Arizona's anti-imigration law...

[KingofBrown]

At 5:07, that reporter would be “Reasonable Suspect” in Arizona under SB1070; whatever you say. Even with that nice suit. The girl at 6:40 would not. If you’re going to reply to this, reply honestly.

At 6:40 I do not know who this reporter is but her question is priceless.

 

[KingofBrown]

Damn, another poll... I don't know why, but lately, the first thing that comes out about SB1070 are polls, even in the news. Why? Are the polls the most solid back-up they got to support SB1070?

KoB, I'll get back to your post when I have more time, I'm not ignoring you.

 

[Babagounj]

Arizona Latino Group Criticizes DoJ Lawsuit

Arizona Latino Group Criticizes DoJ Lawsuit

PHOENIX – An Arizona Latino group has some harsh words for the Obama administration. The Arizona Latino Republican Association, a conservative Latino group, says the Department of Justice lawsuit is “frivolous.”
In a statement, ALRA Chairman Jesse Hernandez said, “The original premise for the U.S. Justice Departments lawsuit against Arizona was that SB 1070 violated civil rights and encouraged racial profiling. When that no longer remained applicable, the Administration changed course and now alleges that Arizona’s law is unconstitutional, barring the state its right to enforce federal law and crack down on illegal immigration.”
Hernandez continued to add that the administration’s lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars and that the government should spend the money securing the border and enforcing its own immigration laws.

 

[Babagounj]

Most Americans Oppose Obama’s Ariz. Lawsuit

Most Americans Oppose Obama’s Ariz. Lawsuit
In a major blow for the Obama Administration just months before the midterm elections, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration control law.
Most Americans, not only back Arizona’s measure, they support a similar bill aimed at restricting illegal immigration in their own state, according to a pair of national polls released this week. First a Rasmussen Reports survey divulged that 56% of Americans oppose the president’s lawsuit against Arizona while only 28% agree with it. In the same survey 61% of respondents said they would like to see a similar law in their state.

 

[tieguy]

I just think it's very strange that instead of actually doing THEIR job and securing our borders, the Obama group decides to sue the state of AZ. when the gov. is just trying to protect the citizens of AZ. from the border violence.

In reverse, the Obama group does nothing about the sanctuary cities like San Fran and Salt Lake who break the law by harboring the illegals.

This is messed up!!

between arizona and the deep water drilling issue obama is wasting a lot of money on legal actions.

 

[moreluck]

That's what lawyers do ! All his cohorts are lawyers to. I'll bet they all have the same kind of briefcases, like a club.

 

[av8torntn]

At 5:07, that reporter would be “Reasonable Suspect” in Arizona under SB1070; whatever you say. Even with that nice suit. The girl at 6:40 would not. If you’re going to reply to this, reply honestly.

Honestly I think you are making a losing argument. The Federal Government knows making this argument about racial profiling is a sure loser which is why they have challenged it based on the supremacy clause. This reporter just destroyed their challenge with her question. We got the normal answer "I don't know" from Gibbs. The Fed's are trying to argue that they are the only ones that can enforce federal law yet as I brought up to you earlier, because I knew this was the direction they were heading, they already give the states the authority to investigate and to notify the feds of immigration violations. You never know what the courts will do but this honestly looks like a token losing challenge by the Fed's.

And so it goes......

 

[Catatonic]

That's what lawyers do ! All his cohorts are lawyers to. I'll bet they all have the same kind of briefcases, like a club.

I've never heard of them hitting people with their briefcases.

 

[fxdwg]

I saw a Maxwell Smart episode where missiles came out of the briefcases. Pretty cool when I was 9!!!

 

[KingofBrown]

Oh, no my friend. It’s not because it’s a losing argument. Believe me, they don’t want to use the “reasonable suspicion” argument because it would not be a wise “political” move, but mostly, it seems it would not be prudent for them to open that nest of bigotry, when they got something clearer to fight with. The Cowboy got that “unconstitutional argument” earlier than you. And I mentioned it earlier than the Cowboy, with an already anwered question I asked to him. I’m not so sure like you, that think that the Federal Government will win or lose with such an argument. However, the Federal Government had a similar lawsuit against California not a long time ago, which they (The Feds) won. The thing here is that you guys don’t understand that there’s no past law, or a similar one, that you can compare with SB1070. No law in the United States allows a Police Officer to have Probable Cause to search a Reasonable Suspect of illegal immigration, or his/her house, without a warrant. And several other aspects. Or please point it to me, if I’m missing it. And it seems you couldn’t give a solid argument about that “suspicious” reporter, because we all know he would be considered a “Suspect” in the Sheriff’s county, don’t you?

