Arizona's anti-imigration law...

[av8torntn]

If you know the answers of your senseless questions, then why do you ask? If you can’t understand the term “Reasonable Suspect” or think that it doesn’t have to do anything with SB1070, then you really have a defficiency. I can’t address it, you need a proffesional for that.

You finally got something correct. You cannot address "reasonable suspect I'm about to commit the crime of illegal immigration" because it is something stupid that you falsely claimed was in the law. We both knew it was not but you could not help yourself and had to lie to try and prove your point.

Also can you translate those two words that I put in bold to English for me?

 

[KingofBrown]

Um... is this what you call a coherent sentence? Are you trying to be sarcastic? If you want to be funny try to do it smartly.

Well there we have it. This means you have lied several time then as there is no prejudice in this law as it can be applied to any person that is in that state illegally.

 

[av8torntn]

Are you trying to be sarcastic? .

Nope you keep posting lies about this law and I'd really like to know why. If you are opposed to it why would you need to lie about what the law says?

 

[KingofBrown]

You need to make a further explanation of your point. Because that's what your buddies and I have been debating. And that's the most thing people here, in favor of SB1070, are crying. That illegal immigration is a crime. And I ask you again, what makes me a "Reasonable Suspect" of the crime Illegal Immigration? How can an offical "Reasonable Suspect" I'm an illegal immigrant without racial profile? Is because I didn't show a Tribal ID Card? Or a driver license?

You finally got something correct. You cannot address "reasonable suspect I'm about to commit the crime of illegal immigration" because it is something stupid that you falsely claimed was in the law. We both knew it was not but you could not help yourself and had to lie to try and prove your point.

Also can you translate those two words that I put in bold to English for me?

 

[KingofBrown]

How can you say I post lies about the law? If I myself, in various posts, have cited it word by word; color by color. And you, it seems you haven't read it at all.

Nope you keep posting lies about this law and I'd really like to know why. If you are opposed to it why would you need to lie about what the law says?

 

[av8torntn]

"reasonable suspect of the crime illegal immigration"
That is not in the law either.

Again I ask you to stop the lies to make your point. At least now you changed your lie from "reasonable suspect I'm about to commit the crime of illegal immigration" to "reasonable suspect of the crime illegal immigration".

 

[KingofBrown]

I don't see a big deal off this question. The Federal Government has made similar lawsuits in the past, which they have won. I also think a state can't implement how to treat tourists or immigrants without the consent of the Federal Government, or immigration in whole, legal or illegal. There's a very huge gap between immigration laws and the other ones you want to compare with. But, it seems that polls, and the question from this cute girl reporter, are the most solid arguments Sexy Miss Brewer, and others in favor of the law, have.

That's basically the question asked by the reporter in the video that I posted and Gibbs had no answer. Do you? I do not.

What the federal government is basically saying is that since they control immigration only they can enforce immigration laws. Are they willing to extend that argument to all federal laws? Are you? Do you think that they are willing to extend that to say even the drug laws? What about bankruptcy laws? What about counterfeiting laws?

Can the federal government pass a law and then say one state must enforce it but another is prohibited from enforcing it? I don't think that they can.


This is an interesting argument they are going to try and make. I see no way for the Feds to win without serious blowback. This law that has all you guys in an uproar is the federal law. Arizona is not creating any immigration policy or law. All it basically does is prevent local cities from being "sanctuary" cities. It also requires employers to use everify which other states already have laws in place.

 

[KingofBrown]

Really, how much does it change to be a reasonable suspect of I'm about to commit the crime of illegal immigration, to I committed/ am about to commit/ have commited/etc. or to be a reasonable suspect of the crime illegal immigration?

Really, read the law. You won't regret it. And have somebody explain to you the term "Reasonable Suspicion"

"reasonable suspect of the crime illegal immigration"
That is not in the law either.

