PDA

View Full Version : Obama Three more states may do an Arizona


HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 10:32 AM
The more the better


Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah may follow Arizona's lead on immigration law
By Michael W. Savage
Thursday, July 8, 2010; A04

Attention is focused on Arizona and the federal government's challenge to the state's strict new immigration law, but three other states could adopt similar legislation next year.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, which have already taken steps against illegal immigration, say that Arizona-style measures have a realistic chance of passing when their legislatures reconvene in 2011.

The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who have no proof of lawful status. The government asked that a federal judge stop the law from taking effect July 29.

Legislators in at least 17 other states introduced bills this year similar to the Arizona law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. But most of those measures are not considered likely to be adopted or signed by governors.

The political climate in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, improves the chances that state legislatures there could follow Arizona's lead in 2011.

In 2007, Oklahoma led the way on such laws by adopting legislation that makes it a felony to knowingly transport or shelter an illegal immigrant. It also blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and in-state tuition.

State Rep. Randy Terrill (R), who sponsored the measure, has expressed a desire to go beyond the Arizona law when he introduces a bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

Terrill cited the arrest last week of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member in Oklahoma as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law has been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma.

Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration's decision to sue Arizona could discourage other states from doing the same. But he also said that similar legislation may be adopted in 2011.

"After the other border states, it is natural to look at the states that have enacted the most anti-immigrant laws" before Arizona, Malhotra said. He said he expected Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah to make the "most vigorous effort" to enact similar legislation early next year.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he thinks the Obama administration designed the lawsuit against Arizona as a "shot across the bows" of all states considering similar moves. He said he doubts, though, that Terrill will be deterred.

"Randy Terrill has made this his issue in Oklahoma and has earned bipartisan support in the past," he said. "He is a determined guy and he is not going to back down too easily."

In Utah, state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R) has been making regular fact-finding trips to Arizona as he finalizes a draft bill. But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law's most contentious elements.

Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.

"I don't want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them," he said.

A Utah law that took effect last year made it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers. Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) has said he expects to sign new immigration legislation next year and is meeting with all sides to find a way forward.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) touted a comprehensive set of measures against illegal immigration as the nation's strictest when he signed it into law in 2008. The far-reaching legislation forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers. Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers are seeking to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure was signed.

State Sen. Larry Martin (R) said in an interview that an Arizona-type measure was introduced too late this year. "But I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," he said. "As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.

thecoffeeguy
07-08-2010, 10:36 AM
Good. the more the better.

States like Nevada, Texas and New Mexico need to get on board quickly.

I think once this debacle Obama is doing with Arizona is finished and Arizona wins, I think you will see a lot more states adopt similar law like Arizona did.

talastan
07-08-2010, 11:32 AM
IIRC there are state representatives here in Missouri that are looking at adopting the same legislation this year as well.

CoMoChief
07-08-2010, 11:40 AM
The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who have no proof of lawful status. The government asked that a federal judge stop the law from taking effect July 29.

Yeah, because 99.9% of those w/o PROOF of legal status SHOULDN'T BE HERE. If they are legal, then carry proof just like we all fucking carry a driver's license. Not that hard.

The BO administration is a ****ing joke.

Taco John
07-08-2010, 11:47 AM
It really isn't a good thing to have law enforcement pulling people over simply on suspicion. I don't condemn them for passing these laws because the Federal Government clearly isn't doing their job. But a better solution needs to be found.

CoMoChief
07-08-2010, 11:54 AM
It really isn't a good thing to have law enforcement pulling people over simply on suspicion. I don't condemn them for passing these laws because the Federal Government clearly isn't doing their job. But a better solution needs to be found.

Which do you think an officer would pull over

A couple driving a 2007 Chevy Silverado.

OR

45 Mexicans piling in a 1991 Toyota Camry.

If I was a cop, guess which vehicle I would choose to pull over.

fan4ever
07-08-2010, 12:03 PM
It really isn't a good thing to have law enforcement pulling people over simply on suspicion. I don't condemn them for passing these laws because the Federal Government clearly isn't doing their job. But a better solution needs to be found.

The law doesn't provide for this (actually forbids it) and the law enforcement agencies (excluding Sheriff Joe) here in AZ don't have the money, time, nor inclination to stop someone just because they're brown...really not the issue although those against it are making it one.

fan4ever
07-08-2010, 12:05 PM
Which do you think an officer would pull over

A couple driving a 2007 Chevy Silverado.

OR

45 Mexicans piling in a 1991 Toyota Camry.

If I was a cop, guess which vehicle I would choose to pull over.

They're not even allowed to stop the 45 Mexicans in a Toyota...cannot ask their status unless stopped for another reason...and if I was a cop, I'd really think twice about stopping a car full of potential illegal aliens if they were all behaving.

KC native
07-08-2010, 12:08 PM
The law doesn't provide for this (actually forbids it) and the law enforcement agencies (excluding Sheriff Joe) here in AZ don't have the money, time, nor inclination to stop someone just because they're brown...really not the issue although those against it are making it one.

They're not even allowed to stop the 45 Mexicans in a Toyota...cannot ask their status unless stopped for another reason...and if I was a cop, I'd really think twice about stopping a car full of potential illegal aliens if they were all behaving.

Ask the cops or the prosecutor here how easy it is for a cop to create a pretext for the stop after the fact.

mlyonsd
07-08-2010, 12:19 PM
Ask the cops or the prosecutor here how easy it is for a cop to create a pretext for the stop after the fact.

So you're worried about illegals being stopped by unscrupulous cops?

Seriously I see no reason anyone outside of AZ should give a rats a** since the federal government chooses not to do its job.

KC native
07-08-2010, 12:21 PM
So you're worried about illegals being stopped by unscrupulous cops?

Seriously I see no reason anyone outside of AZ should give a rats a** since the federal government chooses not to do its job.

No, I'm worried about American citizens being fucked with by unscrupulous cops.

Donger
07-08-2010, 12:26 PM
No, I'm worried about American citizens being ****ed with by unscrupulous cops.

American citizens have nothing to worry about.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 12:29 PM
Good. the more the better.

States like Nevada, Texas and New Mexico need to get on board quickly.

I think once this debacle Obama is doing with Arizona is finished and Arizona wins, I think you will see a lot more states adopt similar law like Arizona did.

florida needs it too really bad. an illegal is very easy to find here.
friend of mine is a dr. from cuba and he was looking for someone to clean his house. so, he hired this girl (illegal couldn't speak english) because she was real cheap and had this big sob story about her family that put a lump in his throat when she told it to him. he came home and she robbed him blind and was long gone. he was so upset and said he will never feel sorry and give in for an illegal again.
they need to regulate it and make it where being here illegal is a felony that will be enforced period.

thecoffeeguy
07-08-2010, 12:39 PM
They're not even allowed to stop the 45 Mexicans in a Toyota...cannot ask their status unless stopped for another reason...and if I was a cop, I'd really think twice about stopping a car full of potential illegal aliens if they were all behaving.

Well, last time I checked, I dont think there were 45 seat belts in any Toyota vehicle. Thats how you can pull them over. :)

KC native
07-08-2010, 12:47 PM
American citizens have nothing to worry about Aside from being detained and harassed by law enforcement.

FYP

petegz28
07-08-2010, 12:53 PM
I guess Rhode Island already has such a law in place and has been practicing it. Why no outrage?

mlyonsd
07-08-2010, 01:02 PM
No, I'm worried about American citizens being ****ed with by unscrupulous cops.

Using their theory they probably already are.

Donger
07-08-2010, 01:29 PM
FYP

I don't consider being stopped for blowing through a stop sign or speeding harassment.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 01:33 PM
No, I'm worried about American citizens being fucked with by unscrupulous cops.

it really is only if they are caught doing something illegal-the cops have the authority to do their job properly without being handcuffed (pun intended). not like the law says to start questioning anyone for no reason walking down the street minding their own business, or to start being border patrol. just allows the police to finally crack down on illegal activity in their cities is all.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 01:33 PM
Ask the cops or the prosecutor here how easy it is for a cop to create a pretext for the stop after the fact.

In your case I suspect that it would be the strong smell of marijuana.

orange
07-08-2010, 01:39 PM
I don't consider being stopped for blowing through a stop sign or speeding harassment.

How about for waving at a car? A crime in Arizona under the new law.


14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23

mlyonsd
07-08-2010, 01:43 PM
How about for waving at a car? A crime in Arizona under the new law.

A criminal or civil offense?

Donger
07-08-2010, 01:44 PM
How about for waving at a car? A crime in Arizona under the new law.

If it's the law, no, of course it isn't harassment.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 01:44 PM
So, orange — Do you think Colorado will be passing a version of this law after the fall elections?

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 01:52 PM
No, I'm worried about American citizens being ****ed with by unscrupulous cops.

It's axiomatic that an unscrupulous cop is not going to act within the confines of the laws, so this law doesn't enable them to do anything that they weren't already doing.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 01:58 PM
How about for waving at a car? A crime in Arizona under the new law.


14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23

Re-read the part about "reasonable person". Don't think that waiving at a car necessarily constitutes soliciting work. Also, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal or the point is moot.

fan4ever
07-08-2010, 02:00 PM
No, I'm worried about American citizens being ****ed with by unscrupulous cops.

Yeah, we pretty much recruit our cops right out of the KKK...

In a funny way you're making a point for the law; if illegal immigration had been addressed in any sort of serious way in the past this wouldn't be an issue.

fan4ever
07-08-2010, 02:02 PM
How about for waving at a car? A crime in Arizona under the new law.