Honestly I think you are making a losing argument. The Federal Government knows making this argument about racial profiling is a sure loser which is why they have challenged it based on the supremacy clause. This reporter just destroyed their challenge with her question. We got the normal answer "I don't know" from Gibbs. The Fed's are trying to argue that they are the only ones that can enforce federal law yet as I brought up to you earlier, because I knew this was the direction they were heading, they already give the states the authority to investigate and to notify the feds of immigration violations. You never know what the courts will do but this honestly looks like a token losing challenge by the Fed's.

And so it goes......

 

[fxdwg]

Can they work on UPS airplanes?

 

[KingofBrown]

Look, for those talking about lawsuits. It seems the Sheriff has already drained the resources. Keep on donating, it seems he will need the money...

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/07/joe_arpaio_andy_thomas_could_b.php

 

[av8torntn]

Oh, no my friend. It’s not because it’s a losing argument. Believe me, they don’t want to use the “reasonable suspicion” argument because it would not be a wise “political” move, but mostly, it seems it would not be prudent for them to open that nest of bigotry, when they got something clearer to fight with. The Cowboy got that “unconstitutional argument” earlier than you. And I mentioned it earlier than the Cowboy, with an already anwered question I asked to him. I’m not so sure like you, that think that the Federal Government will win or lose with such an argument. However, the Federal Government had a similar lawsuit against California not a long time ago, which they (The Feds) won. The thing here is that you guys don’t understand that there’s no past law, or a similar one, that you can compare with SB1070. No law in the United States allows a Police Officer to have Probable Cause to search a Reasonable Suspect of illegal immigration, or his/her house, without a warrant. And several other aspects. Or please point it to me, if I’m missing it. And it seems you couldn’t give a solid argument about that “suspicious” reporter, because we all know he would be considered a “Suspect” in the Sheriff’s county, don’t you?

OK got it the reason you race bait/straw man argument is because you have nothing else. I just read the law again and I realize that there is no way that you can say those things above if you had read it. Even if English is your second language none of the things you claim are in the law. I see you still have not given a solid answer about the reporters question so I am guessing that all this change of subject crap means that you know you are wrong again. There is really nothing new in this law but the requirement for local law enforcement to follow federal law. Federal law is specifically cited. The Supreme Court has already ruled that if the police have an encounter with you that you must tell them your identity. The Supreme Court has already said that police can question and detain someone under a reasonable suspicion. All you have left is false charges of racism and that is not going to get you anywhere. You asked me a question and I answered it. I have no idea why you keep addressing me. I have no idea what reasonable suspect means. I never saw it in the law. Save your race baiting for someone else. I have no desire to hear what you think is bigotry. I hope I was clear.

In this country if you do not think that the police can question you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime than you are living a fantasy. If you do not think that you have to identify yourself to the police under those same circumstances you are beyond a fantasy.

Please do not reply again. It is a waste of both our times as you do not want a discussion. I'm not the one to hold your hand through the facts.

 

[bbsam]

Honestly I think you are making a losing argument. The Federal Government knows making this argument about racial profiling is a sure loser which is why they have challenged it based on the supremacy clause. This reporter just destroyed their challenge with her question. We got the normal answer "I don't know" from Gibbs. The Fed's are trying to argue that they are the only ones that can enforce federal law yet as I brought up to you earlier, because I knew this was the direction they were heading, they already give the states the authority to investigate and to notify the feds of immigration violations. You never know what the courts will do but this honestly looks like a token losing challenge by the Fed's.

And so it goes......

But your own words side with the federal government: "they already give the states the authority to investigate and notify the feds of immigration violations." Does this not imply that the federal government has the right to rescind that authority as well as deny states the right to enforce immigration policy?

