KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Ouh, the little hamster trying to turn away the topic when he’s out of arguments. How cute. Good job, Texan.
Arizona's anti-imigration law...
- Thread starter Lue C Fur
- Start date
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Another little hamster spinning on the same wheel over and over again. When New York passes a law identical to SB1070 I’ll stop to argue about the AZ law. Or at least if New York passes an anti-immigration law that has something like the 13-3883 A.-5 from HB2162 revisions of SB1070. Listen, because you little hamsters like to run and run on the spinning wheel a lot, it has to have that at least, not a law that simply fights illegal immigration.
You jump from New York to Idaho; almost from coast to coast, and that article doesn’t even mention SB1070. Dude, really… you have to do better than that.
Also, I think that 99% of people here debating, including me, want tougher ILLEGAL immigration laws. So what does your article have to do about what I said?
You jump from New York to Idaho; almost from coast to coast, and that article doesn’t even mention SB1070. Dude, really… you have to do better than that.
Also, I think that 99% of people here debating, including me, want tougher ILLEGAL immigration laws. So what does your article have to do about what I said?
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
So you think that a possible problem or a concern with the law is just the ID issue? What can you say about the “Reasonable Suspicion” the “Probable Cause” that “Arizona residents can sue an agency or officer they feel isn’t enforcing immigration laws to the fullest extent possible and that the court costs and fees may be recovered by the person or agency who brought such action” “How money will be managed” “The funds collected” “The racist roots of the main authors…” etc. etc. etc. Because I have pointed out a couple of these from time to time and yet there are a couple of little hamsters that can’t quite give any argument to those facts. They just mention the “Race Card” and things like that.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
The only people I have called racists are the White Supremacy groups behind the law. I have never call anyone in favor of the law a racist (and I’ve repeated this several times because you like to accredit words that people never mention); they might be unaware that’s all, but never have I call them racists. Or have I call you a racist, Cowboy? Tell me. I don’t think you’re a racist, I just feel you’re quite uninformed. And I’m gonna’ tell you one more time: Just because people are in favor of the law, that doesn’t make them racists! Hope I’m clear for like the 5th time.
Last edited:
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Really, where have I said I’m an expert? It was me the one who started saying I still have too much to learn. But, please feel free to point the part that you claim. I don’t think you’re gonna’ find it, Texan. And that’s the main problem with you, you just throw words like crazy but you don’t have any back up to support your words.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Tex is retired and has not worn a uniform in quite some time.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
I hope this doesn't make you think that all or most illegal immigrants or that all or most Texas men are like this guy.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
tieguy
Banned
why call anyone a racist? why is it the liberal is so against labeling unless it involves calling an opposing point of view that of a racist?
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
I’ve mentioned several parts of the law; not only that of the racial profiling. And the only arguments you have are that of the racial profiling. In that case it’s you guys the ones who are using the race card. I won’t ignore the fact that the law has racist roots and that it started with racism, just because of the Liberals against Coservatives and the race card and all this political mantra. The Racial Profiling issue is there because it’s a fact, not because of the race card or as an only method to win a political battle, or because you think me or someone else made it a racial issue. I hope you guys could give your opinions on the other aspects of the law, not only that of racial profiling; we all could enrich ourselves from the views of others.
tieguy
Banned
I'm a simple man who is not interested in sipping cognac while debating the finer points of the law with my ivy league debating team. I'm concernced about the citizenry of arizona that are warned to stay outside an 80 mile zone near the border due to threats to their lives and livelyhood.
I would welcome your putting the silver spoon down, and tell arizona how to fix the problem with out so much fluff and bull****.
dilligaf
IN VINO VERITAS
Great post Tie. Thank you.
I'd give you a rep but I can't.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
My dear Texan, you finally are open to discussion without all the childish stuff. First, Cowboy, from the posts left open, and that we can’t ignore the fact of the racist roots and all that kind of stuff.
It's clear that you will not take anyone's word on what "reasonable suspicion" is or how it is determined, so I see no logic in wasting time trying to explain it to you.
