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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2010, 07:55 PM
 
Location: TEXAS
378 posts, read 357,167 times
Reputation: 243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by aliveandwellinSA View Post
more accurate and current with the key world, police "SPLIT"

Arizona Police: Mixed Feelings on Illegal-Immigrant Law - TIME
Thanks for posting that link.

That story pissed me off right at the start when Gonzales made a joke about having papers.

This ain't no laughing matter.

Since when do law enforcement authorities get to pick and choose and criticize the enforcement of laws?

I mean, people have opinions, yeah, but if you're an officer, sworn to uphold the law, aren't you supposed to keep your "opinion" to yourself and UPHOLD THE LAW?!!

Same with BHO - the POTUS OPENLY criticizing a state's legislation. It is unseemly and inappropriate and unprofessional and . . .

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2010, 08:07 PM
 
358 posts, read 332,853 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliveandwellinSA View Post
more accurate and current with the key world, police "SPLIT"

Arizona Police: Mixed Feelings on Illegal-Immigrant Law - TIME
Thank you for that posting, the article was only written days before the amendment that will only allow officers to ask during a lawful investigation. The article states "But the association of police chiefs from around the state does have serious objections to SB1070, the controversial new state law that requires police to ask for papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally". And you are right, the title DID have the word "Split" in it, was written before the amendments, but it's the best proof I have seen yet- I stand corrected
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 08:29 PM
 
358 posts, read 332,853 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by desli View Post
Thanks for posting that link.

That story pissed me off right at the start when Gonzales made a joke about having papers.

This ain't no laughing matter.

Since when do law enforcement authorities get to pick and choose and criticize the enforcement of laws?

I mean, people have opinions, yeah, but if you're an officer, sworn to uphold the law, aren't you supposed to keep your "opinion" to yourself and UPHOLD THE LAW?!!

Same with BHO - the POTUS OPENLY criticizing a state's legislation. It is unseemly and inappropriate and unprofessional and . . .

This whole thing is ridiculous.
This story was a month old, before the amendments were done to quell the fears of the masses. I think aliveandwellinSA was kidding about the article
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 08:31 PM
 
10,655 posts, read 11,349,790 times
Reputation: 6013
Quote:
Originally Posted by desli View Post
Yeah, but that "opposition" is bound by a set of ethics to uphold the law and it doesn't appear they intend on doing that.

When you've got a Sheriff calling a law "unwise, stupid, and racist" - there is a problem.

Every law enforcement authority in this nation should have the attitude of Sheriff Joe!

Maybe if the POTUS had even some degree of the courage and conviction of Joe Arpaio, this country wouldn't be in such a sorry state.

Then they need to be fired.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 09:00 PM
 
Location: TEXAS
378 posts, read 357,167 times
Reputation: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman82 View Post
This story was a month old, before the amendments were done to quell the fears of the masses. I think aliveandwellinSA was kidding about the article

Oh, I made the "no laughing matter" remark about the guy in the story.

I didn't consider the timeline of the amended version . . .

So wonder if any changed their "opinions" after the amendment?


Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur View Post
Obviously, per this story of May 18, many STILL object.

This Salgado character ought to be fired for refusal to uphold the law.

But heaven forbid that any formal action be taken against a hispanic who's filed a lawsuit . . .

He says: "Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me, now they don't even want to make eye contact".

WOW, ok . . . first question:

WHY wouldn't they want to make eye contact?

Could it be because they are GUILTY of something???!!

And I didn't know that a policeman's first consideration is popularity.


That reminds me of a time, years ago, we had to call police because the next door townhouse neighbors had a barbeque blazing like crazy right under a low-hanging tree and they were very drunk and very loud . . . the (hispanic) cop arrived on the scene, casually shot the breeze with them for a minute, laughing . . . then he came to OUR door, right there for the neighbors to see and he said there was no problem, they were just having some fun . . . we said well, we're concerned about the barbeque flames and the tree and they're drunk and being disorderly and that's against the law . . .

