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.
I have a degree in behavioural sciences and I would be interested to know what you are basing this psychological profile on. And I guess as long as the residents keep electing him, the majority think they do have the best LE for the citizens.
There is also something that hasn't been mentioned very often in this conversation. Because Mexico is far behind the US in health issues, and because so many of the illegal immigrants are from poorer areas, diseases that we have not seen in decades are showing up again in our hospitals and throughout the state. Polio, typhoid fever, Hepatitis A and B are all on the rise here. That is a cost that is difficult to measure. If you tried to migrate to Mexico and you had an illness, they wouldn't let you in. That's part of Mexico's immigration policy. These people are walking across the border carrying these diseases and re-introducing them to a population that no longer gets vaccinated for the diseases because - well, when's the last time anyone you know had polio?
There's spin everywhere.
but for me... it's real simple.
Illegal
is
Illegal.
Why is this even a conversation?
Not ONE of the anti-1070 people would allow a stranger to just walk into their homes uninvited, help themselves to their food, medicine cabinet, social security cards, cash, and jewelry. Let alone camp out in their living room and invite friends and family over for a party. That's what's happening to our state. Illegal is Illegal. Period.
this is the best post I have seen, bar none ! It doesnt get much clearer than this. I am going to print it out and use it when I am talking to others re illegal immigrant problems.
...AzDesertRat...They must have "overlooked" a LOT, or had some fancy wheelin' dealin' going on.
yes, think ACORN and all the brokers and mortgage lenders that phsically encouraged buyers to up their income limits because no one was going to check it.....I know that for a fact from a lady who got in on brokering houses and loans just before the bubble burst.....and, I read it.
Wow. There has been a 'boat-load' of opinions in regards to this subject, this is part II, but this subject has become a 'hot' topic other threads as well. I have only perused this thread, but there is a thing or two I feel I must point out.
One, at first I agreed with this bill based on what I wanted to discern from the media. No I didn't really read it, but I did look at it. And we have seen those who have not agreed with it post based on a similar perusal as mine. Or down to it, what they wanted to discern from the media, including our POTUS who slammed it in the media before ADMITTEDLY not reading it.
Well, now tonite I have read it and HB 2162. While I am not quite a skillful in my citations as .45acp, I still can read. So now I would like to put an open challenge to the detractors of this subject to point out EXACTLY where in these bills is there a violation of the US Constitution, an usurping of Federal authority, racial profiling, hate crimes, and every other thing you SUPPOSE it contains?
OH, but wait, there's more! Before you answer this post, you MUST read them for yourself and I have made it VERY easy for you too, to read the text of these bills by putting the .pdf's on my own server.
Index of /az (http://ted.servepics.com/az - broken link)
good luck
p.s. I received an e-mail from a buddy titled 'AZ Gov vs. Phoenix Suns owner', don't know if it's true, so humor me this:
The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new immigration laws. Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:
"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?" -Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
Wow. There has been a 'boat-load' of opinions in regards to this subject, this is part II, but this subject has become a 'hot' topic other threads as well. I have only perused this thread, but there is a thing or two I feel I must point out.
One, at first I agreed with this bill based on what I wanted to discern from the media. No I didn't really read it, but I did look at it. And we have seen those who have not agreed with it post based on a similar perusal as mine. Or down to it, what they wanted to discern from the media, including our POTUS who slammed it in the media before ADMITTEDLY not reading it.
Well, now tonite I have read it and HB 2162. While I am not quite a skillful in my citations as .45acp, I still can read. So now I would like to put an open challenge to the detractors of this subject to point out EXACTLY where in these bills is there a violation of the US Constitution, an usurping of Federal authority, racial profiling, hate crimes, and every other thing you SUPPOSE it contains?
OH, but wait, there's more! Before you answer this post, you MUST read them for yourself and I have made it VERY easy for you too, to read the text of these bills by putting the .pdf's on my own server.
Index of /az (http://ted.servepics.com/az - broken link)
good luck
p.s. I received an e-mail from a buddy titled 'AZ Gov vs. Phoenix Suns owner', don't know if it's true, so humor me this:
The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new immigration laws. Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:
"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?" -Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
I have read them. Carefully.
Before you make rash challenges and make yourself look silly, you may want to read this. Carefully.
I just ran across it.
Just by comparing the actual law and the ACLU's interpretation you can see what a spin ACLU is putting on the whole thing. They are very careful in their wording to make it look like what they want it to look like. Of course, that's their whole goal and the reason they don't copy the law verbatim, and instead cut it down to what they want. If they had copied the law verbatim and didn't put in words that aren't in the actual law, I might have given it more serious thought, as it is, I think it's just more hoopla.
For example:
The actual written law:
A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
ACLU's interpretation:
(A) Prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
This appears to prohibit localities from having policies aimed at increasing trust within immigrant communities, such as not questioning victims and witnesses of crime about their immigration status. It also severely ties the hands of local governments by not permitting them to exercise their own judgment about the allocation of law enforcement resources because it requires police agencies to treat administrative violations of the immigration law on the same level as serious felonies. We are aware of no other law—except funding incentives—that attempt to dictate law enforcement priorities in this way.
Thank you WyomingDarrell for the further reading material, as I would always want to be further informed and would gladly admit when I am wrong. However at first look when comparing the documents side by side, I came to the exact same conclusion as lzyyard.
In fact I think it gets even more apparent in Paragraph B, ACLU's opinion:
(B) Requires police officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person whenever there is reasonable suspicion that the person is person is unlawfully present and verify that status with the federal government, except to the extent that it would hinder an ongoing investigation.
Requires all local law enforcement to investigate a person’s immigration status when certain indicators exist that give rise to reasonable suspicion that they are in the country unlawfully, regardless of whether that person is suspected of a crime. Some examples of reasonable suspicion of undocumented status that have been upheld by the courts include not having proper identification and evasive behavior. Under the law, a person would be presumed to be in the country lawfully if they could show valid government ID or tribal identification. Contrary to the claims of some proponents, the bill does not prohibit officers from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to investigate. Because most police officers have not been trained to enforce immigration law, many U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents will be wrongfully detained and would likely have a claim against their local police agencies for damages resulting from their detention.
Actual text with further amemndments via HB2162 (red being struck out and blue being added):
B. For any lawful contact STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following: 1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Pretty plain to me that the ACLU is watering down the bill with their 'analysis' of the bill as the title of the document clearly states.
Just because the ACLU says something, doesn't mean they are correct. They lose quite often in the Supreme Court....
You are 100% correct that the ACLU saying something does not make it correct. However, you can't discount something simply because the ACLU said it. In this case it doesn't matter what they say as they aren't arguing or deciding the case in court and what is decided there is what counts. As to your last statement, they also win quite often. Going back to my post, anyone reading the attachment with an open mind would see that while there are many weak arguments, there are also some very strong ones. I did not edit it in my post to show only the best ones.
I've said this before, the ACLU has a liberal (living, breathing) interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I don't take anything they say at face value, nor do I have any respect for them. The ACLJ does a much better, more respectable job (although they are not nearly as large as the ACLU). Here's what the ACLJ said: http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_S...n_20100729.pdf
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.
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.