You've got your mind made up that anyone supporting this law is neo-nazi or other brands of white supremacists, which is so far from the truth it isn't even funny. The Cowboy.
I would like you to really explain the “Reasonable Suspicion” in your terms. How you think it will be applied and all that kind of things. First don’t you think that the concept of “Reasonable Suspicion” is a very complex term to deal with, and even more if you put it in a law that targets people? History has showed that this term has to be applied mainly when the safety of the officers and others are at risk, in the search of weapons, without having “Probable Cause” or a Warrant, like in a car chase for example. Why? Because a term like that would let the officer use it as an excuse for whatever he pleases in any situation, thus a term like that is mainly used in extreme cases. And in this case, the “Reasonable Suspicion” is used to determine if the person is an illegal alien. It is not used if the person is a threat to the officer, or if it has weapons. It leaves it up to the officer. If the officer has “Reasonable Suspicion” that the person is an ilegal alien, the officer will detain that person. Now, some people claim that by not showing an ID, that would make a person to be “Reasonable Suspect of a crime.” And although that’s a situation explained by the law, reasonable suspicion can be applied even if the person showed an ID, since “Reasonable Suspicion” can be used as how the officer considers the person might get involved in criminal activity (In this case, the crime would be being illegaly present in the US or other type of illegal immigration violations, in other words many activities that they (the officers) would consider a crime. That’s one of the things I say the law is vague and ambiguous). in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, - How, can the officer consider a person is an alien without racial profiling? And the people who claim about the ID thing, don’t know that now “Reasonable Suspicion” is used to detain a person even if he/she has not committed the crime of being here illegaly, or even if he/she has shown an ID. But do you really think that by not showing an ID makes you a criminal, or that you are required to identify yourself to what the officer considers a public offense? So that’s another complex debate there. Sheriff Dupnikk said: It requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from an individual when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that he is an illegal immigrant. When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated.” I don’t think the law articulates the use of “Reasonable Suspicion” just because it prohibits racial profiling in some of his sections, or because it says that 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… THE ID. Why I say that? Because: A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe A misdemeanor has been committed in his the officer's presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.Do you really think the law articulates the term “Reasonable Suspicion?”
That’s one of the aspects.
It's clear that you will not take anyone's word on what "reasonable suspicion" is or how it is determined, so I see no logic in wasting time trying to explain it to you.
You've got your mind made up that anyone supporting this law is neo-nazi or other brands of white supremacists, which is so far from the truth it isn't even funny. The Cowboy.
I would like you to really explain the “Reasonable Suspicion” in your terms. How you think it will be applied and all that kind of things. First don’t you think that the concept of “Reasonable Suspicion” is a very complex term to deal with, and even more if you put it in a law that targets people? History has showed that this term has to be applied mainly when the safety of the officers and others are at risk, in the search of weapons, without having “Probable Cause” or a Warrant, like in a car chase for example. Why? Because a term like that would let the officer use it as an excuse for whatever he pleases in any situation, thus a term like that is mainly used in extreme cases. And in this case, the “Reasonable Suspicion” is used to determine if the person is an illegal alien. It is not used if the person is a threat to the officer, or if it has weapons. It leaves it up to the officer. If the officer has “Reasonable Suspicion” that the person is an ilegal alien, the officer will detain that person. Now, some people claim that by not showing an ID, that would make a person to be “Reasonable Suspect of a crime.” And although that’s a situation explained by the law, reasonable suspicion can be applied even if the person showed an ID, since “Reasonable Suspicion” can be used as how the officer considers the person might get involved in criminal activity (In this case, the crime would be being illegaly present in the US or other type of illegal immigration violations, in other words many activities that they (the officers) would consider a crime. That’s one of the things I say the law is vague and ambiguous). in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, - How, can the officer consider a person is an alien without racial profiling? And the people who claim about the ID thing, don’t know that now “Reasonable Suspicion” is used to detain a person even if he/she has not committed the crime of being here illegaly, or even if he/she has shown an ID. But do you really think that by not showing an ID makes you a criminal, or that you are required to identify yourself to what the officer considers a public offense? So that’s another complex debate there. Sheriff Dupnikk said: It requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from an individual when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that he is an illegal immigrant. When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated.” I don’t think the law articulates the use of “Reasonable Suspicion” just because it prohibits racial profiling in some of his sections, or because it says that 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… THE ID. Why I say that? Because: A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe A misdemeanor has been committed in his the officer's presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.Do you really think the law articulates the term “Reasonable Suspicion?”
That’s one of the aspects.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Cool dude. But first lets see why SB1070 won't work and the problems it can bring instead of solving. Then open another thread and we all will gather together to give opinions of possible solutions for your problems and concerns. And we all can fix the state's problems togetha'...
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Hey! Dilligaf long time don't see you around here! Look Tie to this woman's signature line: "Learn as if you were to live forever."-Ghandi. Learning is not so much fluff and bull****.
Great post Tie. Thank you.
Ok. Fix it. Raise taxes, institute the draft (armed forces stretched as it is) build a real wall station 100,000 troops along the borders. Don't get cheap with it, pay for it in additional tax levies because we need it and no reason to burden our children with the cost.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Babagounj
Strength through joy
The Other new Arizona Law…
By Bob Price
With all the furor over the Arizona Illegal Immigration Enforcement Law recently passed, another new law in Arizona passed without much fanfare. Effective July 29th of this year, Arizona citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a concealed carry permit.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of American citizens to “keep and bear arms”. The new Arizona law re-affirms the right of Americans in Arizona to defend themselves with a concealed weapon. Arizona will continue to issue Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) licenses to qualified citizens. One might ask why someone would want a Arizona CCW license when they are allowed to concealed carry without a license. There are two good reasons for this. First would be for travel purposes. The Arizona CCW license has reciprocity with 32 other states. This affords Arizona citizens the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without question in these other states. Additionally, by having a AZ CCW license, citizens can forgo the NICS background check when purchasing new firearms as their background has already been thoroughly checked. The training for an Arizona CCW is also a good idea to make certain the citizen is familiar with applicable Arizona laws regarding the use of deadly force and prohibited places of carry.
Arizona joins Alaska and Vermont in passing “Constitutional Carry” laws which allow its citizens to carry a firearm open carry or concealed, with our without a license.
By Bob Price
With all the furor over the Arizona Illegal Immigration Enforcement Law recently passed, another new law in Arizona passed without much fanfare. Effective July 29th of this year, Arizona citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a concealed carry permit.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of American citizens to “keep and bear arms”. The new Arizona law re-affirms the right of Americans in Arizona to defend themselves with a concealed weapon. Arizona will continue to issue Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) licenses to qualified citizens. One might ask why someone would want a Arizona CCW license when they are allowed to concealed carry without a license. There are two good reasons for this. First would be for travel purposes. The Arizona CCW license has reciprocity with 32 other states. This affords Arizona citizens the ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without question in these other states. Additionally, by having a AZ CCW license, citizens can forgo the NICS background check when purchasing new firearms as their background has already been thoroughly checked. The training for an Arizona CCW is also a good idea to make certain the citizen is familiar with applicable Arizona laws regarding the use of deadly force and prohibited places of carry.
Arizona joins Alaska and Vermont in passing “Constitutional Carry” laws which allow its citizens to carry a firearm open carry or concealed, with our without a license.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
ILLEGALS & Crime — CATO Doesn’t Get It!
CATO doesn’t get it. The argument isn’t that ILLEGAL immigration causes MORE crime.
The issue is that crimes committed by ILLEGALS are the ONLY crimes that are 100% preventable!
Think about the simplicity of that thought for a moment.
All the murders, drug epidemics, ID theft, etc., etc. committed by ILLEGALS would simply go away if they weren’t in OUR country to commit them!
CATO doesn’t get it. The argument isn’t that ILLEGAL immigration causes MORE crime.
The issue is that crimes committed by ILLEGALS are the ONLY crimes that are 100% preventable!
Think about the simplicity of that thought for a moment.
All the murders, drug epidemics, ID theft, etc., etc. committed by ILLEGALS would simply go away if they weren’t in OUR country to commit them!
One Old Veteran