Again I ask you to stop the lies to make your point. At least now you changed your lie from "reasonable suspect I'm about to commit the crime of illegal immigration" to "reasonable suspect of the crime illegal immigration".

 

[KingofBrown]

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.-av8tornt

Look why this came out. It's from your post. You claiming that SB1070 is nothing new. And saying all the gibberish above. So I ask you again, how can the police "Reasonable suspect," For any lawful contact 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 exists that the person is an alien who and is 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. I am a criminal/ I am about to commit/ have commited/etc. of illegal immigration? I hope you understand the term "Reasonable Suspect."

So I think you hit yourself on your argument that says that there's already a federal law and that it mirrors, and blah blah blah.
You can read the rest of the law on the AZ Legislature website.

p.s. Here's my complete thought from that argument you're making:

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?

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.

 

[KingofBrown]

By the way, here's the identification procedure from Arizona.

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.

You can read several other statutes on the AZ Legislature website, if you have time. (I hope this size is OK, had to change it because the type of font makes it look larger, and that bothers several ladies in here)

 

[av8torntn]

You claiming that SB1070 is nothing new.

I'm not claiming it I am saying that it is fact. There is no new immigration law, no new enforcement mechanism, and no new funding for enforcement. All it does is require locals to enforce federal law and require business to use everify. Nothing new. The Feds already have the programs set up. The laws already exist. I am also saying that you have posted multiple lies and that you would do better to try and make your point using things that are true. You addressed me. I have no idea why as you had nothing constructive to say about the press conference I linked to. I have told you already that what you think does not matter to me. You've lied about the law being bigoted, lied about it allowing police to go to another country and detain someone about to come here illegally, lied about the law raiding houses without warrants, and you keep changing what you think the law says. I have no idea why and I could really care less. Good luck with your race baiting/straw man arguments but just not with me.

You asked me what I honestly thought and I still think that you honestly have made a horrible case against this law built on lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.

If you opposed the law because you believe in freedom and think people should be allowed to travel where they wanted and work for whatever wages they agreed to I could respect that argument. Heck I might would even join in with you to make it but this silly dishonesty that you use is pitiful.

 

[av8torntn]

By the way, here's the identification procedure from Arizona.

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.

You can read several other statutes on the AZ Legislature website, if you have time. (I hope this size is OK, had to change it because the type of font makes it look larger, and that bothers several ladies in here)

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

Supreme Court already ruled that language is legal.

 

[trplnkl]

Post#1427
Because being against SB1070 doesn’t make a person to be an open border or pro-illegal. Just like you, that are in favor of SB1070, that doesn’t make you a racist, just because Mr. Pearce have had links with these white supremacist groups or Kris Kobach having links with a hate group, or does it? I’ve already mention you that, but it seems your brain is not capable of sticking things up. Do you know more about Jose Evans than the article states? Do you know how Mr. Evans stands on the matter of illegal aliens or are you just guessing? That’s why I said: Calling Jose Evans a pro-illegal or open-borders guy is a matter of opinions, not a fact. Do YOU know much about him?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot] I can tell you one thing for certain; I have never thought of this bill as a race issue and still do not. I’m not the one that started with the race card. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Making the statement you did doesn’t mean Mr. Evans is’t an open borders/pro-illegal, blanket amnesty advocate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t know a lot about Evans, other than it appears that he is an Obama wannabe. His political statements put him in direct alignment with Zero.[/FONT]

Since you are giving validity to polls ("I’m sure that if they poll, 99% of people will say that laws have to be enforced") Don’t you think that most people want laws to be enforced, too, Texan?, a larger percentage the citizens polled , in most if not all states, are in favor of SB 1070.(at least in all the polls I have read about.) Oh, I thought we already had settled that debate, but oh well… It seems you like the polls, 80 percent of people polled agree on an Amnesty to illegal immigration, Texan, do you?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I’m pretty sure I never mentioned poll results until the post you quoted above and that was in response your ridiculous claim of 99%. I have already told you several times that I do not usually place much faith in poll results. Please share you source on the claim that 80% of people polled agree on amnesty to illegal immigration, I don’t believe that’s true. And to answer your question, NO I am not in favor of blanket amnesty, especially if the ILLEGAL ALIENS crossing the borders are not already in containment. [/FONT]

Are you just guessing again? Make a further reading about Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch. He also seems to be in a political fight of Conservatism against Liberalism, just like you, Cowboy. So I still say calling Jose Evans an Open-Borders guy or Pro-Illegal is a matter of opinions, not a fact.