14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23

Yep. We've started a campaign here in AZ...bumper stickers... "Wave if you're an illegal"... written in Spanish just to sort out the wannabes.

We'll be rounding them up by the truckload. :D

orange
07-08-2010, 02:14 PM
A criminal or civil offense?

Crime - Class 1 Misdemeanor.

orange
07-08-2010, 02:16 PM
If it's the law, no, of course it isn't harassment.

But the cops can detain and question you for that - waving at a car - in Arizona under the new law. It's right there.

This is dealt with in the ACLU suit and others.

Are you saying that anything the cops do can't be harassment? * I don't think you mean that, but that's what it sounds like.


* RMN: "If the president does it, that means it's not illegal." That didn't go over so well.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:17 PM
But the cops can detain and question you for that - waving at a car - in Arizona under the new law. It's right there.

This is dealt with in the ACLU suit and others.

Right, it's the law. So, the cops are just doing their job = enforcing the law.

Therefore, it isn't harassment.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:18 PM
Crime - Class 1 Misdemeanor.

Only if you are an illegal. Legal folk can wave all they want.

mlyonsd
07-08-2010, 02:19 PM
But the cops can detain and question you for that - waving at a car - in Arizona under the new law. It's right there.

This is dealt with in the ACLU suit and others.

So they can't wave at a car but can flip someone off in the car.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 02:20 PM
So they can't wave at a car but can flip someone off in the car.

Yes. That would presumably mean that they are not accepting work.

orange
07-08-2010, 02:21 PM
Only if you are an illegal. Legal folk can wave all they want.

And be detained and questioned by the cops. Just as if they had "blown through a stop sign" in your words.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:25 PM
And be detained and questioned by the cops. Just as if they had "blown through a stop sign" in your words.

Works for me.

patteeu
07-08-2010, 02:25 PM
Ask the cops or the prosecutor here how easy it is for a cop to create a pretext for the stop after the fact.

:deevee:

orange
07-08-2010, 02:28 PM
So, orange — Do you think Colorado will be passing a version of this law after the fall elections?

No. No chance.

Denver would secede.

orange
07-08-2010, 02:32 PM
Re-read the part about "reasonable person". Don't think that waiving at a car necessarily constitutes soliciting work. Also, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal or the point is moot.

And "reasonable suspicion" is what exactly?


Even Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom recognizes there's a problem with that (from OP):
But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law's most contentious elements.

Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.

"I don't want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them," he said.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 02:33 PM
No. No chance.

Denver would secede.

Colorado would benefit.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:36 PM
And "reasonable suspicion" is what exactly?


Even Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom recognizes there's a problem with that (from OP):
But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law's most contentious elements.

Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.

"I don't want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them," he said.

Doesn't the AZ law spell out what reasonable suspicion is?

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 02:38 PM
And "reasonable suspicion" is what exactly?
[/I][/INDENT]

Could be many things. Here is an example:


12 people in a 2 door car and a trunk full of fruit crates tied shut with an old tee shirt in strips and not a soul who has ID or speaks English. Oh and a shiny new Mexican flag bumper sticker over the hole where the trunk lock used to be.

Comprede amigo?

orange
07-08-2010, 02:40 PM
Doesn't the AZ law spell out what reasonable suspicion is?

Nope. This is the only mention of it in the whole law:


20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 02:41 PM
No. No chance.

Denver would secede.

That's even more reason for Colorado to pass it.

orange
07-08-2010, 02:42 PM
Could be many things. Here is an example:


12 people in a 2 door car and a trunk full of fruit crates tied shut with an old tee shirt in strips and not a soul who has ID or speaks English. Oh and a shiny new Mexican flag bumper sticker over the hole where the trunk lock used to be.

Comprede amigo?

How about this one: a guy with dark skin and a black mustache is standing in front of a day-laborer place and nods at a car that pulls over.

Reasonable suspicion?

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:42 PM
Nope. This is the only mention of it in the whole law:


20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Yeah, I was just reading about reasonable suspicion. It's already pretty well established legal standard, so I can see why they didn't get more in-depth.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:43 PM
How about this one: a guy with dark skin and a black mustache is standing in front of a day-laborer place and nods at a car that pulls over.

Reasonable suspicion?

Yes, I think that meets the standard. Along with the blond, blue-eye next to him.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 02:46 PM
How about this one: a guy with dark skin and a black mustache is standing in front of a day-laborer place and nods at a car that pulls over.

Reasonable suspicion?

Did you hear the one about the mexican who walks in a bar.......

orange
07-08-2010, 02:47 PM
Yes, I think that meets the standard. Along with the blond, blue-eye next to him.

Yes, I'm sure a lot of blond blue-eyed guys are going to be detained.

The Justice Dept. says they're going to monitor that aspect and decide whether to sue over civil rights violations.

Arizona has a track record of losing big over its detention policies. You might have heard of it: Miranda vs. _____________

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 02:47 PM
who really cares even if the cops do harrass illegals? I hope they arrest them while they're at it.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:48 PM
Yes, I'm sure a lot of blond blue-eyed guys are going to be detained.

The Justice Dept. says they're going to monitor that aspect and decide whether to sue over civil rights violations.

Arizona has a track record of losing big over its detention policies. You might have heard of it: Miranda vs. _____________

If the blond blue-eyed chap can't prove his legality, of course he will.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 02:50 PM
a quick and simple show of drivers license, id would end any and all need

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:50 PM
Yes, I'm sure a lot of blond blue-eyed guys are going to be detained.

The Justice Dept. says they're going to monitor that aspect and decide whether to sue over civil rights violations.

Arizona has a track record of losing big over its detention policies. You might have heard of it: Miranda vs. _____________

Oh, and let me get this straight: the JD is going to sue who over civil rights violations?

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 02:51 PM
dark skin.....hmmmm. Maybe a swede who works outdoors in sun. Or hes negro. Or yet a greek, Italian...another outdoor type guy. In Colorado could be a damn Austrian who is a ski instructor.....

back mustache...Frenchman maybe. Or a Muslim. Muslims have mustaches a lot.


Day labor place, nodding at cars....maybe he's sleepy

Car pulls over...illegal lane usage, no signal, stops in right of way....

Yupper got reason to see his license, run plates. Maybe no big deal but it is the law.

Sp far so good. Till we find out he is a Landscaper from Littleton with a degree from CSU.

orange
07-08-2010, 02:53 PM
Oh, and let me get this straight: the JD is going to sue who over civil rights violations?

Arizona.

They didn't include Civil Rights aspects in the current suit, but like I said, they're reserving judgement.

orange
07-08-2010, 02:55 PM
a quick and simple show of drivers license, id would end any and all need

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.


It's interesting that defenders of the AZ law like yourself and HCF keep putting up examples that would, in fact, be illegal. If that's the best AZ can do in its defense, this law will be flushed in record time.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Arizona.

They didn't include Civil Rights aspects in the current suit, but like I said, they're reserving judgement.

I'm not sure whose civil rights you are referring to. The civil rights of the illegals who get questioned or the legals?

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 02:57 PM
And "reasonable suspicion" is what exactly?


Even Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom recognizes there's a problem with that (from OP):
But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law's most contentious elements.

Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of "probable cause" to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.

"I don't want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them," he said.
Who knows what anything means? It's not like the standard of "reasonable" versus "unreasonable" dates back to the 4th amendment or anything. You are officially grasping at straws.

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:57 PM
Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.

"that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio."

So, we've got that covered.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 02:59 PM
Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.


It's interesting that defenders of the AZ law like yourself and HCF keep putting up examples that would, in fact, be illegal. If that's the best AZ can do in its defense, this law will be flushed in record time.


You dont really get it do you. Im beginning to believe this is not an act and you actually are this way.

orange
07-08-2010, 02:59 PM
I'm not sure whose civil rights you are referring to. The civil rights of the illegals who get questioned or the legals?

The civil rights of the non-illegals who are unjustifiably detained.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:00 PM
The civil rights of the non-illegals who are unjustifiably detained.

what constitutes being detained?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:01 PM
Who knows what anything means? It's not like the standard of "reasonable" versus "unreasonable" dates back to the 4th amendment or anything. You are officially grasping at straws.

As Donger has already recognized, "reasonable suspicion" is in fact a legal standard in U.S. law. It's been adjudicated. It has a meaning. And it has limits.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:03 PM
The civil rights of the non-illegals who are unjustifiably detained.

I don't see why they have any basis to claim a civil rights violation any more than any other person who was questioned and released for suspicion of a crime. Do you?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:03 PM
what constitutes being detained?

"Detainment" also has an established meaning. If a cop stops you and starts asking questions, frisks you, stops you from walking away, etc., that's a detainment.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:04 PM
"Detainment" also has an established meaning. If a cop stops you and starts asking questions, frisks you, stops you from walking away, etc., that's a detainment.

but if he stops you for illegal lane useage and signal its ok

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:04 PM
what constitutes being detained?

If you agree to speak with an officer you are being contacted. If you have no choice but to remain under the supervision of an officer while he determines whether to act further you are being detained.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:05 PM
I don't see why they have any basis to claim a civil rights violation any more than any other person who was questioned and released for suspicion of a crime. Do you?

The civil rights violation will be IF they were detained on the basis of their race - which is illegal.

You'll have to trust me that "race" in this instance and the eyes of the law includes "Hispanic."

orange
07-08-2010, 03:06 PM
but if he stops you for illegal lane useage and signal its ok

No, that is a detainment. Where did you get the idea that it wasn't?

It's "ok" because there's a reasonable reason to do it. You violated the law and he saw it.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:09 PM
No, that is a detainment. Where did you get the idea that it wasn't?

