was making a statement and using the term "legal resident" for a purpose. In the beginning stages of this thread some of the complaints of the law were that through profiling, legal citizens would be losing certain rights. The language in the law actuality protects all people from profiling not just legal residents.
Now here we go:
For any lawful contact (Um... I don't wanna' talk about this one
) stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion (Doesn't this depend more on the Police Officer than anyone else? I wonder how they'd be trained to have reasonable suspicion on an illegal alien. Well, at least we have your kind words dear Gov. Brewer to protect people from being racial profiled)
Are the only things you are reading on this issue on this thread and not even all of that ? It has already been pointed out that in the training of officers for enforcement of this law what constitutes "reasonable suspicion".
exists that the person is an alien who and (I don't see much of a change for better, someone explain that to me please, seriously) is
I'm sorry that you are having trouble understanding this, but ALL aliens (legal or not) are not brown skinned Mexicans.
unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely (Isn't this racist? You're saying that you will not consider only race, color, or national origin, but you still will consider them as of implementing the law)
You're misreading between the lines here. The wording does not say the do or can consider R,C,NO , it says they can not use those without other "reasonable suspicion".
consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution (Now, it doesn't matter if you say as to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or Arizona's, because you've just broke that extent by saying you will consider race, color, or national origin).
Again, that is NOT what that says nor what it implies.
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following... blah blah blah.
AH HA, you do read some things, you just ignore it. This is where the reasonable suspicion comes in. If a person stopped on a traffic violation and they can not provide any of the listed documents, such as a drivers license, further investigation is warranted (regardless of R,C to determine NO).
Now, you will say: "But, that's already modify, it doesn't apply to this anymore." And I say now, who the heck with an IQ of 20 signs this stupidity? Or did Arpaio wrote this thing? And then they paid a private lawyer to modify it? I wonder what that lawyer said: "Umm.... Well.... That's all I can do with it. But, I recommend you start from scratch..." Arpaio: Oh shut up! It's perfect, you've already hurt much of it."
Do you have these little made up conversations in you head often? Who's voice do you hear to represent me, Dilligaf and The sheriff?
Oh, that's right. The "Grandma Patriots". LOL