[FONT=&quot]If you can guess on your post, I can guess on mine as well. Do you have any reason to believe that Evans is anything but an open border/pro-illegal, amnesty advocate?[/FONT]

LOL. On the other hand, it seems you don’t have any argument, now. You can’t even debate about the aspects of a law you favor. It seems that you’re the one getting desperate.

[FONT=&quot] Don’t know where you come up with that claim? I’ve debated you on the law and your ridiculous claims, you just don’t agree with me. BTW, nice try on the “desperate” twist. Lol[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Well, Cowboy, if other states want to imitate a law like SB1070, that answers your illogical question of why other politicians from other states care about what SB1070 says. I thought you had more commonsense.
And believe me, if this law goes into effect it will affect us all, sooner or later. And not in a very positive way.

[FONT=&quot]Not illogical at all, if other states imitate SB 1070 those states have their own battle to fight. SB 1070 only directly effects Az, other states have to do what they think is best or what their citizens want.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is Illinois considering such a law as SB1070? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] We will see if it turns out to be the nightmare you predict or not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Yes, I would say that if they poll, 99% of people would say that they want laws to be enforced. Don’t you think that? I’ve never said I give credit to polls to validate SB1070 or any other laws. And I’ve mentioned that more than once on these posts.

[FONT=&quot]Since you’ve discredited(before you credited and then discredited again) why do you insist on making this claim? No, I don’t think that 99% would poll as you suggest,of course it would depend on who you poll and how the poll is worded.[/FONT]

This type of remarks, by Mr. Fitton, are just to agitate people. Most people, if not all, against SB1070 want laws against illegal immigration to be enforced; they just don't want this type of abstracted and vague laws to be passed, that might only bring more problems than the ones they could probably solve.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You demonize Fitton as an agitator yet I don’t see any outcry form you concerning members of “LaRaza” when the make public speeches as this:[/FONT]
[video=youtube;koLX6-XtAnA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koLX6-XtAnA&feature=related[/video]

If you can’t read the logic of the sentences above you’re having trouble, Cowboy. Or for a last resort all you have to say to endorse SB1070 is that most people like the law. I’ve never said that most people are against SB1070. I said that most people, if not all, AGAINST SB1070 want laws against illegal immigration to be enforced. And I’m not just guessing. And I think that those words by Mr. Fitton are just to agitate people. Now, who do you think are going to get agitated with those words, the ones in favor of the law or the ones against it. See? You seem to get very stirred up when you listen the propaganda saying that the Federal Government don’t want to enforce immigration laws, or that the Federal Government hate the people of Arizona if they don’t support SB1070, and those other type of remarks that exaggerate and don’t reflect the reality; instead, they just want to demonize the government because they are against and sue a vague and ambiguous law.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have said from the start of my involvement of this thread that the proponents of SB 1070 do want the already existing laws be enforced. I never said the feds didn’t want to enforce them I maintained that the feds do not enforce them and that is pretty much fact. If they did enforce them there would not be 12-20 million(depending on who’s estimates you go by) of illegal aliens in the USA today. I do believe that the reason for the lack of sufficient enforcement is a political ploy, but that is just my opinion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t recall hearing or reading when anyone in the federal government claimed that SB 1070 was vague and ambiguous.[/FONT]

 

[trplnkl]

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.