It's "ok" because there's a reasonable reason to do it. You violated the law and he saw it.

I think he's saying that it's "ok" in the sense that it's a legal detainment.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:09 PM
The civil rights violation will be IF they were detained on the basis of their race - which is illegal.

You'll have to trust me that "race" in this instance and the eyes of the law includes "Hispanic."

Well, the law specifically prohibits that.

Otter
07-08-2010, 03:11 PM
I still have checks so I must not be out of money. Right?!?!

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:12 PM
You'll have to trust me that "race" in this instance and the eyes of the law includes "Hispanic."

Just out of curiosity, what "race" are the vast majority of illegals in Arizona?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:12 PM
Well, the law specifically prohibits that.

That's why the JD isn't suing ... at this time.

ACLU and others are suing on the argument that there's no way to apply "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien without using prohibited racial profiling.

JD is taking a wait and see approach.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:13 PM
I still have checks so I must not be out of money. Right?!?!

Uhh. Right.

Can I see some identification, please?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 03:13 PM
The civil rights violation will be IF they were detained on the basis of their race - which is illegal.

You'll have to trust me that "race" in this instance and the eyes of the law includes "Hispanic."

And the AZ law clearly states they can sue for such.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:14 PM
That's why the JD isn't suing ... at this time.

ACLU and others are suing on the argument that there's no way to apply "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien without using prohibited racial profiling.

JD is taking a wait and see approach.

The ACLU should try not to project their inherent racism onto the state of Arizona.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:15 PM
No, that is a detainment. Where did you get the idea that it wasn't?

It's "ok" because there's a reasonable reason to do it. You violated the law and he saw it.

you said what I proposed was not legal. You have no idea what you type do you

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:16 PM
That's why the JD isn't suing ... at this time.

ACLU and others are suing on the argument that there's no way to apply "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien without using prohibited racial profiling.

JD is taking a wait and see approach.

You know that the law was changed, right? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/30/arizona.immigration.law.changes/

And that the officers can only question immigration status during a lawful stop?

Anyway, I think not having a license would fit the bill. Throw in not being able to speak passable English for good measure.

Neither of those two have anything to do with racial profiling. Agree?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:16 PM
And the AZ law clearly states they can sue for such.

I haven't seen that. Where do you see that?

Here's the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 03:16 PM
The civil rights violation will be IF they were detained on the basis of their race - which is illegal.

You'll have to trust me that "race" in this instance and the eyes of the law includes "Hispanic."

well since that is the "race" of most of the illegals running across the border, they should make sure they speak english and have paperwork.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:18 PM
I haven't seen that. Where do you see that?

Here's the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf


If the police do anything illegal you have the right to sue. That does not have to be a component of every law written.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:19 PM
If the police do anything illegal you have the right to sue. That does not have to be a component of every law written.

He's got you there, orange.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:21 PM
you said what I proposed was not legal. You have no idea what you type do you

Could be many things. Here is an example:


12 people in a 2 door car and a trunk full of fruit crates tied shut with an old tee shirt in strips and not a soul who has ID or speaks English. Oh and a shiny new Mexican flag bumper sticker over the hole where the trunk lock used to be.

Comprede amigo?

None of that is reasonable suspicion. NONE OF IT.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 03:21 PM
I haven't seen that. Where do you see that?

Here's the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Dude you have the longest arms in the world.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:22 PM
None of that is reasonable suspicion. NONE OF IT.

Seems damn reasonable to me. What part is not?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:22 PM
He's got you there, orange.

He does?

THIS is line I objected to:

And the AZ law clearly states they can sue for such.

He's got me WHERE again?

vailpass
07-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Ask the cops or the prosecutor here how easy it is for a cop to create a pretext for the stop after the fact.

Be funny as hell if they profiled your ass then found your drugs on you when they pulled you over.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:24 PM
None of that is reasonable suspicion. NONE OF IT.

Actually he mentions several moving violations in that example.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:24 PM
He does?

THIS is line I objected to:

And the AZ law clearly states they can sue for such.

He's got me WHERE again?

You've got me there, orange.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:25 PM
He does?

THIS is line I objected to:

And the AZ law clearly states they can sue for such.

He's got me WHERE again?

C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.

I would presume that if it can be determined that a person were detained based on race, they would have grounds for a lawsuit, no?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:25 PM
Seems damn reasonable to me. What part is not?

I just said NONE OF IT is reasonable. Do I need to spell it out more clearly?


N.O.N.E. O.F. I.T. I.S. R.E.A.S.O.N.A.B.L.E.


Best I can do.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 03:26 PM
Be funny as hell if they profiled your ass then found your drugs on you when they pulled you over.

if the cops can't do shit, you must acquit!

petegz28
07-08-2010, 03:26 PM
C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.

I would presume that if it can be determined that a person were detained based on race, they would have grounds for a lawsuit, no?

Beat me to it....:clap:

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:27 PM
Orange, would you answer my question in 73, please?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:27 PM
C. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.

I would presume that if it can be determined that a person were detained based on race, they would have grounds for a lawsuit, no?

But the LAW itself doesn't say any such thing. You have to extrapolate from other laws and precedents.

And petegz28 pulled a non-existent "factoid" completely out of his ass.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:28 PM
But the LAW itself doesn't say any such thing. You have to extrapolate from other laws and precedents.

And petegz28 pulled a non-existent "factoid" completely out of his ass.

The law states "may not." I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that that is a no-no that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:29 PM
But the LAW itself doesn't say any such thing. You have to extrapolate from other laws and precedents.

You're absolutely right. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be silly to write such a provision into this and every other law.

Otter
07-08-2010, 03:29 PM
I just said NONE OF IT is reasonable. Do I need to spell it out more clearly?


N.O.N.E. O.F. I.T. I.S. R.E.A.S.O.N.A.B.L.E.


Best I can do.

Well it's a good thing the majority of Americans don't agree with you and you have no say in the matter when push comes to shove.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:30 PM
Orange, would you answer my question in 73, please?

...

Just out of curiosity, what "race" are the vast majority of illegals in Arizona?


Hispanic, I would guess. With a very high percentage Mexican.

So what.

Answer MY question. What "race" are the vast majority of non-Anglo LEGALS (citizens + immigrants/migrants/guests) in Arizona?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:32 PM
Just out of curiosity, what "race" are the vast majority of illegals in Arizona?

The vast majority are of mixed race. Sort of like our president and my children.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 03:32 PM
The law states "may not." I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that that is a no-no that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I did stay in a holiday inn, so basically i'm ready to argue in front of the supreme court :)

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:33 PM
...




Hispanic, I would guess. With a very high percentage Mexican.

So what.

Answer MY question. What "race" are the vast majority of non-Anglo LEGALS (citizens + immigrants/migrants/guests) in Arizona?

Okay, so would it follow (and be reasonable) for a policeman to suspect that an Hispanic person he pulls over during a lawful stop who does not speak English and does not have a license is illegal?

As to your question, I would imagine Hispanic.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:33 PM
The law states "may not." I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that that is a no-no that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

No, THIS is "clearly stating you can sue:"


11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.

vailpass
07-08-2010, 03:34 PM
LMAO Orange is just not equipped to live in the world as it actually exists.
Guess what Orange? SB1070 is already working. Illegals are leaving AZ for other states or to go back to Mexico. Illegals here are afraid to go outside. Whether 1070 stands or not illegals know the environment here is against them. It isn't too late for you to join your fellow Americans and stand up for the enforcement of our laws and the security of our border.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:35 PM
The vast majority are of mixed race. Sort of like our president and my children.

Well, that's why I brought up the blond, blue-eyed dude next to the swarthy darker chap earlier. The blond should be questioned along with the dark chap, but orange seems to think that wouldn't happen for some reason.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:35 PM
You're absolutely right. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be silly to write such a provision into this and every other law.

Almost as silly as pulling a non-existent "factoid" out of your ass where it is totally unnecessary because of other laws and precedents.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:36 PM
Mr Orange does not understand the MVC so he cannot be expected to know what constitutes a violation. Operation of a vehicle in an unsafe manner is a MVC violation and would allow a police officer the right and obligation to stop such a car.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:37 PM
No, THIS is "clearly stating you can sue:"


11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.

Thanks. So, a person could sue AZ if it is determined they were questioned based on race.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:37 PM
Well, that's why I brought up the blond, blue-eyed dude next to the swarthy darker chap earlier. The blond should be questioned along with the dark chap, but orange seems to think that wouldn't happen for some reason.

Blond, blue-eyed guys just don't have a history of being discriminated against in America. That's just history.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:38 PM
Thanks. So, a person could sue AZ if it is determined they were questioned based on race.

Yes. OR they could file a complaint with the Justice Department who can sue on behalf of them.

You're beginning to get it.


If You Have a Complaint


To File a Complaint about:
An institution -- complaints about institutions such as jails, prisons, juvenile facilities, developmental disability/mental retardation facilities, mental health facilities or nursing homes.
A law enforcement agency -- complaints about law enforcement agencies, such as police or sheriff's departments.
Access Act violations -- interference with access to reproductive health clinics or places of religious worship.


http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/complaints.php

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:39 PM
Well, that's why I brought up the blond, blue-eyed dude next to the swarthy darker chap earlier. The blond should be questioned along with the dark chap, but orange seems to think that wouldn't happen for some reason.

It should happen. I know three Latino children that look Slovenian.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:40 PM
Well, that's why I brought up the blond, blue-eyed dude next to the swarthy darker chap earlier. The blond should be questioned along with the dark chap, but orange seems to think that wouldn't happen for some reason.

