Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56
  1. #1 AZ Immigration Law Blocked by Federal Judge 
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    812


    In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on a border state’s fierce debate over immigration, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court here said that some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.

    But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us...a.html?_r=1&hp

    Huge victory for those against living in a police state.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post


    Huge victory for those against living in a police state.
    Not even remotely close to anything resembling the truth. Try again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Lager View Post
    Not even remotely close to anything resembling the truth. Try again.


    Papers please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    Your analogy again is way off. Not even close. Can any libs discuss an issue without such hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Lager View Post
    Your analogy again is way off. Not even close. Can any libs discuss an issue without such hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts?
    Code:
    5 . . . The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
    6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
    7 government agencies in Arizona
    Code:
    37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
    38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
    39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
    Code:
    20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
    21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
    22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
    23 THIS SECTION.
    Read the last part of that one. Uh oh.

    It's a playbook for fascism, "attrition through enforcement", "without a warrant", "lawfully stop any person...if the officer has reasonable suspicion" (aka, being brown).

    I guess we've found out the only thing you guys hate more than government is mexicans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,160
    Nowhere in the law is anyone required to carry papers at all times. The law just states that if someone offers a valid state or federal ID as proof of citizenship, then that proof alone must be accepted by law enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by The Law
    A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
    37 ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
    38 PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    39 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
    40 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
    41 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
    42 IDENTIFICATION.
    The NYT needs a better fact checker.

    Furthermore, does this injunction affect Federal Law that requires police officers to determine the immigration of a suspected illegal alien? Particularly 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644?

    Do you know the reason she blocked the part about checking the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens and all those currently in custody?

    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Bolton
    “The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established,”
    Basically if these parts of the law go into effect, the Federal government may actually have to do it's job, and we just can't have that.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by malloc View Post
    Nowhere in the law is anyone required to carry papers at all times. The law just states that if someone offers a valid state or federal ID as proof of citizenship, then that proof alone must be accepted by law enforcement
    And if they dont have those two forms of identification? What happens then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    You ignorant stupid, tepid airhead. Did you ever talk to someone in the state who supports this law? You really think it's about racism? They've lived with hispanics for decades. You exhibit lazy thinking and weak mindedness. You need to grow up a bit before you can enter adult conversations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Lager View Post
    .adult conversations.
    You ignorant stupid, tepid airhead
    Heh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post

    Code:
    37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
    38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
    39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
    So a police officer should have to get a warrant to arrest a criminal if they are here on a visa? If a police officer witnesses someone breaking into a house, he doesn't need a warrant to arrest them.

    Quote Originally Posted by KhrushchevsShoe View Post
    Code:
    20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
    21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
    22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
    23 THIS SECTION.
    Read the last part of that one. Uh oh.

    It's a playbook for fascism, "attrition through enforcement", "without a warrant", "lawfully stop any person...if the officer has reasonable suspicion" (aka, being brown).

    I guess we've found out the only thing you guys hate more than government is mexicans.


    Not so good with the English these days are you. A police officer may lawfully stop anyone who is operating a motor vehicle in violation of civil traffic law already. So, it's not just being brown that allows them to stop the vehicle, the AND portion of that line requires that the operator of the vehicle must violate the law (i.e. run a stop sign, speed, etc.)

    You better hope that S.B. 1070, now ARS 11-7 or something succeeds. Democrats already have little hope of retaining power. If they torpedo this law against the wishes of at least 70% of the voters, they are going to dig themselves a hole they won't be able to climb out of.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •