Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
of arizona. i said i thought it could back fire and bite them on the bottem.
has it, what do you think?
In Dallas, police estimated at least 20,000 attended a Saturday rally.
Among them was Juan Hernandez, the Hispanic outreach coordinator for Sen. John McCain's unsuccessful presidential run. He said Arizona was once considered by those south of the border to be a model state with particularly close ties to Mexico.
"It went beyond what most states do," he said. "Now they are a state that goes beyond what the Constitution says you should do."
source:
The people of Arizona have such pleasant lives that they cannot relate to the problems faced by Hispanic immigrants. They seem to think that they came to America just to not pay taxes.
No. These people immigrated for a hope of a better life in America and many got that. America would not have half its labour force if it weren't for immigrants. Basically ,95% of the country are immigrants. The actual people who lived there in the first place got treated like dirt. Hypocrites is a good adjective to describe the supporters of this law.
Nothing wrong with immigrants Dan, thats not the issue,lol, it's illegel aliens Dan. They are illegel so they do not pay jack. They could be criminal's from another country, no one knows, they never filed for status, they are illegel.
Kick them out I say. I also think the states have the power to make the laws themselves contrary to what alot of you think.
I don't think it is so much the law that was made but rather the attention the law making it's self would get that maters.
Sorry, I'll rephrase to illegal immigrants.
And Hillary Clinton raised a very good point - "“Clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you’re a legal resident, you still have to carry papers,” she said. “Well, how is a law enforcement official supposed to know” whether someone might be an illegal visitor, she asked."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/02...ntroversy/
It's not very well thought out. And I said what I said because if you look at the comments on the yahoo page you will see the attittude.
(05-03-2010, 06:32 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: Sorry, I'll rephrase to illegal immigrants.
And Hillary Clinton raised a very good point - "“Clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you’re a legal resident, you still have to carry papers,” she said. “Well, how is a law enforcement official supposed to know” whether someone might be an illegal visitor, she asked."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/02...ntroversy/
It's not very well thought out. And I said what I said because if you look at the comments on the yahoo page you will see the attittude.
The proper term would be illegel alien Dan.
As far as how they would know one to see one, thats simple, the same way law enforcement gets most of their information, rats, squeelers, informants and the like. Tips hotline, you know what I am talking about. There is a big to do about nothing as I see it.
The fact is the law was made to draw attention to the fact that each state can in fact make their own laws. I am pretty darn sure this is the real reason for them doing it.
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
(05-03-2010, 08:32 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: (05-03-2010, 06:32 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: Sorry, I'll rephrase to illegal immigrants.
And Hillary Clinton raised a very good point - "“Clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you’re a legal resident, you still have to carry papers,” she said. “Well, how is a law enforcement official supposed to know” whether someone might be an illegal visitor, she asked."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/02...ntroversy/
It's not very well thought out. And I said what I said because if you look at the comments on the yahoo page you will see the attittude.
The proper term would be illegel alien Dan.
As far as how they would know one to see one, thats simple, the same way law enforcement gets most of their information, rats, squeelers, informants and the like. Tips hotline, you know what I am talking about. There is a big to do about nothing as I see it.
The fact is the law was made to draw attention to the fact that each state can in fact make their own laws. I am pretty darn sure this is the real reason for them doing it.
the big to do is because they aren't doing it the way you say benny.
going off an informant, or hotline tip etc, is fine by me. it's how they catch all manner of lawbreakers.
the point of contention is the fact that they get stopped purely on the basis of race for immigration purposes.
he's a latino, he's probably an illegal...
the truth is people of all races can and are entering the usa illegally
the person who made the law stated that it was made because other laws were not working.
other laws which basically give them the same rights they get from the new law but under a different wording (sometimes it's about how it's worded)
many are saying the law was made as a political move. (the governor wants to keep his seat and the chief of the sheriffs dept want to stay head. they know everyone in arizona and their cat will vote for someone who makes such a law irrespective of it violating human rights.
that part about every man has the right to the pursuit of happiness, and all men are equal (unless you have a brown or black skin) etc.
like i said, i think it will backfire whatever the reason for the law.
the majority of people believe that human rights are important.
and as vf has stated.
the immigration dept deal with immigration on a federal level.
it's in the constitution.
the fact is the law they made is illegal and will probably be overturned as such. they are not the immigration dept per say.