There are many many Mexicans who do not in any way resemble Mr Oranges out of touch description of a Mexican. Mexican is a country of Origin descriptor and there are many many fair skinned blue eyed Mexican people. There are of course a lot of mexican people who are of native american decent. Apache Indians as just one example. So he attempts to weave a web around his stereotype of the swarthy bandito of old western movies. But in the real world, that will not fly.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:40 PM
Blond, blue-eyed guys just don't have a history of being discriminated against in America. That's just history.


Tell that to the Irish.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:43 PM
Blond, blue-eyed guys just don't have a history of being discriminated against in America. That's just history.

I think you could make a case that blond, blue-eyed guys have been discriminated against (affirmative action), but I digress.

Is that really what you were thinking when you wrote this?

Yes, I'm sure a lot of blond blue-eyed guys are going to be detained.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:44 PM
There are many many Mexicans who do not in any way resemble Mr Oranges out of touch description of a Mexican. Mexican is a country of Origin descriptor and there are many many fair skinned blue eyed Mexican people. There are of course a lot of mexican people who are of native american decent. Apache Indians as just one example. So he attempts to weave a web around his stereotype of the swarthy bandito of old western movies. But in the real world, that will not fly.

I knew an absolutely gorgeous blond, blue-eyed Mexican with the surname Uranga. There's a fairly large German presence in the northern part of the state of Chihuahua.

As much as I'd like to let her slip past the authorities, that probably shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:45 PM
Yes. OR they could file a complaint with the Justice Department who can sue on behalf of them.

You're beginning to get it.


If You Have a Complaint


To File a Complaint about:
An institution -- complaints about institutions such as jails, prisons, juvenile facilities, developmental disability/mental retardation facilities, mental health facilities or nursing homes.
A law enforcement agency -- complaints about law enforcement agencies, such as police or sheriff's departments.
Access Act violations -- interference with access to reproductive health clinics or places of religious worship.


http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/complaints.php

I wasn't under the impression that they couldn't file a complaint if they were detained based on race. That was you.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:45 PM
I think you could make a case that blond, blue-eyed guys have been discriminated against (affirmative action), but I digress.

Is that really what you were thinking when you wrote this?

Yes, I'm sure a lot of blond blue-eyed guys are going to be detained.

That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, as in :rolleyes:


I failed at smiley.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:46 PM
That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, as in :rolleyes:


I failed at smiley.

Poorly executed. You are an ass.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:47 PM
That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, as in :rolleyes:


I failed at smiley.

Well, why wouldn't a blond, blue-eyed guy be questioned along with the dark guy in your day laborer scenario?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:47 PM
I wasn't under the impression that they couldn't file a complaint if they were detained based on race. That was you.

Where in the world did you get that idea?

I said the JD is going to monitor the situation and sue if there are civil rights violations. I don't know what you think that means if not reading complaints that come in.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 03:49 PM
Well, why wouldn't a blond, blue-eyed guy be questioned along with the dark guy in your day laborer scenario?

He's worried that all the lily white people that constitute the entirety of law enforcement in Arizona are racists.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:50 PM
Okay, so would it follow (and be reasonable) for a policeman to suspect that an Hispanic person he pulls over during a lawful stop who does not speak English and does not have a license is illegal?


No. He could be a legal alien.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:51 PM
and driving with no license? Thats against the law

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:51 PM
Where in the world did you get that idea?

I said the JD is going to monitor the situation and sue if there are civil rights violations. I don't know what you think that means if not reading complaints that come in.

You seemed to be under the impression that a person questioned under the AZ law could not sue if he was questioned on the basis of his race. Or, where you just getting hung up on pete's statement that the AZ states that plainly?

orange
07-08-2010, 03:52 PM
and driving with no license? Thats against the law

... and many, many, MANY people do it who are NOT illegal aliens. It's not proof of anything... except driving without a license.

Donger
07-08-2010, 03:53 PM
No. He could be a legal alien.

Is a legal alien more or less likely to be able to speak English and have a driver's license than an illegal?

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:53 PM
... and many, many, MANY people do it who are NOT illegal aliens. It's not proof of anything... except driving without a license.

so he can be questioned

orange
07-08-2010, 03:54 PM
You seemed to be under the impression that a person questioned under the AZ law could not sue if he was questioned on the basis of his race. Or, where you just getting hung up on pete's statement that the AZ states that plainly?

I just wanted to flush that one claim by petegz28 that he pulled out of his ass for no reason at all.

I'm sorry it became such a sticking point. Nothing much hinges on it at all... well, except for the philosophical question of "why do you pull shit out of your ass?"

vailpass
07-08-2010, 03:58 PM
... and many, many, MANY people do it who are NOT illegal aliens. It's not proof of anything... except driving without a license.

I don't know a single person who drives without their license. Not one. I'll bet you don't know many, many, many people who do either.

And the "everyone is doing it" line doesn't justify breaking a law.

orange
07-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Is a legal alien more or less likely to be able to speak English and have a driver's license than an illegal?

I would think ... if anything, the LEGAL alien would be LESS likely to know English; a migrant worker for example would have no reason to learn it; someone who's actually living here would have a much greater reason to learn.

As for the driver's license, that would be the opposite.

vailpass
07-08-2010, 03:59 PM
I would think ... if anything, the LEGAL alien would be LESS likely to know English; a migrant worker for example would have no reason to learn it; someone who's actually living here would have a much greater reason to learn.

As for the driver's license, that would be the opposite.

WTF?
Come on over to Phoenix if you would actually like to know what you are talking about.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:01 PM
so he can be questioned

You're right... IF the AZ law holds up... which I don't think it will because of the pre-emption challenge.

Donger
07-08-2010, 04:02 PM
I would think ... if anything, the LEGAL alien would be LESS likely to know English; a migrant worker for example would have no reason to learn it; someone who's actually living here would have a much greater reason to learn.

As for the driver's license, that would be the opposite.

You are aware that legal aliens are required to learn (and are tested) passable English before they are naturalized, yes?

And, I just re-read your assumption and I don't think it makes any sense. By "migrant worker" do you mean an illegal?

orange
07-08-2010, 04:02 PM
WTF?
Come on over to Phoenix if you would actually like to know what you are talking about.

Dude, you have NO idea what you're talking about. I've lived my entire life in North Denver. You can look up the demographics ... or just ask the other Denver posters.


[edit] Here, let me make it easy for you:

Demographics
As of the 2007 Denver piton Foundation[2] and the United States Census Bureau,[5] there were 18,738 people, 8,230 households, and 5,545 families within the north west side communities. There were a total of 8,588 housing units. The racial makeup of the community was 15.98% non-Hispanic White, 4.14% Black or African American, 1.26% Native American, 2.62% Asian, 38.31% from other races, and 6.81% from two or more races. 75.99% of the population were Hispanic or Latino.[citation needed])

The median income for a household in the community was $39,889. About 12.21% of the families and 15.72% of the population were below the poverty line, including 18.17% of those under age 18. The North West Side of Denver has a large Hispanic/Latino population, consisting of mainly Mexicans, but also have a fairly decent amount of Puerto Ricans and Central Americans.[citation needed])[2][4][3]

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 04:04 PM
Denver has become a cesspool no question about that

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:05 PM
Dude, you have NO idea what you're talking about. I've lived my entire life in North Denver. You can look up the demographics ... or just ask the other Denver posters.


[edit] Here, let me make it easy for you:

Demographics
As of the 2007 Denver piton Foundation[2] and the United States Census Bureau,[5] there were 18,738 people, 8,230 households, and 5,545 families within the north west side communities. There were a total of 8,588 housing units. The racial makeup of the community was 15.98% non-Hispanic White, 4.14% Black or African American, 1.26% Native American, 2.62% Asian, 38.31% from other races, and 6.81% from two or more races. 75.99% of the population were Hispanic or Latino.[citation needed])

The median income for a household in the community was $39,889. About 12.21% of the families and 15.72% of the population were below the poverty line, including 18.17% of those under age 18. The North West Side of Denver has a large Hispanic/Latino population, consisting of mainly Mexicans, but also have a fairly decent amount of Puerto Ricans and Central Americans.[citation needed])[2][4][3]

It's where you go for real Mexican food in Denver. But usually not after dark and NEVER on Cinco de Mayo.

go bowe
07-08-2010, 04:05 PM
You know that the law was changed, right? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/30/arizona.immigration.law.changes/

And that the officers can only question immigration status during a lawful stop?

Anyway, I think not having a license would fit the bill. Throw in not being able to speak passable English for good measure.

Neither of those two have anything to do with racial profiling. Agree?yes, here is the amended text http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm

orange
07-08-2010, 04:11 PM
I don't know a single person who drives without their license. Not one. I'll bet you don't know many, many, many people who do either.

Again, you'd be COMPLETELY WRONG. My BROTHER in fact, had his license suspended half a dozen times as a teenager - never stopped him from driving. Or ANYONE ELSE.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:12 PM
It's where you go for real Mexican food in Denver. But usually not after dark and NEVER on Cinco de Mayo.

I've never had a problem. 53 years - no problems.

The crime is generally gang-on-gang or family violence. Burglaries/vandalism would be the exception.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:15 PM
You are aware that legal aliens are required to learn (and are tested) passable English before they are naturalized, yes?

And, I just re-read your assumption and I don't think it makes any sense. By "migrant worker" do you mean an illegal?

No...I mean people who come over LEGALLY during certain seasons to do seasonal work - like picking lettuce, the famous example.

You're not aware we do that?

Also, you can be here a long time before being naturalized - if ever.

p.s.

