Arizona Law SB 1070 and HB 2162 Examined. Cite Your Reasons For Dissent.

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


So, are you retracting your statement about language and ethnicity being ample reason to stop someone, or are you simply unable to support it?

I'm truly curious.

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

Originally posted by richierich
reply to post by GrampsLEn

 

Joe Arpaio is a publicity seeking egomaniac with a sadistic streak a mile wide and no morals at all when it comes to ruining anyone who opposes you in any way. Those are his GOOD points!!! His bad ones are too numerous to mention, and too disgusting to contemplate.

Like a thuggish and cruder version of a Dick Cheney, the soulless Arpaio cares ZERO about human suffering, and indeed enjoys seeing those he perceives as' bad guys' suffer indeed. he houses vast numbers of petty offenders, mostly drug use nonsense, in sweltering tents ruled by sadistic guards.

Arpaio dresses the men in pink; humiliation is a natural for him, obviously, and as an ex D.E.A. thug we can expect nu human kindness or traits that would identify a true human being... Joe does NOT recognize people as human; to be human you must be in a certain category, and it has strict rules; People of color not wanted..anyone who dares to oopose Joe gets railroaded and falsely charged...he even charges the judges, and politicians...of course they are dropped later, as the DA is in bed with old Joe...but this kind of racist claptrap is old hat to joe and his ilk.

The voters are scared...intimidated and frightened..by the lying ads Joe minions shower them with at election times....scare tactics about how only HE, the saviour Joe, can protect them from the Mexican hordes and the pot smokers..the ' lawbreakers' that are the boogeymen Joes needs to prop up his personal empire and insure his flag of hate marches on.

Joe and the crooked local DA, who of course is trying to move up even higher in the feeding chain of politics, often charge people with crimes for no good reason. These are always political opponents, and Joe files false charges and it always takes a court outside Joe's perncious influence to undo it and forbid joe from proceeding. it happens all the time with Joe; Taxpayers pay MILLIONS of their tax dollars to settle lawsuits that must be paid to cover the egregious civil rights abuses by his cops.

Joe's deputies have murdered, beaten and abused inmates as well as civilians guilty of nothing. These men get away with a lot, and the worst of it gets paid off by the taxpayers. It is a perfect racket old Joe has going:

As long as he can scare the voters into buying his snake oil lies about the ' dark menace' looming at the border and how he is ' protecting ' them from these monsters, he will take the money and run. He LOVES the cameras and loves to spew his hateful rhetoric anytime and anywhere a TV station will set up and listen.

Publicity hound, sadist, sado-moralizer, political animal, with no conscience and no compunctions about allowing and PROMOTING human suffering on a mass scale; Arpaio might well someday find himself facing a tribunal for crimes against humanity for his treatment of prisoners, and if there were any justice, he and his hero Dick Cheney would both swing from the same rope, preferable made of American hemp.

Maybe you should post this RANT in a thread about Sheriff Arpaio. He was not mentioned anywhere in the OP and not mentioned in the Arizona Bill.

Also, Sheriff Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa County. There are 15 Counties in Arizona. That might help you.

Arpaio is a supporter of this bill and is typical of the mentality of the people that think that this will help anything.

All laws like this do is piss off the legit peolle who get harrassed and sweated and bullied by Arpaio type cops, which are all over that wasteland of a state..and make the people hate the cops even more.

How do you tell if a human being is ' illegal' ? If they have papers while driving then fine....but watch and see; We will see massive numbers of cases where cops stop people walking, or as passengers in a car, being detained and arrested and worse because they could not PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. Cops are supposed to prove guilt....we are under No obligation to prove we are legit to the satisfaction of every dimwitted bulb with a badge.

There is NO LAW in the USA that mandates that citizens carry paper ID...Cops insist all the time that you MUST present ID even when not driving...they will ask: How do I know you are who you say you are?

Well, cop, the law says you are a liar...that I do NOT have to care one iota what you think.. Why in hell should we care about what a cop thinks?

I saw a set of stats from NYC, and the corrupt cops there bust people all the time for non laws...they just let them go after a few hours in a cell..the sick freaks...i do not trusrt a cop to enforce any law correctly, much less ones that pertain to civil rights.

