It's in the news dumbass -----Original Message----- From: Brian Thornton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:26 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Closing the border
The law doesn't even go into effect for 90 days... why are you flat out lying? On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Eric Roberts < [email protected]> wrote: > > There was already a truck driver that was arrested and detained. He is a > natural-born US citizen. He stopped at a weigh station and was asked to > see > him immigration papers and when he said he was a US citizen, they arrested > and detained him until his wife could drive (a considerable distance) with > his birth certificate. That is a violation of the this man's civil rights > and why this law is a POS law thinly disguising rascism. > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:13 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Closing the border > > > 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/sb1070 > s.htm<http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/ sb1070%0As.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:316669 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