Denver has become a cesspool no question about that

But the Arizona law ain't racist. :rolleyes:

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:21 PM
But the Arizona law ain't racist. :rolleyes:

That's right. The law isn't.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 04:21 PM
No...I mean people who come over LEGALLY during certain seasons to do seasonal work - like picking lettuce, the famous example.

You're not aware we do that?

Also, you can be here a long time before being naturalized - if ever.

p.s.



But the Arizona law ain't racist. :rolleyes:

Nothing racial about a cesspool. It was approaching cesspool levels when I lived there and every return trip it falls deeper and deeper into a very unlivable city in decline.

Donger
07-08-2010, 04:23 PM
No...I mean people who come over LEGALLY during certain seasons to do seasonal work - like picking lettuce, the famous example.

You're not aware we do that?

Also, you can be here a long time before being naturalized - if ever.

p.s.



But the Arizona law ain't racist. :rolleyes:

No, I had no idea that we presently provide temporary legal status to migrant workers such as you mention above. Link?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:23 PM
Nothing racial about a cesspool. It was approaching cesspool levels when I lived there and every return trip it falls deeper and deeper into a very unlivable city in decline.

My opinion differs widely. Denver is a much more vibrant, livable, enjoyable place than the city I came to in 1988.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:25 PM
That's right. The law isn't.

But will it be applied in a racist manner - that's the crux of the matter.

The ACLU and other suers say it can't help but be. JD is taking a wait and see approach on that.

But, I don't think we'll ever find out because I don't think it will ever go into effect.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:26 PM
No, I had no idea that we presently provide temporary legal status to migrant workers such as you mention above. Link?

http://www.doleta.gov/business/gw/guestwkr/

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-2a.cfm

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 04:27 PM
But will it be applied in a racist manner - that's the crux of the matter.

The ACLU and other suers say it can't help but be. JD is taking a wait and see approach on that.

But, I don't think we'll ever find out because I don't think it will ever go into effect.


suers?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:28 PM
But will it be applied in a racist manner - that's the crux of the matter.

How could we possibly know that if the forces that oppose it are allowed to perform a partial-birth abortion on the Arizona law?

Donger
07-08-2010, 04:36 PM
http://www.doleta.gov/business/gw/guestwkr/

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-2a.cfm

Huh. I had no idea about that.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 04:38 PM
... and many, many, MANY people do it who are NOT illegal aliens. It's not proof of anything... except driving without a license.

No license and no English...
Proof? No
Reasonable suspicion? You betcha

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Huh. I had no idea about that.

It appears that there really are jobs that we won't do.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:38 PM
No, I had no idea that we presently provide temporary legal status to migrant workers such as you mention above. Link?

Fact Sheet: H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Program

Release Date: February 6, 2008

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

Employers in the United States have often faced a shortage of available domestic workers who are able, willing and qualified to fill seasonal agricultural jobs. The H-2A program was instituted to meet this need for seasonal and temporary labor, without adding permanent residents to the population.

The H-2A program is authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act, (INA) sec. 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), which permits U.S. employers to bring temporary foreign workers into the United States to perform seasonal agricultural work.

The H-2A program is managed by three federal agencies. The Department of Labor (DOL) issues the H-2 labor certifications and oversees compliance with labor laws; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicates the H-2 petitions, and the Department of State (DOS) issues the visas to the workers at consulates overseas..

There are no annual limitations on the number of temporary foreign H-2A workers that may be admitted into the United States. However, under the current DOL labor certificationprocess, employers must certify that U.S. workers are not available to perform this work before they may hire a nonimmigrant worker. They must also certify that the wages and working conditions meet regional standards.

Since this is a temporary worker program, H-2A nonimmigrant workers coming to the United States to perform seasonal jobs must leave following a maximum period of stay. Some may apply to extend their stay or change/adjust status.

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1202308216365.shtm

[edit]

http://www.doleta.gov/business/gw/guestwkr/

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-2a.cfm


Ooooh, you're much faster than me. I'd rep you again but I've got to spread it around.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:44 PM
suers?

Yes. There are five previous lawsuits against this law before the Justice Dept.'s. You didn't know that?

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 04:46 PM
guess i never saw them called suers.

Donger
07-08-2010, 04:47 PM
It appears that there really are jobs that we won't do.

What I find interesting about that is that there is no limit to the numbers, apparently. If that's right, it kind of blows the whole "we had to enter illegally because we couldn't enter legally" argument.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:50 PM
What I find interesting about that is that there is no limit to the numbers, apparently. If that's right, it kind of blows the whole "we had to enter illegally because we couldn't enter legally" argument.

One of the problems is that many don't leave legally.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 04:52 PM
Ooooh, you're much faster than me. I'd rep you again but I've got to spread it around.

Let's be fair. You're busy alone answering a half dozen assaults on your position at once.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:53 PM
What I find interesting about that is that there is no limit to the numbers, apparently. If that's right, it kind of blows the whole "we had to enter illegally because we couldn't enter legally" argument.

Since about half of illegals in the country did not enter illegally, I don't think that argument IS the argument anyway. The argument is about how many get to stay.

Also, of course, not even all Mexicans are willing to do that kind of work.

Let's be fair. You're busy alone answering a half dozen assaults on your position at once.

Damn, I owe you another. I'm never going to be able to catch up.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 04:55 PM
how they got to be illegal is not relevant. The fact they are illegal is

Donger
07-08-2010, 04:55 PM
Since about half of illegals in the country did not enter illegally, I don't think that argument IS the argument anyway. The argument is about how many get to stay.

Also, of course, not even all Mexicans are willing to do that kind of work.



Damn, I owe you another. I'm never going to be able to catch up.

So, that goes back to the legal (but becoming illegal) migrant workers not speaking English, doesn't it.

orange
07-08-2010, 04:58 PM
So, that goes back to the legal (but becoming illegal) migrant workers not speaking English, doesn't it.

Right... and not speaking English is no evidence that someone's illegal.

Just like being here legally is not evidence that they're not going to leave.

dirk digler
07-08-2010, 05:03 PM
Dang Orange you are getting blasted from all sides

vailpass
07-08-2010, 05:04 PM
Dude, you have NO idea what you're talking about. I've lived my entire life in North Denver. You can look up the demographics ... or just ask the other Denver posters.


[edit] citation needed])[2][4][3]

You live in that shithole part of town? Then you know that the vast majority of illegals no habla englise.

orange
07-08-2010, 05:07 PM
Dang Orange you are getting blasted from all sides

This is nothing. Back in college during the Anita Bryant crusade I once held forth that gays should be allowed to be teachers against an entire cafeteria full of Young Republicans. LMAO

History says I WON.

I believe history will repeat itself here.


I do wish my ISP was a little quicker, though.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 05:11 PM
This is nothing. Back in college during the Anita Bryant crusade I once held forth that gays should be allowed to be teachers against an entire cafeteria full of Young Republicans. LMAO

History says I WON.

I believe history will repeat itself here.


I do wish my ISP was a little quicker, though.

All the battles you guys win remind me a bit of all the battles the U.S. won in Vietnam.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 05:24 PM
Let's be fair. You're busy alone answering a half dozen assaults on your position at once.

Why do you think there aren't more people on his side?


56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/56_oppose_justice_department_challenge_of_arizona_law_61_favor_similar_law_in_their_state


Thursday, July 08, 2010

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.

These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.

Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.

Those who say the issue is Very Important to their vote are even more likely to oppose the government action. Seventy-two percent (72%) of those who rate the immigration issue Very Important to their vote disagree with the Justice Department challenge.

On the other hand, the nation’s Political Class thinks the legal challenge is a great idea. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Political Class voters agree with the Justice Department decision to challenge the Arizona law, while 67% of Mainstream voters disagree and oppose that challenge.

But then 71% of Mainstream voters favor passage of an Arizona-like immigration law in their home state. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Political Class voters oppose passage of such a law.

Among all voters nationwide, just 28% oppose passage of an immigration law like Arizona’s in their state.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 6-7, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party strongly favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their state and disagree with the Justice Department challenge. Democrats lean in favor of a challenge and against a similar law in their home state but by much narrower margins.

Supporters of the law in Arizona say it’s necessary because the federal government is not enforcing immigration policy and illegal immigrants are an increasing budget and public safety burden on the state. The law requires local police to check the immigration status of those they suspect of being illegal immigrants.

President Obama, the president of Mexico and others including several major Hispanic organizations have complained that the law may lead to racial profiling. The Justice Department suit challenges Arizona’s law on the grounds that it tries to usurp legal responsibilities reserved to the federal government.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe the federal government by failing to enforce immigration law is more to blame for the current controversy over Arizona’s new statute than state officials are for passing it.

The Justice Department challenge takes on even more importance since several other states are already considering laws similar to Arizona’s to crack down on illegal immigration.

The president has indicated that he hopes the debate over the Arizona law will force Republicans and Democrats in Congress to agree on immigration reform legislation. That seems highly unlikely in an election year in which the issue puts a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, at risk.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters say that when it comes to immigration reform, gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. Just 24% say legalizing the status of illegal immigrants is more important. These findings have remained consistent for several years.

Again, the difference between the Political Class and Mainstream voters is striking. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Mainstream voters say gaining control of the border is the priority, but 71% of the Political Class think it is more important to legalize the status of undocumented workers.

Among voters who rate immigration as Very Important to how they will vote for Congress this November, 82% say gaining control of the border is more important.

It’s important to note, however, that 59% of all voters favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off the U.S. welfare system. Twenty-five percent (25%) disagree with such an immigration policy, and 15% more are undecided.

This suggests that voters make a significant distinction between legal and illegal immigration. That distinction is often ignored in Washington policy discussions.

