Poll: Most Americans support AZ immigration law

[ChumpDumper]

Have you read the law?

Yes.

[jack sommerset]

Yes.

Good, then you need no explanation of the law.

[ChumpDumper]

Good, then you need no explanation of the law.

Sure I do. I need to know the conditions an officer would consider before asking for proof of citizenship.

Can you explain those conditions?

[jack sommerset]

Sure I do. I need to know the conditions an officer would consider before asking for proof of citizenship.

Can you explain those conditions?

It's in the law. Did you really read it?

[ChumpDumper]

It's in the law. Did you really read it?

The text of the law gives no examples.

Did you really read it?

Point out the examples given in the text of the law.

[jack sommerset]

The text of the law gives no examples.

Did you really read it?

Point out the examples given in the text of the law.

Arizona's words not mine

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United1 States.

Do you have a specific example you think this law is bad?

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't you use your words?

I think it could be a bad law if proponents of it can't give an example of the law in action in their own words.

Either that or those proponents are idiots.

Give me an example of the law in action in your own words.

[jack sommerset]

Why can't you use your words?

I think it could be a bad law if proponents of it can't give an example of the law in action in their own words.

Either that or those proponents are idiots.

Give me an example of the law in action in your own words.

The law say's it best.

What kind of example are you looking for? Any?

[ChumpDumper]

The law say's it best.

It gives no examples. You would know that had you actually read the law. It is clear you haven't.

What kind of example are you looking for? Any?

Any you could actually come up with yourself that that includes reasonable su ion concerning a person who has broken no law.

[jack sommerset]

It gives no examples. You would know that had you actually read the law. It is clear you haven't.

Any you could actually come up with yourself that that includes reasonable su ion concerning a person who has broken no law.

I have the law right in front of me. Where in your world says there has to be given examples when writing laws?

You now have stipulations of potential examples I can give you. Just tell us why you think this law is bad. Your words.

[ChumpDumper]

I have the law right in front of me. Where in your world says there has to be given examples when writing laws?

So you concede it gives no examples.

Thanks.

You now have stipulations of potential examples I can give you.

If you can't give an example that fits when you have the law right in front of you, just say so.

Just tell us why you think this law is bad. Your words.

I already said it could be bad because proponents of the law who claim to have read it and have it right in front of them can't even come up with one example of the law in action when it comes to a person who has broken no law.

You had that right in front of you too.

[jack sommerset]

So you concede it gives no examples after insisting it did.

Thanks.

If you can't give an example that fits when you have the law right in front of you, just say so.

I already said it could be bad because proponents of the law who claim to have read it and have it right in front of them can't even come up with one example of the law in action when it comes to a person who has broken no law.

You had that right in front of you too.

I "concede" laws don't need to give examples. That is reality. Something you should look up and eventually come back too. I can give examples but you put stipulations on those.

Are you against this law? Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

I "concede" laws don't need to give examples. That is reality. Something you should look up and eventually come back too. I can give examples but you put stipulations on those.

So you can give an example that meets those stipulations?

Yes or no.

Are you against this law? Yes or no.

One need not be for or against a law. I don't enough real benefit to support it, nor do I see enough potential for abuse to be against it. As it is, it looks like a lot of talk tough that will achieve not much at all. Looks like no one is up to the task of persuading me with potential examples either way.

Good job, ST political crew!

[jack sommerset]

So you can't give an example that meets those stipulations?

Yes or no.

One need not be for or against a law. I don't enough real benefit to support it, nor do I see enough potential for abuse to be against it. As it is, it looks like a lot of talk tough that will achieve not much at all. Looks like no one is up to the task of persuading me with potential examples either way.

Good job, ST political crew!

Your stipulations would not be Arizona's written law.

Don't break the law and if you do, have id.

Good job wannabe mod of ST!

[ChumpDumper]

Your stipulations would not be Arizona's written law.

Don't break the law and if you do, have id.

Good job wannabe mod of ST!

The law does not state that the person suspected has to break the law to be asked to provide proof of citizenship.

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

And I don't want to be a mod. It was a pain when I was. People like you whined even more.

[jack sommerset]

The law does not state that the person suspected has to break the law to be asked to provide proof of citizenship.



And I don't want to be a mod. It was a pain when I was. People like you whined even more.

Never said it did. What's your problem with the law?

People like me?

[ChumpDumper]

Never said it did.

So you agree it is in Arizona's written law. Great.

What's your problem with the law?

Already stated.

It's right in front of you.

People like me?

Yes, people like you.

[jack sommerset]

Already stated.

It's right in front of you.

Yes, people like you.

"If's" is your anwser. Why don't you like the law?

[jack sommerset]

"If's" is your anwser. Why don't you like the law?

People like me. Be specific?

[ChumpDumper]

"If's" is your anwser. Why don't you like the law?

Already stated. It's right in front of you in the text of this page on the internets.

You are proving it over and over again.

Thanks.

[jack sommerset]

You put stipulations on that answer. So you don't know if you like the bill or not. That's cool.

[ChumpDumper]

You put stipulations on that answer. So you don't know if you like the bill or not. That's cool.

That's exactly what I said.

It was right in front of you.

[z0sa]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...ZiOTNhOTMzMzU=

This should answer your questions, ChumpDumper.

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need su ion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable su ion."

"Reasonable su ion", furthermore (same article):

Reasonable, articulable su ion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized su ion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent.

In other words, being a Mexican with poor English skills doesn't mean a cop can ask you for ID. Unless he has a semi-legitimate reason to think you've committed or crime or are planning one, one has no law backing in asking "for your papers."

So, the majority of your examples will come from petty crimes or traffic violations illegals commit.

[ChumpDumper]

So it sounds about as impotent in practice as I thought.

Thanks.

[z0sa]

So it sounds about as impotent in practice as I thought.

Thanks.

At least their peacekeepers can do a little more of their job now. The more redtape cops get caught up in, the more crime we suffer. And I bet it's more effective than some would suggest or believe.