Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

[Heath Ledger]

I bought a really cool "Arizona Rocks" t-shirt at the gun show here in SoCal this weekend.

[rjv]

You should read the law. The law says nothing about "driving while black". Has no potential of racial profiling.

i have read SB1070 and i know it does not state that; no law does. that is the point. it is rather the hidden potential of a law and its application by law enforcement that is subject to scrutiny. while the law stipulates that the primary reason for detaining an individual cannot be to ask for proof of citizenship and that there must be an aura of su ion it also does not indicate anything regarding the rights of groups or persons as the enforcement of the law is applied.

that is why both MALDEF and the ACLU in the first lawsuit that was filed in the state stated the the law " invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona." (http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-right...zona-racial-pr)

[jack sommerset]

i have read SB1070 and i know it does not state that; no law does. that is the point. it is rather the hidden potential of a lawand its application by law enforcement that is subject to scrutiny. while the law stipulates that the primary reason for detaining an individual cannot be to ask for proof of citizenship and that there must be an aura of su ion it also does not indicate anything regarding the rights of groups or persons as the enforcement of the law is applied.

that is why both MALDEF and the ACLU in the first lawsuit that was filed in the state stated the the law " invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona." (http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-right...zona-racial-pr)

It's a conspiracy to you then.


ACLU and MALDEF are wrong that it will invite racial profiling as are you. Frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday. The law does not counter the 14th and fourth amendments.

It's a good law.

[rjv]

It's a conspiracy to you then.


ACLU and MALDEF are wrong that it will invite racial profiling as are you. Frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday. The law does not counter the 14th and fourth amendments.

It's a good law.

frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday but fortunately you are not the judge of what is to be deemed the latter, nor whether or not the law holds up cons utionally.

the fact that the state of texas is waiting to see how the lawsuits hold up in courts (before proposing the enactment of a similar law) tells you that some of the suits will not be defined as "frivolous" as the very definition would mean they never make it to court. the expectation, even by conservative legilsators, is that SB1070 will see its day in court.

[jack sommerset]

frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday but fortunately you are not the judge of what is to be deemed the latter, nor whether or not the law holds up cons utionally.

the fact that the state of texas is waiting to see how the lawsuits hold up in courts tells you that some of the suits will not be defined as "frivolous" as the very definition would mean they never make it to court. the expectation, even by conservative legilsators, is that SB1070 will see its day in court.

Ooooooooo TAY!

[George Gervin's Afro]

You should read the law. The law says nothing about "driving while black". Has no potential of racial profiling.

hey jack i seem to remember all of your claims about the healthcare law that were not specifically mentioned in the bill (you made stuff up). Now it seems you are stating that if it isn't in the bill it can't possibly happen. So, which is it?

[jack sommerset]

hey jack i seem to remember all of your claims about the healthcare law that were not specifically mentioned in the bill (you made stuff up). Now it seems you are stating that if it isn't in the bill it can't possibly happen. So, which is it?

You recall wrong, dummy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You recall wrong, dummy.

you made quite bit of stuff up of what was going to happen it if the oabamacare health bill was passed... so now I guess now you are going to stick by "if it is not specifically mentioned in the legislation then it can't happen.."

got it

[jack sommerset]

you made quite bit of stuff up of what was going to happen it if the oabamacare health bill was passed... so now I guess now you are going to stick by "if it is not specifically mentioned in the legislation then it can't happen.."

got it

You got nothing as usual. If you want to talk healthcare, start a thread.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You got nothing as usual. If you want to talk healthcare, start a thread.

I don't blame you for running away.. you are a hypocrite

[jack sommerset]

I don't blame you for running away.. you are a hypocrite

I said you were wrong, again. If you want to talk about healthcare, start a thread. Quit babbling.