These views, too, have changed little over the past four years since the last congressional debate over immigration reform.

It’s also important to note that voters consistently blame the federal government, not immigrants, for the problem.

By a two-to-one margin, voters believe the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.

As the country wrestles with a future of historic-level deficits, 67% say that illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget.

orange
07-08-2010, 05:28 PM
It’s important to note, however, that 59% of all voters favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off the U.S. welfare system. Twenty-five percent (25%) disagree with such an immigration policy, and 15% more are undecided.


Do you think 59% of ChiefsPlanet would agree? ROFL

Why do you think there aren't more people on his side?

Because this forum is reactionary. A majority of posters here favor secession, ffs. You can't possibly believe you're representative of the whole country. ROFL

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 05:28 PM
Why do you think there aren't more people on his side?

Because the law in question is necessary and good.

And as a committed leftist orange stands for all things frivolous and bad. :D

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 05:30 PM
Do you think 59% of ChiefsPlanet would agree? ROFL



Because this forum is reactionary. A majority of posters here favor secession, ffs. ROFL

I'm surprised the number is as low as 59% and I'd be surprised again if the number is that low among the members of this forum.

Donger
07-08-2010, 05:32 PM
Right... and not speaking English is no evidence that someone's illegal.

Just like being here legally is not evidence that they're not going to leave.

Anyway, so we've established that illegals in AZ:

1) Are likely to be Hispanic.

2) Are likely to not have a drivers license.

3) Are likely to not speak passable English.

So, if an officer sees two of those things during a stop, is that not reasonable suspicion?

orange
07-08-2010, 05:39 PM
Anyway, so we've established that illegals in AZ:

1) Are likely to be Hispanic.

2) Are likely to not have a drivers license.

3) Are likely to not speak passable English.

So, if an officer sees two of those things during a stop, is that not reasonable suspicion?

In my studied opinion, NO.

#1 can't be considered, period. It's against the law. Even AZ 1070 says as much.

And as I said, #2 + #3 don't add up to "reasonable suspicion" of a crime.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 05:41 PM
And as I said, #2 + #3 don't add up to "reasonable suspicion" of a crime.

They sound like reasonable suspicion of this crime.

dirk digler
07-08-2010, 05:42 PM
Anyway, so we've established that illegals in AZ:

1) Are likely to be Hispanic.

2) Are likely to not have a drivers license.

3) Are likely to not speak passable English.

So, if an officer sees two of those things during a stop, is that not reasonable suspicion?

In my limited experience the ones I have dealt with all have drivers license and there is several states that give drivers license to illegals.

English is not a requirement to get a work visa or any kind of visa IIRC.

Donger
07-08-2010, 05:43 PM
In my studied opinion, NO.

#1 can't be considered, period. It's against the law. Even AZ 1070 says as much.

And as I said, #2 + #3 don't add up to "reasonable suspicion" of a crime.

I don't know if Arizona classifies Hispanic as a race, do you?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 05:44 PM
In my limited experience the ones I have dealt with all have drivers license and there is several states that give drivers license to illegals.

English is not a requirement to get a work visa or any kind of visa IIRC.

We're not looking for a level of proof. All we need is reasonable suspicion.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 05:47 PM
I don't know if Arizona classifies Hispanic as a race, do you?

It won't matter whether they do or not. The only answer that matters is the U.S. government's answer.

orange
07-08-2010, 05:48 PM
I don't know if Arizona classifies Hispanic as a race, do you?

For this purpose, yes. I'm certain of that. I also doubt that it matters because all the laws that deal with "race" also tend to specify "ethnicity," "national origin," or so on.

The board cannot craft policy for police agencies but does make recommendations, so the training material had some basic goals, said the board's director, Lyle Mann.

Key among them is to emphasize that targeting Hispanic residents will not be tolerated and to offer police a relatively simple explanation of complex issues in Arizona's new immigration law.


http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/07/06/20100706scottsdale-police-1070-immigration-training.html#ixzz0t8MpuxDI

dirk digler
07-08-2010, 05:50 PM
We're not looking for a level of proof. All we need is reasonable suspicion.

Really I had no idea? ;)

Donger
07-08-2010, 05:50 PM
It won't matter whether they do or not. The only answer that matters is the U.S. government's answer.

As far as I can ascertain, the federal government doesn't consider Hispanic to be a race. Which begs the question of how exactly they are going to accept claims of civil rights abuse because of racial profiling. How can you agree that it is racial profiling when an Hispanic is questioned when you don't consider Hispanic to be a race?

dirk digler
07-08-2010, 05:56 PM
As far as I can ascertain, the federal government doesn't consider Hispanic to be a race.

Since when?

orange
07-08-2010, 06:00 PM
This is nothing. Back in college during the Anita Bryant crusade I once held forth that gays should be allowed to be teachers against an entire cafeteria full of Young Republicans. LMAO

History says I WON.

I believe history will repeat itself here.


I do wish my ISP was a little quicker, though.

I see DOMA just went down for the count! :clap:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/08/judge-rules-federal-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/


I'm sure you States' Righters will applaud this.

[edit] almost forgot :rolleyes:

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 06:02 PM
Since when?

The Hispanics in question are overwhelmingly of mixed race, but I frankly don't know how the government finesses their answer to the question.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 06:03 PM
I see DOMA just went down for the count! :clap:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/08/judge-rules-federal-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/


I'm sure you States' Righters will applaud this.

[edit] almost forgot :rolleyes:

Actually, yes. I agree.

KC Dan
07-08-2010, 06:04 PM
I see DOMA just went down for the count! :clap:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/08/judge-rules-federal-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/


I'm sure you States' Righters will applaud this.

[edit] almost forgot :rolleyes:
A "U.S. District Judge ". This ain't done yet it'll be appealed up but did you also see then that the gov's attempt at reinstating the drilling ban just got shot down. Of course, that ain't settled yet either

Donger
07-08-2010, 06:04 PM
Since when?

The 2010 US Census includes changes designed to more clearly distinguish Hispanic ethnicity as not being a race. That includes adding the sentence: "For this census, Hispanic origins are not races."

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 06:13 PM
From Winter Park, Florida:

http://www.wppd.org/about/bbp.htm

"Many citizens mistakenly believe that profiling is illegal, and that police officers are forbidden from using such a practice. The truth is that criminal profiling is legal, and is a legitimate technique used daily in law enforcement. Bias-based profiling, on the other hand, is illegal and has no legitimate use in solving or preventing crime. So what’s the difference between the two?

"Criminal profiling is the use of legitimate law enforcement knowledge, training, and experience to narrow a field of suspects during a criminal investigation. Factual information, patterns of activity, and motives are some of the aspects considered when using criminal profiling to develop a suspect.

"Bias-based profiling is the use of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, background, age, or culture as the sole basis for police activity. The absence of facts, suspicious activity, or specific criminal information is what separates bias-based profiling from legitimate criminal profiling."
_______

Any of the bolded parts could be problematic, and race is only one of them.

orange
07-08-2010, 06:14 PM
A "U.S. District Judge ". This ain't done yet it'll be appealed up but did you also see then that the gov's attempt at reinstating the drilling ban just got shot down. Of course, that ain't settled yet either


Okay, I found that. You're right, that has a long way to go.

googlegoogle
07-08-2010, 06:20 PM
Obama and his Mexican government loyalties versus the American people.

Who will win?

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 06:22 PM
Obama and his Mexican government loyalties versus the American people.

Who will win?

Obama has no loyalties to any nation.

Donger
07-08-2010, 06:41 PM
From Winter Park, Florida:

http://www.wppd.org/about/bbp.htm

"Many citizens mistakenly believe that profiling is illegal, and that police officers are forbidden from using such a practice. The truth is that criminal profiling is legal, and is a legitimate technique used daily in law enforcement. Bias-based profiling, on the other hand, is illegal and has no legitimate use in solving or preventing crime. So what’s the difference between the two?

"Criminal profiling is the use of legitimate law enforcement knowledge, training, and experience to narrow a field of suspects during a criminal investigation. Factual information, patterns of activity, and motives are some of the aspects considered when using criminal profiling to develop a suspect.

"Bias-based profiling is the use of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, background, age, or culture as the sole basis for police activity. The absence of facts, suspicious activity, or specific criminal information is what separates bias-based profiling from legitimate criminal profiling."
_______

Any of the bolded parts could be problematic, and race is only one of them.

And the Arizona law stipulates that it will not prosecute cases based solely on race, color or national origin.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 06:47 PM
And the Arizona law stipulates that it will not prosecute cases based solely on race, color or national origin.

Forget prosecution. It's going to come down to whether they can convince the courts that they won't even ask questions based on any of that and more.

Donger
07-08-2010, 06:52 PM
I would also like to add to the orange love. Orange, you are a civil person and I really appreciate (and have enjoyed) the discussion.

googlegoogle
07-08-2010, 07:39 PM
Arizona should also just have a citizenship check on all instate residents.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 07:48 PM
Do you think 59% of ChiefsPlanet would agree? ROFL
Yes



Because this forum is reactionary. A majority of posters here favor secession, ffs.
False

You can't possibly believe you're representative of the whole country. ROFL
Not just representative, but part of the overwhelming majority.

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

banyon
07-08-2010, 07:57 PM
We're not looking for a level of proof. All we need is reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is a level of proof in the legal system.

Cases do get thrown out for lack of it many times.

banyon
07-08-2010, 08:01 PM
But will it be applied in a racist manner - that's the crux of the matter.

The ACLU and other suers say it can't help but be. JD is taking a wait and see approach on that.

