It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
Authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.
Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Vitchilo
When 80% of the american people supports the Arizona anti-ILLEGAL immigration law...
80% Really? Do you have a source on that?
Still if 99% of the country support killing all the black people, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We have people complaining about the census and how much of a threat it is to privacy, and then we have these same people going on about how there is absolutely no problem for law enforcement to have authority to come to your house, or to you on the street, and demand your papers. Both appear to contradict one another, both arguments typically from the same people. The only real difference is that one is at a state level, the other is at a Federal level, one will largely affect a certain racial group, the other spans all ethnic groups.
Interesting when you look at the similarities, then the differences between these two arguments right?
The Mexican president got a standing ovation and to be frank I could not give a damn, This law is complete waste, passed conveniently during the 2010 elections (just in time you know?). It targets potentially every day american citizens, 'papers please' when you are taking your kids to the park. You cannot move freely in this country without potentially being harassed by law enforcement simply because 'look' out of place. Yet this is somehow going to solve the illegal immigration problem right? And while the big businesses continue to hire these illegals and continue to save millions, the law certainly will not be focusing on them. No, nope, these same politicians behind the bill will not give law enforcement that same authority to just waltz in and demand papers and information from these businesses, neither will there be a crackdown. After all, these businesses lobby and pay half the salaries of these politicians, so why not distract the population by targeting the brownies themselves right? Its a win win situation for the these politican opportunists. Act as if you give a damn about the issue, and at the same time cover up for your business buddies. Its perfect.
I keep on hearing this argument that the bill will not allow racial profiling, or that it does not mention racial profiling. Its like passing a law that will give registered sex offenders the right to be in contact with children. I mean we can certainly argue that the law specifically states that these sex offenders cannot assualt these children, but who is to say that will not happen? As I said, this law is a joke, and so long as the businesses continue to hire these illegals, and so long as the same politicians behind this bill continue to point fingers somewhere else, the problem will persist. Conservatives want to focus on the brown man, when the issue goes beyond just that. It's just so much more easier to score votes when you make out a scapegoat... which preferbly comes in the form of a person. In this case an hispanic man waving the Mexican flag.
House member are elected directly by voters in districts drawn by their State governments. Each district would contain approximately 30,000 people. These districts would be redrawn every 10 years after the census to reflect population shifts. After the 1920 census, the size of the House was capped at 435. So now, instead of the number of House members growing every 10 years, the population size of each district grows. Senators, on the other hand, were chosen by their state legislatures. This would be changed by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Now, the people of each state directly elect their Senators.
Different Responsibilities of the House and Senate
There are also some differences in the responsibilities given to each body. Revenue bills, or any bills that deal with raising money for the federal government, must be first introduced in the House before they can go to the Senate. And, only the Senate approves treaties and presidential appointments. In addition, for impeachment, the House brings the charges of impeachment and the impeachment trial takes place in the Senate. The Senate serves as the jury, deciding whether the accused is found guilty or not guilty of the charges. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
The Founder’s Expectations for the House Versus the Senate
Taken together, these differences show us that our nation’s founders expected the Senate to be wiser, nobler, and more detached from the people. The House, on the other hand, was expected to be more in touch with the people. The House would respond well to the desires of the people, but also be more impulsive. The Senate would be slow to change to public opinion, but also prevent more radical shifts in public policy.
Originally posted by ker2010
Read the law online and cut and paste where it says they can do those things.. Please show me.
Originally posted by Misoir
Good for those guys in Congress who stood up and applauded 99% of the people have not read the bill, I have and it is not good. It's not illegal, but it is still terrible. It should be condemned for racism and the American people educated about it.
Finally Congress does something good.
Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by HunkaHunka
Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.
Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by HunkaHunka
Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.
A new Rasmussen poll shows 55 percent of U.S. voters support the idea of allowing police to stop and check the status of suspected illegal immigrants.
A new Rasmussen poll shows 55 percent of U.S. voters support the idea of allowing police to stop and check the status of suspected illegal immigrants. One out of three in the 1,000 person national survey oppose that notion.
Another 69 percent support the idea of requiring police to check identification and immigration papers when writing traffic tickets if they suspect the person is in the U.S. illegally. Twenty-three percent oppose that concept.