What do you have to back up that claim? As far as that reporter goes, I would be willing to bet that he has proof in his pocket that he is in the US legally. Also, unless he brakes some law while in Az, SB 1070 is totally irrelevant to him.

 

[trplnkl]

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?

I don't know if you are trying to kind everyone else or just kidding yourself. The feds aren't suing over your recent favorite flavor of "reasonable suspension" or "bigotry" or profiling, because they know that is a very weak argument. Trust me, the talking heads have already stated profiling as on of their fears several times. They would not hesitate to use it again either, if they can demonize the proponents of SB1070.

Oh please, don't try to take credit for educating me on the constitutionality of SB1070. I stated on page 29, post 426 "I understand that the Constitution gives the responsibility of protecting the US to the federal government, and this may be what is used to try and declare the law unconstitutional." your first post on this thread wasn't until page 30, post #441. So your claim of, "And I mentioned it earlier than the Cowboy, with an already anwered question I asked to him.", is proven to be untrue.

 

[trplnkl]

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?

Not without changing the law that is already in effect. This authority isn't given to states by the agencies but in the law.

 

[trplnkl]

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.[/QUOTE]
Since you brought my name up, I feel entitled to respond. It's not clear to me exactly what you are referring to me not understanding. Is it the "reading between the lines" or "13-3883" ?
If it is the reading "between the sentences", I have already told you, I try not to read anything into things I read that just isn't there.
If it is 13-3883, I understand it fine, what would you like for me to explain to you?
Also, in case you are wondering, my first and only language is American English.

 

[KingofBrown]

I'm not claiming it I am saying that it is fact. There is no new immigration law, no new enforcement mechanism, and no new funding for enforcement. All it does is require locals to enforce federal law and require business to use everify. Nothing new. The Feds already have the programs set up. The laws already exist. I am also saying that you have posted multiple lies and that you would do better to try and make your point using things that are true. You addressed me. I have no idea why as you had nothing constructive to say about the press conference I linked to. I have told you already that what you think does not matter to me. You've lied about the law being bigoted, lied about it allowing police to go to another country and detain someone about to come here illegally, lied about the law raiding houses without warrants, and you keep changing what you think the law says. I have no idea why and I could really care less. Good luck with your race baiting/straw man arguments but just not with me.


STATUTE11-1051 - B. compare this one with 13-2412 (Is about the identification procedure)
11-1051 – H, I, & J. (About the Citizen or Agency Suit Provision)
13-3883. Arrest by officer without warrant - 5. (It says it all)
41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund (About the funds)

There are more statutes that I consider new, but I won’t overwhelm you with so much reading. I present facts. You claim you give facts, but the only things I’ve read are your own words. Now, if this is nothing new for you, then I guess you need someone else to explain them to you. And next time you say I’m lying, I advice you to give facts to corroborate what you’re saying; your own words are not facts.
You asked me what I honestly thought and I still think that you honestly have made a horrible case against this law built on lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.
We are often unprepared for Truth, which is why Truth is revealed to us progressively. --Chip Brogden

If you opposed the law because you believe in freedom and think people should be allowed to travel where they wanted and work for whatever wages they agreed to I could respect that argument. Heck I might would even join in with you to make it but this silly dishonesty that you use is pitiful.
I got no comments for this, it sounds silly and romantic.

 

[KingofBrown]

So?

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

Supreme Court already ruled that language is legal.

 

[KingofBrown]