But, I don't think we'll ever find out because I don't think it will ever go into effect.

For this to be true the plaintiffs would have to affirmatively show a disparate impact in its application. They can't say that it will be, or they will lack standing, and they can't say that it does by definition or something when the text of the law is to the contrary.

This is why to wage the pre-emptive legal battle, the Feds are stressing the "occupation of the field" and preemption doctrine over a disparate impact analysis.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Reasonable suspicion is a level of proof in the legal system.

Cases do get thrown out for lack of it many times.

So is there any question that, in a state swarming with illegals, the fact that a driver who doesn't speak English has no ID has given an officer reasonable suspicion that he may be one of the 500,000 illegals in the state?

This is a layup.

orange
07-08-2010, 08:16 PM
Because this forum is reactionary. A majority of posters here favor secession, ffs. You can't possibly believe you're representative of the whole country. ROFL



False


... er ...

This whole thread is a total joke. I can't believe some of you seem to want folks to believe you're taking it seriously.

Secession is stupidly unpopular everywhere, even the South. There's NO CHANCE whatsoever.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018062.php

"Do you think the state that you live in would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/regionchart

The ridiculously high "Yes" vote on this thread shows how removed from reality ChiefsPlanetWashington really is.

CP Poll: Yes: 34.4 % No: 55.56 % Unsure: 10.10% http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=211933&highlight=secession

Not literally a majority - just FOUR TIMES AS HIGH as the highest U.S. region.

Enough to be considered "out of the mainstream?" - Oh, yes.

And with the Flight of the Liberals, I'm not sure NO could muster 50% anymore.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2010, 08:27 PM
Florida papers here said we may be doing the same.

mlyonsd
07-08-2010, 08:31 PM
Florida papers here said we may be doing the same.

Every state government with any balls should do the same. Any of those that don't are only doing so for political reasons. Now is the time to strike for illegal immigration solutions since the Fed doesn't want to deal with it.

Obama looks like an idiot on this one. Surprise.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 08:49 PM
... er ...



CP Poll: Yes: 34.4 % No: 55.56 % Unsure: 10.10% http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=211933&highlight=secession

Not literally a majority - just FOUR TIMES AS HIGH as the highest U.S. region.

Enough to be considered "out of the mainstream?" - Oh, yes.

And with the Flight of the Liberals, I'm not sure NO could muster 50% anymore.

So 34% = a majority in your world? No wonder you think Obama is doing so well.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. Those figures include Approval from 80% of Democrats and Disapproval from 86% of Republicans. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 36% Approve and 63% Disapprove.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 08:53 PM
By the way, Orange. I admire the fact that you referenced a 14 month old poll from the daily Kos just a week after they admitted that their polls were complete BS. That's ballsy even for you.

orange
07-08-2010, 09:01 PM
By the way, Orange. I admire the fact that you referenced a 14 month old poll from the daily Kos just a week after they admitted that their polls were complete BS. That's ballsy even for you.

You continue to reference Rasmussen (without actually naming him, tsk tsk) who's ALWAYS ten points farther right than anyone else. Keep bowing to Saint Scotty - he'll give you that miracle you so desperately want.

p.s. How IS that secession movement going, anyway? You know, since KOS was completely wrong.

and p.p.s. Speaking of Scotty, his latest -9% percent approval for Obama is WAY up from the -17% last time. Why is that?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2010, 09:05 PM
Reasonable suspicion is a level of proof in the legal system.

Cases do get thrown out for lack of it many times.

I didn't know that that was considered proof. Thanks for helping educate me about that.

orange
07-08-2010, 09:07 PM
Keep bowing to Saint Scotty - he'll give you that miracle you so desperately want.


Hey, I could post this in the Lounge and be just as relevant. :p

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:07 PM
I still find it hillarious that Obama's solution to fixing the border is not to help AZ and other states but to sue them. That in and of itself just speaks volumes about what a chump this guy is.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:08 PM
You continue to reference Rasmussen (without actually naming him, tsk tsk) who's ALWAYS ten points farther right than anyone else. Keep bowing to Saint Scotty - he'll give you that miracle you so desperately want.

p.s. How IS that secession movement going, anyway? You know, since KOS was completely wrong.

and p.p.s. Speaking of Scotty, his latest -9% percent approval for Obama is WAY up from the -17% last time. Why is that?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Yeah, he sure was 10 points to the Right when he was calling for Martha Coakley to win.

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2010, 09:13 PM
I know...let's all load up every last one of the estimated 12-18 million "illegal" immigrants and ship their lazy sorry asses back "where THEY belong." Yeah. :harumph:

If that don't work, let's secede from the union. Civil War, II...baby!!!

BRING IT, damn feder-AL gubment!!!! :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

As long as you let me git back to my NASCAR race, and the trailer-park block party this weekend....or, is it the Polo match and the Country Club Invitation-Only Fundraising Golf tourney???

:hmmm:

Yeah, it's one or both of those. Yeppers. ;)

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 10:13 PM
You continue to reference Rasmussen (without actually naming him, tsk tsk) who's ALWAYS ten points farther right than anyone else. Keep bowing to Saint Scotty - he'll give you that miracle you so desperately want.

p.s. How IS that secession movement going, anyway? You know, since KOS was completely wrong.

and p.p.s. Speaking of Scotty, his latest -9% percent approval for Obama is WAY up from the -17% last time. Why is that?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I post links to Rasmussen regularly. I don't think it's any big secret that he polls likely voters and acknowledges that this works against Obama.

I'm not in favor of secession in any way, shape, nor form, but that doesn't change the fact that you referenced a bogus poll (yet you have the balls to insinuate that Rasmussen is biased).

I don't believe that he has ever been -17 on the Rasmussen poll. He's pretty much been at -9 for the last month. Either way, Rasmussen's poll and Gallup's poll are the two most recent and have the lowest approval numbers.

Keep waving that flag, though. When Fox News shows him to have the highest popularity of any poll, you know he's on the right track.

teedubya
07-08-2010, 10:19 PM
Cop of the future, "Citizen, let me see your I.D."

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:29 PM
I know...let's all load up every last one of the estimated 12-18 million "illegal" immigrants and ship their lazy sorry asses back "where THEY belong." Yeah. :harumph:

If that don't work, let's secede from the union. Civil War, II...baby!!!

BRING IT, damn feder-AL gubment!!!! :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

As long as you let me git back to my NASCAR race, and the trailer-park block party this weekend....or, is it the Polo match and the Country Club Invitation-Only Fundraising Golf tourney???

:hmmm:

Yeah, it's one or both of those. Yeppers. ;)

Think of all the new ICE jobs that could be created if we did round them up?!?!

tinfoil
07-08-2010, 10:29 PM
This is the beginning of extra policing of the land. Things are really moving downhill for America fast. The Republigunts and Democraps better get it together. Lots of shit going down.

We have never witnessed the kind of shit go down like whats most likely going down in the next 2-3 months.

It's like we are in Germany just after the 1936 Olympics or something with the laws CONgress has passed since 2001. But like Germany that gets hit with toxic hurricanes and methane clouds and shit. Millions of dead fish. Plankton dying worldwide which produce 70-90% of all oxygen. The more methane is released, the more microbes the grew which further deplete the oxygen in the ocean... And uninhabitable land from the toxic hurricane storm bands... which crashes mortgages and derivatives... then the currency.

Then food transportation... and chaos.... martial law

This is totally not about the immigrants, this will become a national ID system... where we have to have our "passport card" on us at all times.

Especially if hurricanes nail parts of the US and FEMA gets brought in... and mass evacuations occur.

it's going to be an interesting 2-3 months. I hope I am wrong. I so pray the govt isn't corrupted at the highest levels imaginable. But, I know it is.

This has been at least a 250 year process to get to this point. They had to wrestle power away from the Kings and Queens and the had to lessen the power of the church. They have successfully done this... now control everything, their descendent's control the world. It worked.

Now, they need to get rid of 5 Billion people or so. Fireworks are about to occur. IMHO

tinfoil
07-08-2010, 10:36 PM
I bet the illegals will be thrown into FEMA camps when captured. People are gonna just start disappearing.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:54 PM
This is the beginning of extra policing of the land. Things are really moving downhill for America fast. The Republigunts and Democraps better get it together. Lots of shit going down.

We have never witnessed the kind of shit go down like whats most likely going down in the next 2-3 months.

It's like we are in Germany just after the 1936 Olympics or something with the laws CONgress has passed since 2001. But like Germany that gets hit with toxic hurricanes and methane clouds and shit. Millions of dead fish. Plankton dying worldwide which produce 70-90% of all oxygen. The more methane is released, the more microbes the grew which further deplete the oxygen in the ocean... And uninhabitable land from the toxic hurricane storm bands... which crashes mortgages and derivatives... then the currency.

Then food transportation... and chaos.... martial law

This is totally not about the immigrants, this will become a national ID system... where we have to have our "passport card" on us at all times.

Especially if hurricanes nail parts of the US and FEMA gets brought in... and mass evacuations occur.

it's going to be an interesting 2-3 months. I hope I am wrong. I so pray the govt isn't corrupted at the highest levels imaginable. But, I know it is.

This has been at least a 250 year process to get to this point. They had to wrestle power away from the Kings and Queens and the had to lessen the power of the church. They have successfully done this... now control everything, their descendent's control the world. It worked.

Now, they need to get rid of 5 Billion people or so. Fireworks are about to occur. IMHO

Obama and the Dems have already talked about a National ID Card, but, uh-hum, that's just for health care.

dirk digler
07-08-2010, 11:35 PM
The 2010 US Census includes changes designed to more clearly distinguish Hispanic ethnicity as not being a race. That includes adding the sentence: "For this census, Hispanic origins are not races."