The POLICE OFFICER told us straight out:

"If I enforced all the laws, I wouldn't have any friends left!"

Then he waved to his "friends" and left the area.

Take that, you white, taxpaying, quiet and orderly citizens!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 09:32 PM
 
358 posts, read 332,853 times
Reputation: 107
Obviously, per this story of May 18, many STILL object.

This Salgado character ought to be fired for refusal to uphold the law.

But heaven forbid that any formal action be taken against a hispanic who's filed a lawsuit . . .

He says: "Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me, now they don't even want to make eye contact".

WOW, ok . . . first question:

WHY wouldn't they want to make eye contact?

Could it be because they are GUILTY of something???!!

And I didn't know that a policeman's first consideration is popularity.


That reminds me of a time, years ago, we had to call police because the next door townhouse neighbors had a barbeque blazing like crazy right under a low-hanging tree and they were very drunk and very loud . . . the (hispanic) cop arrived on the scene, casually shot the breeze with them for a minute, laughing . . . then he came to OUR door, right there for the neighbors to see and he said there was no problem, they were just having some fun . . . we said well, we're concerned about the barbeque flames and the tree and they're drunk and being disorderly and that's against the law . . .

The POLICE OFFICER told us straight out:

"If I enforced all the laws, I wouldn't have any friends left!"

Then he waved to his "friends" and left the area.

Take that, you white, taxpaying, quiet and orderly citizens!

[/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly, but an article mentioning a couple cops and a police chief would hardly account for the "many STILL object". If there was some kind of poll of officers in Arizona, or something showing after the amendment it's dividing law enforcement then I understand. I don't think anyone on these forums have ever stated everyone in law enforcement (within the state of Arizona) was happy with the law, who ever is?? with any issue there is always people that will not be happy. If there is double digit numbers of LE that oppose it, I have yet to see it. Think about it this way: there are still people in America who oppose minorities having the right to vote- so what if I wrote an article mentioning a few people, then claimed "many" people support them? we can do that with any subject, you cannot please everyone. Now if police were out protesting, their union's were striking, or they had some kind of "resistance" movement going on.. then the term "many" might be acceptable. But you are right on about the officers needing to uphold the law and do their duty, glad that clown is in AZ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,413 posts, read 7,833,147 times
Reputation: 1802
The obvious problem with the immigrant law is that it is dividing Arizonans. Since it is an enforcement issue who else is involved but the police? They have to implement the law yet are not sure they want to [due to manpower resources] and concerns over litigation. When the top police officials of the state issue statements opposing the law it is like civil disobedience. Some police officers have already filed lawsuits against Arizona and police chiefs in other states [Maryland\ Nevada\ California] have voiced opposition.

The Spectator - Arizona immigration law divides police across US (http://www.su-spectator.com/news/arizona-immigration-law-divides-police-across-us-1.1482004 - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 09:41 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,437,255 times
Reputation: 47455
interesting all the americans are afraid to do something about the illegals that are destroying our country, except mccain.
i am beginning to really like him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 09:45 PM
 
Location: TEXAS
378 posts, read 357,167 times
Reputation: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman82 View Post
I agree wholeheartedly, but an article mentioning a couple cops and a police chief would hardly account for the "many STILL object".
. . . fair enough, "many" was misdirected a bit, my bad, no biggie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman82 View Post
I don't think anyone on these forums have ever stated everyone in law enforcement (within the state of Arizona) was happy with the law, who ever is?? with any issue there is always people that will not be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman82 View Post
But you are right on about the officers needing to uphold the law and do their duty, glad that clown is in AZ..
Precisely, that's what I'm saying - you can be "unhappy" with a law, but if you're an officer, you are sworn to do your duty and I just don't see any argument there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 09:56 PM
 
8,640 posts, read 7,735,305 times
Reputation: 2854
Maybe someone should send that anti-American left winger police chief calderon's words.


YouTube - Rush on Calderon
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
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