[rjv]

even arizona is suing arizona.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...f9GHwD9FGBTC82

The Tucson City Council has voted to sue Arizona in an effort to overturn its new immigration law.
The law requires law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally.
Mayor Bob Walkup says much of Tucson's economy is derived from Mexican tourists who come to vacation and shop.
Council members say the cost to enforce the new immigration law will be overly excessive.
Councilman Steve Kozachik voted against the suit, saying that while the law is flawed, Arizona needs "to de-escalate the conversation" and a lawsuit runs counter to that.

and, http://azdailysun.com/news/local/gov...1b37b42e7.html

The Flagstaff City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to file suit against Arizona's new immigration law.
The decision, made after more than three hours of public testimony, directs the city attorney to seek an injunction, either alone or in concert with other cities or litigants, preventing SB1070 from taking effect in late July.
Councilmember Coral Evans called the law "racist" and said she could not abide by a law that would target some of the poorest and most vulnerable in the community.
"It is not enough to stand in unity when things are good," Evans said, paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.
Councilmember Joe Haughey, while voting in favor of the lawsuit, said the city must monitor its legal bills in the face of a $6 million budget deficit and employee layoffs.
"I'm concerned about budget issues," he said. "We've eliminated 13 police positions. How many more are we going to lose because we cannot afford it?"
No estimate was made Tuesday of how much the city might spend on fighting the state over the new law, although the city also set up a fund on Tuesday to accept public donations.
More than two dozen spoke to the council during the meeting, with more than 80 percent in favor of overturning the legislation.
The council agreed that there was a greater cost than possible legal fees -- a human cost.
Mayor Sara Presler said the city might be saving money by suing the state -- the city, she noted, could be legally liable for implementing the new law.
The council was given essentially four options on Tuesday night: Proceed with their own lawsuit against the state, join other cities or groups in pre-existing legal action, wait to see how the federal government responds or do nothing.
The adopted resolution will give City Attorney Pat Boomsma two choices: Hiring an outside legal firm to fight the law or join with another community like Tucson to sue the state.
The Tucson City Council voted 5 to 1 on Tuesday night to sue the state to overturn SB 1070.
In Phoenix, Mayor Phil Gordon said he and other Arizona mayors plan to file a challenge to the state's new immigration law.
Gordon was unable last week to gather enough support from Phoenix City Council members to file a lawsuit on behalf of the city, and a legal opinion issued Monday by Phoenix City Attorney Gary Verburg says only the city council has the power to authorize lawsuits.
He says the challenge to be filed by a coalition of municipalities in Arizona wouldn't be funded by Phoenix's taxpayer money.
Flagstaff Councilmember Scott Overton said the city might want to go it alone out of concern that other lawsuits might fail to get off the ground.
The law, set to take effect July 29, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.
It would require local law enforcement, when "practical," to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are here unlawfully.
The governor amended the law last week to preclude a person's race from being a factor when questioning someone's legal status amended the measure last week.
The law was also amended so police could inquire about immigration status only if there is a lawful stop, detention or arrest, not just a contact.
A spokesperson for the Flagstaff Police Department, Lt. Ken Koch, said arrests in Flagstaff involving illegal immigrants are not substantial.
"It has been our experience that those individuals that we come into contact within the course of our duties who are determined to be in this country illegally are law-abiding persons and non-violent," Koch said. "There is a small minority within that group that have come to our attention that are involved with narcotic trafficking and sales and they do engage in violent criminal acts in support of narcotic trafficking and sales. We would like to stress these are a minority."

the mayor of phoenix is also planning to file a suit against the state.

[jack sommerset]

Over 70 percent of Arizona supports this bill.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Over 70 percent of Arizona supports this bill.

jack advocating governing by polls again..

[ChumpDumper]

Were you ever able to think up an example of reasonable su ion of being an illegal alien, jack?

[jack sommerset]

Were you ever able to think up an example of reasonable su ion of being an illegal alien, jack?

Don't need to play storytime with you, I read the law.

[rjv]

jack advocating governing by polls again..

...and argument via fallacy

[jack sommerset]

...and argument via fallacy

LOL. Son, that's your style. Let me know when you find in the law "racial profiling"

[rjv]

LOL. Son, that's your style. Let me know when you find in the law "racial profiling"

seriously? are you asking me to find in a law a stipulation for enforcing that law in a manner that is unlawful ?

[jack sommerset]

seriously? are you asking me to find in a law a stipulation for enforcing that law in a manner that is unlawful ?

No.

[rjv]

No.

well then you are just begging the question. great example of another fallacy (preceded by the might makes right premise)

[jack sommerset]

well then you are just begging the question. great example of another fallacy (preceded by the might makes right premise)

nope

[rjv]

nope

that is a whole different species of -acy there. the prefix to which i'll leave to your imagination to fill in.

[jack sommerset]

Accuracy

[lefty]

Does that mean that Nash, Barboso, Lou and Goran (and maybe Lopez - with a name like that you never know) won't be able to play game 6 of the WCF?



you David Stern