Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Arizona's anti-imigration law...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KingofBrown" data-source="post: 746667" data-attributes="member: 28771"><p><strong><span style="color: #333333"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Nice try, AV8, but no, that’s not the same. It would not be necessary to sign SB1070, then. Here’s a video for you to watch, Mr. Sheriff Arpaio has been using section 287(g). 2:20, not in a very reasonable way, but… [video=youtube;ROuRmjDX88k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuRmjDX88k&feature=player_embedded"[/video]! </span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #333333"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">If you have time, listen to all of his contradictory statements.</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #333333"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Then, why would Arizona pass SB1070, if Mr. Arpaio has already been able to use what you claim is the same as SB1070? Even the most irrational person would find that thought illogical. Lets keep looking. I don’t think I’m gonna’ find it, anyway. If you say it mirrors Federal Law, it means that it is identical to Federal Law. Why don’t you look for something at least similar to this in a Federal Law<u>: </u></span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><u>Sec. 6. Section 13-3883. from HB2162</u>. #5 in particular. <strong>Not even with HB2162, they have been able to mirror Federal Laws.</strong></span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong>Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act</strong> (INA) was made law in the United States in 1995 as a result of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act" target="_blank">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act</a> (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement" target="_blank">U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement</a> officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">In Section 287(g) I don’t see anything similar to SB1070 along HB2162. It says ICE may provide training to Police Officers for helping enforce immigration laws, but it doesn’t say what ICE enforces or how it enforces it. Look for something similar to SB1070 that ICE enforces. Neither, do I find something in a Federal Law that allows individuals to sue a <u>police officer </u>or an agency “that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by Federal Law. It’s a myth to say SB1070 mirrors Federal Law. Just because 287(g) allows police officers trained by ICE to help enforce immigration laws, that doesn’t mean that 287(g) is the same as SB1070 because SB1070 allows police officers to arrest illegal immigrants. That’s nonsense.</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">By the way, may Section 287(g) include the “Posse” staff, too?</span></span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KingofBrown, post: 746667, member: 28771"] [B][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Tahoma]Nice try, AV8, but no, that’s not the same. It would not be necessary to sign SB1070, then. Here’s a video for you to watch, Mr. Sheriff Arpaio has been using section 287(g). 2:20, not in a very reasonable way, but… [video=youtube;ROuRmjDX88k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuRmjDX88k&feature=player_embedded"[/video]! [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Tahoma]If you have time, listen to all of his contradictory statements.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Tahoma]Then, why would Arizona pass SB1070, if Mr. Arpaio has already been able to use what you claim is the same as SB1070? Even the most irrational person would find that thought illogical. Lets keep looking. I don’t think I’m gonna’ find it, anyway. If you say it mirrors Federal Law, it means that it is identical to Federal Law. Why don’t you look for something at least similar to this in a Federal Law[U]: [/U][/FONT][/COLOR][/B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][U]Sec. 6. Section 13-3883. from HB2162[/U]. #5 in particular. [B]Not even with HB2162, they have been able to mirror Federal Laws.[/B][/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][B]Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act[/B] (INA) was made law in the United States in 1995 as a result of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act"]Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act[/URL] (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement"]U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement[/URL] officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.[/FONT][/SIZE] [B][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]In Section 287(g) I don’t see anything similar to SB1070 along HB2162. It says ICE may provide training to Police Officers for helping enforce immigration laws, but it doesn’t say what ICE enforces or how it enforces it. Look for something similar to SB1070 that ICE enforces. Neither, do I find something in a Federal Law that allows individuals to sue a [U]police officer [/U]or an agency “that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by Federal Law. It’s a myth to say SB1070 mirrors Federal Law. Just because 287(g) allows police officers trained by ICE to help enforce immigration laws, that doesn’t mean that 287(g) is the same as SB1070 because SB1070 allows police officers to arrest illegal immigrants. That’s nonsense.[/FONT][/SIZE][/B] [B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]By the way, may Section 287(g) include the “Posse” staff, too?[/SIZE][/FONT][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Arizona's anti-imigration law...
Top
