Exposing the roots of the Arizona immigration law

First off. I am far from being liberal. Second I explained explicitly which section of the law I find problematic and a restriction to liberty. So in as much as you accuse someone of not answering the question. You have shown yourself to be in the same boat by titling some one as liberal.

 

Taking exception to a remark not aimed at you , in particular, is evidence of a thin skin or a guilty conscience. Possibly both.

The race card is a favorite tool of liberals. If the shoe fits...

 

What you have failed to do is to admit that there has been a long existing fed law that mirrors this.

 

The federal law is not in question on this thread. However, there are federal laws I have problems with because it in effect still restricts liberty. The issue at hand is the Arizona law and its implementation. And I don't think Federal law has as open statements as Arizona law. For instance Federal Law requires Probable Cause rather than Reasonable suspision. Probable Cause is more restrictive of options or conditions which a LEO may obtain this information. Also Under Federal Law a "dention" is required rather that Lawful Contact. Both these terms limit restrictions under which this bill can operate.

 

Its hard to tell who a comment is aimed at. I'm for liberty. I've served in the armed forces. I've been a life long republican though I am currently ashamed of the party for giving into the same tactics as democrates and growing government. But what I see here is a bunch of people who claim conservative values but have no problem in facist legislation. Problematic if you ask me. For instance I was against creating a new department of Homeland security. Seems redundant. There wasn't enough communication between the different departments so what we grow the Government? Or do we pass legislation enforcing communication. Since we have an agency (National Security Administration) devoted to national security why not have them funnel the communications between the different agencies? No instead we create Homeland security. And conservatives go along with it? why? I have no idea save that they think it makes them safer. Though what happens to liberty? its reduced. Give the legislature and oversite committee to end the fued between the CIA and the FBI that was fostered during Hoover's days and force better cooperation between the two agencies. Obviously in recent years we have seen a lot of toes stepped on. Any way this Arizona bill just forwards this trend of having an almight government which controls every aspect of our lives. And for now its the mexicans tomorrow it may be you. Already society is claiming Christian groups are extreemist. How much of a jump is it to have christians carry around baptismal cirtificates and Law enforcement can request to see them when ever they want. To a time when people identified as christians are subversive to "national security" because of our stand for life and moral living that we "get in the way" of progress. Then they can thow us in jail and take our property with "reasonable suspision" by "lawful contact". But until then its just the dirty illegal mexicans that everyone is worried about. For me its an assault on liberty that will end up at your homes and you will wonder when did this happen?

 

You have it backwards. The State law is more restrictive. And the Fed law is important in this discussion because it shows that there is nothing new about this law and therefore nothing to be upset about.

The truth is the Fed law was being ignored and now that Arizona has passed their own law as a result of this people are upset. Not because it is racist or restricts liberty but only because it is being enforced and Mexicans can no longer just walk around illegally. This is about creating a PR war for illegals not racism, liberty, or human rights.

 

You're actually wrong. I read Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code. There are things in there that need to be enforced and its heavily reliant not on asking for green cards but provention of hiring and covering for illegals. Provided for by provisions like this

Which I totally agree with. In fact I see no provision allowing for causual request of documents.

 

The fact that you read it is not impressive. As has been shown already you are trying to play junior lawyer. Of course nothing you have said about it makes much sense. You appear to just want it to say something you can criticize. Most likely because like so many others you want to be part of the PR war against stopping illegals form coming in.

 

No. I don't want the illegal problem. I don't think adding laws that allow for restrictions on liberty is an issue.

 

The problem is, while you have softened your stance, I believe your initial response was quite hyperbolic and unnecessary. The majority of the crowd that opposes this is being instigated by La Raza who wants to "take back land". And the rest of you are falling for it.

 

The loss of liberty is the issue with the bill. La Raza is just as equally an affront to our nation and liberty. However, Like the founding fathers of this nation I don't believe that restricting liberty in favor of safety is safe. Because in the end you loose both.

Title 8 of the USC had the right legislation to control the problem. Its just not being enforced. lets first enforce these provisions

and

and

and

and

Enforsing these provisions will stem the flow. Not what Arizona has done. Because that takes the federal law to the next level. This is the aspect of the law that everyone says Arizona up holds

This law basically says the states if they have a law can investigate and arrest violators of illegal immigration. What Arizona law does is make such investigations Almost restrictionless. Arizona says a LEO can contact a person in a lawful manner (which is in just about any way) and if that Leo has reasonable suspicion (which is less than probable cause like the person has an accent or is in the "wrong neighborhood") can ask a citizen or non citizen for their documentation. The only thing a leo has to do is articulate it in such a way as not to sound discriminatory on the report. I believe if you change "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause" and "Lawful contact" to "legal contact" you would have a good law. Unfortunately, this is not the case and thus its an attack on the liberties of US citizens.

 

Absurd and false.

 

Thinkingstuff, how do you propose enforcing the above without profiling?

Should an aparment manager ask every potential renter for proof of citizenship before renting them an apartment?

Should Greyhound ask for proof of citizenship before selling any passenger a bus ticket?

 

Not at all just read the law. I've spelled it out pretty clearly.

 

The fact is you can't. And beleive me the LEO's will profile they'll just articulate in their reports that "reasonable cause" was determined with out profiling. However, I'm in favor of your suggestions as its required by law. And since you're purchasing a service its no big deal to provide identification.

 

Yes, it is spelled out - but you keep ignoring it.

The Arizona law says that police must be within the Federal law and can not violate people's rights.

But you just keep right on FEELING instead of THINKING.

 

Again Targus at this point I'm being dispassionate. Everyone keeps referring to not going againt what the Federal Law has established with regard to illegal Aliens. But they don't ever say what it is well here it is from the USC

Do you see any restrictions on it? No. It authorizes states to make a law regarding identifying illegal aliens. Arizona goes ahead and does it but note it places this provision it it.

The Terms that are problematic in this bill are bolded. Now, I've spoken with Law enforcement officers and a laywer as to the definition of these two statements. Neither are fully defined by law how ever Lawful contact is construed as any contact an official has in the performance of their duties with the general public. Thus If I ask an officer for directions that is Lawful contact. If I have an accent that can be construed as being enough for a "reasonable suspicion" which is also defined loosely in law. If you are driving down the road as a US citizen and driving w/out breaking the law. A police office cannot pull you over unless you either break the law speeding, irratic driving which give the Leo Legal Contact. In order to search your car the officer needs to have Probable cause. And even with probable cause a if you refuse to let a leo search your vehicle beyond arms length they must obtain a warrent based on probable cause. Arizona's wording loosens these restrictions for the purpose of identifying illegal immigrants.

 

Feelingstuff, you can relax a little... :smilewinkgrin:


Arizona lawmakers tweak immigration bill; ‘Lawful contact’ out, ’stop, detain or arrest’ in

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0430/ar...ation-bill-lawful-contact-stop-detain-arrest/

 

Did you read post #1?

There is no doubt that MP is a liberal. There is also no doubt he plays the race card at every opportunity.

I repeat. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't , why would one even remotely feel the comment could be aimed at them?

Making false claims of racism, perhaps.

 

Good grief! What and over reaction.