Who gives a shit about the Census? The Federal Government recognizes hispanics and it is on probably on every Federal form when it asks about your race or ethnicity.

go bowe
07-09-2010, 12:00 AM
guess i never saw them called suers.sewers?

Mr. Kotter
07-09-2010, 12:24 AM
Think of all the new ICE jobs that could be created if we did round them up?!?!

Do you REALLY want to hang your hat, on this topic, on THAT???

Seriously? :spock:

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2010, 12:32 AM
This is the beginning of extra policing of the land. Things are really moving downhill for America fast. The Republigunts and Democraps better get it together. Lots of shit going down.

We have never witnessed the kind of shit go down like whats most likely going down in the next 2-3 months.

It's like we are in Germany just after the 1936 Olympics or something with the laws CONgress has passed since 2001. But like Germany that gets hit with toxic hurricanes and methane clouds and shit. Millions of dead fish. Plankton dying worldwide which produce 70-90% of all oxygen. The more methane is released, the more microbes the grew which further deplete the oxygen in the ocean... And uninhabitable land from the toxic hurricane storm bands... which crashes mortgages and derivatives... then the currency.

Then food transportation... and chaos.... martial law

This is totally not about the immigrants, this will become a national ID system... where we have to have our "passport card" on us at all times.

Especially if hurricanes nail parts of the US and FEMA gets brought in... and mass evacuations occur.

it's going to be an interesting 2-3 months. I hope I am wrong. I so pray the govt isn't corrupted at the highest levels imaginable. But, I know it is.

This has been at least a 250 year process to get to this point. They had to wrestle power away from the Kings and Queens and the had to lessen the power of the church. They have successfully done this... now control everything, their descendent's control the world. It worked.

Now, they need to get rid of 5 Billion people or so. Fireworks are about to occur. IMHO

What's up? No one in Hollywood bought your script so you figured you'd air it out here?

orange
07-09-2010, 03:44 AM
When Fox News shows him to have the highest popularity of any poll, you know he's on the right track.

ROFL

Yeah, now THERE'S an arbiter of fairness.

...

I posted that Secession poll months ago (almost a year, in fact), long before there was any question about Research 2000. But just for curiosity's sake, I took a look back. (First off, that particular poll may well have been one they did right. I mean, what would the desired outcome have been? Why fake it - other than just claiming you asked more people than you did to collect extra cash? But anyway, let's compare it to other polls.) That poll ... and Taco John's CP poll ... were inspired by Rick Perry saying something about secession. Fortunately, one other pollster was inspired as well. Guess who. He didn't do the whole nation, just Texas, as far as I can find.


Here's Research 2000 Texas:

QUESTION: Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry's suggestion that Texas may need to leave the United States?

APPROVE-DISAPPROVE-NOTSURE
ALL 37 58 5
MEN 42 54 4
WOMEN 32 62 6
DEMOCRATS 16 80 4
REPUBLICANS 51 44 5
INDEPENDENTS 43 50 7

37% approve. That's the Saul Good rejected Research 2000.



Here's that other pollster:

However, the latest ________________ poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose.

18% approve. Only HALF of the Research 2000 ayes. And still only HALF ChiefsPlanetDC, even in Texas where it peaked.

Want to go on record which one you believe - the high one that's close to CP? Or is my trap a little too obvious?

Donger
07-09-2010, 06:18 AM
Who gives a shit about the Census? The Federal Government recognizes hispanics and it is on probably on every Federal form when it asks about your race or ethnicity.

Errrr, the Constitution? The federal government?

If the federal government states on one rather important form that Hispanics are not a race, I don;t see how they can claim the opposite elsewhere.

Velvet_Jones
07-09-2010, 07:52 AM
This is the beginning of extra policing of the land.

Wrong. That actually started with the DUI laws and smoking bans.

petegz28
07-09-2010, 09:01 AM
Do you REALLY want to hang your hat, on this topic, on THAT???

Seriously? :spock:

JFC, Kotter it was a joke. Lighten up already.

thecoffeeguy
07-09-2010, 10:04 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/09/gallup-half-of-americans-oppose-doj-lawsuit-against-az/

Gallup: Half of Americans oppose DoJ lawsuit against AZ

posted at 9:30 am on July 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey


Actually, I’m a little surprised that the numbers found by Gallup in its national survey were this close. Fifty percent of Americans oppose the lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice against Arizona over its immigration-enforcement law, while 33% support it. If the Obama administration finds itself encouraged at all to be within 17 on this question, though, the internals should thoroughly depress them, emphasis mine:

Americans’ initial reactions to the U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona’s new illegal immigration law are more negative than positive, by a 50% to 33% margin. …

Emotions run high on both sides of the issue. The substantial majority of those in favor and those opposed to the lawsuit say they feel strongly about their position.

The margin of opposition to the lawsuit is highest among those who are following news about the law most closely.

Got that? The most politically engaged are the ones opposing the lawsuit. Given the centrality of focus that the Obama administration has given this law over the past three months, this may be the most surprising aspect of the survey. After this much effort to use the Arizona law as a way to beat up Republicans and conservatives, it turns out that those following the issue very closely oppose Obama’s efforts by more than 2-1, 64/31. Those following it only somewhat closely oppose it by a 12-point majority, 52/40. And those not following the issue closely … still oppose it by ten points, 36/26.

The issue certainly plays to Obama’s base, with Democrats solidly in favor of the lawsuit — but not as solidly as one might think. Fifty-six percent of Democrats say they support it, with 27% opposing the lawsuit — a rather healthy chunk of Obama’s shrinking base of support. Only 11% of Republicans favor the lawsuit, with 79% opposing it, as one might imagine. Independents reverse the Democratic numbers and oppose it 2-1, 56/27. That doesn’t bode well for Obama’s coalition of independents and Democrats heading into the midterms, especially after the full-court press Obama has given the issue.

Obama hoped to use this issue to split Republicans and garner support from Hispanic and independent voters. Instead, Obama has helped solidify his opposition and distanced himself even further from independent voters. The immigration gambit has completely backfired on Obama, and he has now inadvertently created an American consensus for enforcement and border security that the media can no longer ignore, thanks to Obama’s high-profile attacks on Arizona.

Update: Fixed an error in the first sentence after the excerpt, which should have read “opposing the lawsuit.” Thanks to the commenters and readers who gave me the heads-up.

I thought this might happen.
His antics with Arizona are only further pissing off the American people.
Talk about disconnect with the people. Obama wrote the book. What a communist.

Saul Good
07-09-2010, 10:33 AM
ROFL

Yeah, now THERE'S an arbiter of fairness.

...

I posted that Secession poll months ago (almost a year, in fact), long before there was any question about Research 2000. But just for curiosity's sake, I took a look back. (First off, that particular poll may well have been one they did right. I mean, what would the desired outcome have been? Why fake it - other than just claiming you asked more people than you did to collect extra cash? But anyway, let's compare it to other polls.) That poll ... and Taco John's CP poll ... were inspired by Rick Perry saying something about secession. Fortunately, one other pollster was inspired as well. Guess who. He didn't do the whole nation, just Texas, as far as I can find.


Here's Research 2000 Texas:

QUESTION: Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry's suggestion that Texas may need to leave the United States?

APPROVE-DISAPPROVE-NOTSURE
ALL 37 58 5
MEN 42 54 4
WOMEN 32 62 6
DEMOCRATS 16 80 4
REPUBLICANS 51 44 5
INDEPENDENTS 43 50 7

37% approve. That's the Saul Good rejected Research 2000.



Here's that other pollster:

However, the latest ________________ poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose.

18% approve. Only HALF of the Research 2000 ayes. And still only HALF ChiefsPlanetDC, even in Texas where it peaked.

Want to go on record which one you believe - the high one that's close to CP? Or is my trap a little too obvious?

I'd prefer to believe that people are in favor of preserving the union, but I'm not going to point to a poll done by a pollster who has been proven to have completely made up results. Then again, I've never used the "fake but accurate" defense. Perhaps you can get Dan Rather to join your cause. I hear he's got a lot of free time lately.

WilliamTheIrish
07-10-2010, 08:29 AM
This is the beginning of extra policing of the land. Things are really moving downhill for America fast. The Republigunts and Democraps better get it together. Lots of shit going down.

We have never witnessed the kind of shit go down like whats most likely going down in the next 2-3 months.

It's like we are in Germany just after the 1936 Olympics or something with the laws CONgress has passed since 2001. But like Germany that gets hit with toxic hurricanes and methane clouds and shit. Millions of dead fish. Plankton dying worldwide which produce 70-90% of all oxygen. The more methane is released, the more microbes the grew which further deplete the oxygen in the ocean... And uninhabitable land from the toxic hurricane storm bands... which crashes mortgages and derivatives... then the currency.

Then food transportation... and chaos.... martial law

This is totally not about the immigrants, this will become a national ID system... where we have to have our "passport card" on us at all times.

Especially if hurricanes nail parts of the US and FEMA gets brought in... and mass evacuations occur.

it's going to be an interesting 2-3 months. I hope I am wrong. I so pray the govt isn't corrupted at the highest levels imaginable. But, I know it is.

This has been at least a 250 year process to get to this point. They had to wrestle power away from the Kings and Queens and the had to lessen the power of the church. They have successfully done this... now control everything, their descendent's control the world. It worked.

Now, they need to get rid of 5 Billion people or so. Fireworks are about to occur. IMHO

This is what happens when Twitter goes wrong.