U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support the amended AZ bill?
Yes, I support the bill now that it has been restricted 12 29.27%
No, I support the old bill, they should never have changed it 8 19.51%
I wish they would have made a stronger bill 11 26.83%
I am still against the bill (please explain why) 10 24.39%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:09 AM
 
1,503 posts, read 882,709 times
Reputation: 321

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
One would hope if the Canadians are in an RV they will have their passports showing lawful entry into the US via checkpoint at the US-Canadian border.
I can't remember my passport ever being stamped when driving across the border to or from Canada. I do remember it being stamped when I flew in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
20,088 posts, read 20,576,914 times
Reputation: 20419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Arizona Capitol Times Blog Archive Patchwork changes to immigration law came in waning hours of session

Arizona Immigration Law Changed

It now labels "lawful contact" as any legal police stop. So, if you're speeding, or run a red light, whatever.

It also now removed the word "soley" from the language, meaning that race, ethnicity, or any other profile like that can not be the only reason for checking someones ID.

I can actually accept this bill now. There are still questions about it, but I'm not going to rail against it the way its written now.

That is how I read it to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:13 AM
 
470 posts, read 389,325 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
That is how I read it to begin with.
It is what it meant to begin with, but the liberal cry babies take things so literally, that it had to be ammended for the reading comprehension impaired.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:24 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,113,734 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
That is how I read it to begin with.
How you wished to read it, however well written laws should not be open to individual interpretation. Defining "lawful contact" was a major flaw in the bill, as its amending demonstrates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:34 AM
 
470 posts, read 389,325 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
How you wished to read it, however well written laws should not be open to individual interpretation. Defining "lawful contact" was a major flaw in the bill, as its amending demonstrates.
Only a willfull dummy would not know what "lawful contact" meant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,051 posts, read 99,018,950 times
Reputation: 31544
Quote:
Originally Posted by db1025 View Post
Only a willfull dummy would not know what "lawful contact" meant.
Are you saying the Arizon LE community is full of "willfull" (sic) dummies? Why did it have to be amended before it ever went into effect if it was so clear?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:50 AM
 
Location: TX
1,098 posts, read 1,543,028 times
Reputation: 590
I might be a dummy, but at least I'm doing it on purpose! :P

I'm still confused about what the difference is between a "lawful contact" and a "lawful stop"
Can anyone come up with some examples of "lawful stops" that would not also be considered "lawful contacts" and/or vice-versa?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 10:52 AM
 
4,828 posts, read 6,798,273 times
Reputation: 620
Why did they change it if it was such a good law in the first place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
20,088 posts, read 20,576,914 times
Reputation: 20419
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
How you wished to read it, however well written laws should not be open to individual interpretation. Defining "lawful contact" was a major flaw in the bill, as its amending demonstrates.
Like the constitution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2010, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,009 posts, read 15,202,202 times
Reputation: 3739
Hmmm...let me think about this one.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs531.ash1/31151_1408199398375_1034134539_1234220_7029728_n.j pg (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top