well since we already have american citizens being harrasssed at gunpoint along the border... well. i am just glad i don't look the part, and worried about the US citizens who do, starting with the several large tribes based in Arizona -- the Navaho, the Hopi, the Todo o'odham (sp?) and the Havasupai. I also believ there are some Apache settlements. I am no authority, but off the top of my head I see a problem there, and that is without even getting into all the Montoyas and Gonzaleses and Chavezes whose families have lived there for 300 years, shrug.
and On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > First off, the link to the bill presented here was not a link to the > bill, but rather to its legislative summary. And hopefully we all know > that a legislative summary does not necessarily have anything to do > with the actual contents of the bill. Here is the final text of the > Senate version of the bill: > http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.htm > > Next, getting to your question about where in the bill it allows the > demand of identification: > > Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by > adding article 8, to read: > ... > B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR > AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL > SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION 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 then further amends Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised > Statutes, is amended to read: > > E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP > ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS > REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY > CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION. > > So, any sort of lawful contact by any law enforcement official or any > agency of any part of any section of the government in the state of > Arizona can result in checking immigration status. That means a health > inspector at a restaurant, that means a cop checking on a suspicious > noise that someone heard, that means parking meter attendant who talks > to you as they are writing up a parking ticket for your car. And a cop > who pulls you over for anything at all, "you look like you were > swerving to me" or "the light on your license plate isn't bright > enough" can pull you over and check your immigration status. > > So yeah, the law does, indeed, say exactly what I said it said. And as > for the rest of your questions, yes, I would say that their approach > is quite hamfisted. > > Judah > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Judah, >> >> Where in the text of the bill does it allow the cops to pull over and demand >> identification from anyone? Everyone keeps saying that, but I don't see it. >> >> But, regardless of whether that ability for police exists (I don't think the >> bill allows that - nor SHOULD the bill allow that, demanding papers randomly >> is NOT American), let us set that aside for the moment. We will come back to >> it, I promise. >> >> How about the other provisions? >> 1. no hiring >> 2. no aiding illegal entry >> 3. no transporting >> 4. cities and churches no longer being able to create sanctuaries >> 5. not releasing illegals from jail without checking. >> 6. making being illegal a misdemeanor. >> 7. making false documents illegal >> 8. no causing traffic jams at day labor pickup spots. >> >> Are they also hamfisted for you? >> >> But, even before that, I would love to know how each person here would >> answer these questions: >> >> 1. is it illegal to be "undocumented"? >> 2. is it a crime? >> 3. should it be a crime? >> 4. is it wrong? >> 5. should illegal immigrants be given a plaque? ignored? fined? deported? >> jailed and then deported? >> 6. should there be a border? >> >> my answers: >> 1. yes >> 2. yes >> 3. yes >> 4. no. and yes. do the crime, do the time. but it may still be right for >> some people, even with the penalties. >> 5. deport except in unique circumstances. >> 6. yes >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Out of curiosity, which parts of the bill do you like? It seems like a >>> rather hamfisted attempt at dealing with immigration issues. >>> >>> I mean, come on, empowering the cops to pull over and demand >>> identification from anyone they might suspect is an illegal immigrant? >>> How, exactly, does one reasonably decide that a person might be an >>> illegal immigrant? Is it what they look like or wear? Some sort of >>> furtive movement like they use as a pretext for drug searches? What >>> makes you say, "that person is an illegal immigrant"? >>> >>> I'm genuinely curious. >>> >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:316658 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