 

[tieguy]

Oh, no my friend. It’s not because it’s a losing argument. Believe me, they don’t want to use the “reasonable suspicion” argument because it would not be a wise “political” move, but mostly, it seems it would not be prudent for them to open that nest of bigotry, when they got something clearer to fight with. The Cowboy got that “unconstitutional argument” earlier than you. And I mentioned it earlier than the Cowboy, with an already anwered question I asked to him. I’m not so sure like you, that think that the Federal Government will win or lose with such an argument. However, the Federal Government had a similar lawsuit against California not a long time ago, which they (The Feds) won. The thing here is that you guys don’t understand that there’s no past law, or a similar one, that you can compare with SB1070. No law in the United States allows a Police Officer to have Probable Cause to search a Reasonable Suspect of illegal immigration, or his/her house, without a warrant. And several other aspects. Or please point it to me, if I’m missing it. And it seems you couldn’t give a solid argument about that “suspicious” reporter, because we all know he would be considered a “Suspect” in the Sheriff’s county, don’t you?

you keep trying to make the racial profiling argument. The news clip you posted and responed to states obama is not chasing that argument. Instead a federal government versus states rights argument. as such that reporter did destroy the case with her question.

 

[KingofBrown]

I see you still have not given a solid answer about the reporters question so I am guessing that all this change of subject crap means that you know you are wrong again. Well, it seems that bbsam had already settled this off for you.
Go back a few pages, I have read ALL of the law and I have cited it several times. There is really nothing new in this law but the requirement for local law enforcement to follow federal law. I see all you got is 287(g) ICE assured that, “The 287(g) program is not designed to allow state and local agencies to perform random street operations…It does not impact traffic offenses such as driving without a license unless the offense leads to an arrest.” I didn’t come up with it.Federal law is specifically cited I’ve already told you that is no argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that if the police have an encounter with you that you must tell them your identity. The Supreme Court has already said that police can question and detain someone under a reasonable suspicion. All you have left is false charges of racism and that is not going to get you anywhere. You asked me a question and I answered it. I have no idea why you keep addressing me. I have no idea what reasonable suspect means. I never saw it in the law. Save your race baiting for someone else. I have no desire to hear what you think is bigotry. I hope I was clear.

 

[KingofBrown]

In this country if you do not think that the police can question you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime than you are living a fantasy. If you do not think that you have to identify yourself to the police under those same circumstances you are beyond a fantasy. You should not generalize saying “in this country.” Because states have different laws about the identification procedure you claim. Here’s the one from AZ, it seems you haven’t read it, either:

13-2412.Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other. Where do you see a Tribal ID Card in this Statute? Or even a Driver License? Or at least a form of an ID Card?

And I ask you, how can an officer “reasonable suspect” I’m about to commit the crime of Illegal Immigration as you claim to without racial profiling? Because I didn’t show a Driver License, or a Tribal Identification card?

 

[KingofBrown]

OK got it the reason you race bait/straw man argument is because you have nothing else. I just read the law again and I realize that there is no way that you can say those things above if you had read it. Even if English is your second language none of the things you claim are in the law.

Please do not reply again. It is a waste of both our times as you do not want a discussion. I'm not the one to hold your hand through the facts.

If you read the law, I’m sure this is the first time, because now you claim you have read it, but I still doubt you have read it. If you finally decide reading it, read 13-3883 a few times. If English is your native language you need some college classes to know how to read between the sentences, the Cowboy that seems that English is his native language doesn’t know what this means, I hope you will. And no, English is not my second language it is my third one, but I consider it my first language along my native one.
As I have mentioned this several times, prejudice is not the only problem with the law, but it seems that this is the thing that stirs you guys up and it’s the only one you try to debate. If you don’t know what is a “Reasonable Suspect” it’s useless for you to read SB1070, and to try to give your points in this thread. And by the way, you haven’t given any facts, you just keep guessing and saying that you read the law, but you haven’t cited it in any of the posts of the 98 pages of this thread, or at least in this post that you presume you’re giving facts.

 

[tieguy]

And I ask you, how can an officer “reasonable suspect” I’m about to commit the crime of Illegal Immigration as you claim to without racial profiling? Because I didn’t show a Driver License, or a Tribal Identification card?[/QUOTE]

large font equals small .......

look for the ones swimming across the rio grande with their clothes and boots on.

 

[KingofBrown]

I hope you like this size. But size does not matter anyway, Tietguy.

What!? Now, you’re sending Arizona Police oficials to Texas? I think you just made a senseless comment. Besides, making SB1070 to look more irrelevant. But, I don’t blame you, that’s what happens when defending such an ambiguous law.

And I ask you, how can an officer “reasonable suspect” I’m about to commit the crime of Illegal Immigration as you claim to without racial profiling? Because I didn’t show a Driver License, or a Tribal Identification card?

large font equals small .......

look for the ones swimming across the rio grande with their clothes and boots on. [/QUOTE]