[FONT=&quot]I can tell you one thing for certain; I have never thought of this bill as a race issue and still do not. I’m not the one that started with the race card. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Making the statement you did doesn’t mean Mr. Evans is’t an open borders/pro-illegal, blanket amnesty advocate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t know a lot about Evans, other than it appears that he is an Obama wannabe. His political statements put him in direct alignment with Zero.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wow, I thought you were citing SB1070. Your post looks like a rainbow.Neither do I know much about Mr. Evans, Cowboy. So, would you now agree that calling him an open-borders guy is a matter of opinion, not a fact? Yes or No?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I’m pretty sure I never mentioned poll results until the post you quoted above and that was in response your ridiculous claim of 99%. I have already told you several times that I do not usually place much faith in poll results. Please share you source on the claim that 80% of people polled agree on amnesty to illegal immigration, I don’t believe that’s true. And to answer your question, NO I am not in favor of blanket amnesty, especially if the ILLEGAL ALIENS crossing the borders are not already in containment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cool, Cowboy, now we’re two. I also think that polls are not valid to corroborate any law. The source… go back a few pages, to 78, tonyexpress came up with that poll. It said that 83% support the use of the National Guard to patrol the border, 60% like SB1070, 71 % think legal Latino Citizens will be harrassed by the police, 51% dissaprove Obama’s actions, 75% feel the government isn’t doing enough to secure the border, and in that same poll 80% of people approve Amnesty (not specified how, an so I’d consider it plain and simple). That post it’s from June 19, but if you google it and try to find that specific poll, I’m sure you’ll succeed. So I guess we both are not in that 80%, Cowboy, so lets send polls to hell when debating about SB1070. I hope you or anyone else don’t come up with polls again to try to validate SB1070.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you can guess on your post, I can guess on mine as well. Do you have any reason to believe that Evans is anything but an open border/pro-illegal, amnesty advocate?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oh! So you recognized you were guessing? LOL. Do you have any fact to believe that Evans is an open/pro-illegal, amnesty advocate? I’ll say it once again, calling Jose Evans a pro-illegal or open-border guy is a matter of opinion, NOT A FACT![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Don’t know where you come up with that claim? I’ve debated you on the law and your ridiculous claims, you just don’t agree with me. BTW, nice try on the “desperate” twist. Lol[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No, Texan, you haven’t debated all the aspects of the law. Don’t try to trick yourself.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Not illogical at all, if other states imitate SB 1070 those states have their own battle to fight. SB 1070 only directly effects Az, other states have to do what they think is best or what their citizens want.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is Illinois considering such a law as SB1070? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We will see if it turns out to be the nightmare you predict or not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It seems you woudn’t have any strategy, or can’t see beyond your nose. These guys want to fight SB1070 to beat it from its roots, and if they can, they’ll prevent it from spreading to other states. Is so logical, that there’s no argument to that, as you want to make it, but it seems you can’t understand it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since you’ve discredited(before you credited and then discredited again) why do you insist on making this claim? No, I don’t think that 99% would poll as you suggest,of course it would depend on who you poll and how the poll is worded.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have discredited, credit and descredited what? Be specific and point it out. What I see is that the results of the polls you like are influenced because on who was polled and how the polls were worded, is that what you mean? You’re drowning on your own statements. That’s the problem with polls when trying to validate a law, I hope you, or someone else, don’t come with any poll in the future and use it to endorse SB1070, because as you see, and as I have said it several times, is useless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have said from the start of my involvement of this thread that the proponents of SB 1070 do want the already existing laws be enforced. I never said the feds didn’t want to enforce them I maintained that the feds do not enforce them and that is pretty much fact. If they did enforce them there would not be 12-20 million(depending on who’s estimates you go by) of illegal aliens in the USA today. I do believe that the reason for the lack of sufficient enforcement is a political ploy, but that is just my opinion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t recall hearing or reading when anyone in the federal government claimed that SB 1070 was vague and ambiguous.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t recall the Federal Government saying the law is vague and ambiguous, either, but I’ve read from many well respected law proffesors that it is vague and ambiguous, and I confirm that every time I read it. Please don’t say that I claimed that the Federal Government declared that SB1070 is vague and ambiguous because of this sentence: [/FONT]and don’t reflect the reality; instead, they just want to demonize the government because they are against and sue a vague and ambiguous law
The good thing I see here in your statement is that you’re understanding about the political issue I cited since my first posts, which you didn’t in the beginning. But, no, I don’t think like you, that that’s the cause of this problem of illegal immigration.