Well I understand what you are saying but I believe in the end we will see that they did, can and will continue to make laws state by state. They seem to believe that their constitution gives them the right to do so.
I don't really care how you care to slice it up. They are illegels in the states and as such are criminals and do not have the rights that a citizen of the U.S.A. has.
As for basic human rights, yes they do have them but it is not a basic human right to criminally enter a country. I suspect that sure they are stoping people that look to them like illegels and I.D,ing them. If they are not illegel then they have no problem.
We are talking about a country that has done an end run on civil rights and conduct illegal searches on citizens of that country in mass every day. So I am back to my original statement, where is the beef other than they being put into a special group just like minorities or ethnic groups.
You say that searching people with full body scanners is right and just and they have done nothing wrong either.
I say that people have gone too far. Civil liberties have been beaten down to, if the fed says it's ok then it's ok. Thats a crock. You listen to enough of that and sooner or later your going to buy into it.
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
civil rights + everyone being treated equally.
the police can't tell by looking at someone if they're an illegal or not.
to stop and search with out cause is against civil rights for everyone not just whites.
it's called profiling when you specifically target one race. and that's against civil liberties when used against people who may be legal citizens.
civil rights would be stopping everyone and asking them to prove they're not an illegal alien in order to find an illegal alien
a law which would be against civil rights because people are under the constitution supposedly have some inalienable rights?
so basically a law officer may stop a person they suspect of being an illegal but it has to be deemed by the courts as a reasonable suspicion that the person is either breaking the law, or intending to break the law.
the new law says or implies that the colour of a persons skin is reasonable enough suspicion.
many civil rights activists and everyday citizens of the usa agree in the condemnation of this law. as do i.
Again I fail to see the beef here. They can and do already stop any and everyone they want to and search and ask for identification without probable cause. This is a fact and it can not be denied. Because this law is about illegel aliens in particular everyone, well not everyone but alot are up in arms about it. It's defiantly a red haring.
I can see it now, Obama jumps in as superman fighting the good fight for human rights and all the while laughing his ass off as the entire country submits to mass search and identification,Human RFID tags will get another bump of support as an acceptable means of not breaking or imposing upon any persons civil rights or human rights.
Cut me a bit of slack here for not being a blind man in a sea of light.
Posts: 21
Threads: 45
Joined: Jan 2010
(05-03-2010, 12:56 AM)velvetfog Wrote: American states have no business creating their own immigration laws.
Immigration is a federal matter, and is the responsibility of the U.S. government.
MOG
(05-03-2010, 07:05 PM)DUBLIN5 Wrote: (05-03-2010, 12:56 AM)velvetfog Wrote: American states have no business creating their own immigration laws.
Immigration is a federal matter, and is the responsibility of the U.S. government.
MOG
This is SD&D, please explain this post. 
Posts: 21
Threads: 45
Joined: Jan 2010
Mother Of God
this is sd&d,please stay on topic/mod
PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state's sweeping law against illegal immigration - changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.
The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02271.html
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
and the law is still being taken to court as an illegal one.
firstly immigration deals with any law relating to illegal immigrants.
secondly all they did was dress it up a little
the fact they dressed it up shows for me that they never intended to make the law as alaw per say but rather as a device to shed light on their state in the hope of making the dems look bad. i think it's back firing exponentially on them. more court cases are being filed than you can shake a stick at.
in truth the morons gave every liberal, come saint a soapbox to shout off.
secondly, you said (and i agree) that they already had a law that covers the same thing. if thats so, why oh why did they have to make a new law to cover the same thing. it can only be to give publicity to the state and party that run it.
i still see the law getting overturned, i still see the intent as profiling under a frilly skirt.
the law itself doesn't count. what the court has to decide when people go there is the intent of the law and whether or not the particular law is jurisdiction of a federal dept, in this case it is, the immigration bureau.
it also has to determine the intent. from it inception it has been based on profiling. to change a word will not make it any the less a profiling based law. the intent is still the same.
the the court will ask " do the police already have the poewer to ask for proof of identity when a crime has been commited". the answer to this has to be yes. if that be the case then the new law would be redundant anyway and stricken off the books
|