Before I go though.....

I started this thread about 8:00 this morning.

82 REPLIES and 22 Later...NOT ONE person has proven the case against this Bill per my OP and it's original premise.

Not ONE PERSON.

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
Before I go though.....

I started this thread about 8:00 this morning.

82 REPLIES and 22 Later...NOT ONE person has proven the case against this Bill per my OP and it's original premise.

Not ONE PERSON.

No one has proven it to your satisfaction, naturally. It's nearly impossible to change someone's mind when they come into a situation with a pre-determined agenda.

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
Before I go though.....

I started this thread about 8:00 this morning.

82 REPLIES and 22 Later...NOT ONE person has proven the case against this Bill per my OP and it's original premise.

Not ONE PERSON.

It helps when you ignore posts and simply handwave good information.

Patting yourself on the back for ignoring opposition?

Originally posted by bagari

Originally posted by primus2012
I object to the law because it is not going to accomplish anything. It's just more of politicians putting on their umpteen pieces of flair to catch attention and hopefully some votes next fall.

So you're a 'sit back and do nothing' kind of guy. Gotcha.

This thread makes it very obvious that the dissenters have based their opinions on feelings rather than facts.

I'm not a dissenter nor a sit-back-and-do-nothing type. I'm for stricter and bolder action that would allow the state to check anyone's status at any time. Examples of such would be: at entrance to any public facility such as a library, school, or clinic, or prior to any transaction at a grocery store, liquor store, pharmacy, car lot, or prior to admission to an amusement park, theater, bar, auditorium, etc..

If INS won't take custody of illegal aliens found by the state, then the state has the right to transport them; use the Army and Air National Guard as illegal alien transport if the local and state resources aren't enough.

Put the clamps down on everything. All legal aliens and every citizen no matter their appearance will have to go thru the same motions. Then it won't ever be called "profiling", and the ACLU, ADL, DFL, and MSNBC can shut the heck up. If you don't have proper ID and documentation, then too bad so sad.

Shut down businesses that are caught using illegal workers. No advance warning of inspection, no 2nd chances. Fines and/or prison sentences for owners and/or those responsible for hiring.

No more social security numbers for children. No number will be given until working age. The children's numbers are the ones being sold/bought by illegals.

No fooling around with a 3-strike crime program, 1-strike is enough to be sent packing after a prison term and never allowed to return, permanently on the no-cross-the-border list. Go pillage and wreak havoc on your own country whether it be Sweden or Honduras.
No special rights given to illegal alien criminals, meaning no cushy prison. Give them extreme hard labor that will give them every reason to not want to return to the US. Clear swamps, bust rocks, blood sweat and tears. No I don't mean just aliens who are found to be illegal, but those that are convicted for crimes of any type.

Play hardball that will pretty much suck and be an inconvenience to all, but it's the only way it will work.

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW


Here in Los Angeles, we all know that Illegal hangout in parks, gas stations, industry warehouses, home improvement centers, (home depot, etc.)

There's a group in a parking lot just sitting there looking at every car drive up and motioning toward them.

You are Stereotyping.

I was born & bred in Los Angeles before moving to Arizona. And my brother was a contractor in LA.

As far as I know its been a long time since "Jose's" hung around on street corners etc. They have designated areas now - - which are checked and monitored by immigration. Of course they can independently choose to hang any place they want.

I worked for a meat processor in Gardena. As far as I knew all the workers were legal and documented. The managers/supervisors were mostly from South America - - well educated - - spoke perfect English. Then they had the Amnesty program. Guess what - - not one of them was legal.

I'm not against an illegal immigration bill - - but like someone else said - - the "potential for abuse".

Laws are subject to interpretation - that's why we have lawyers and judges.

Otherwise - - might as well have a "black & white" vending machine where the arresting officer punches in the crime - - and the machine kicks out a sentence.

Well, one person tried but as of now, zero legal arguments that stand up to any merit. Zero arguments that can take the bill and point out anything wrong with it.

Good work OP, it seems like they have no merit and no standing.

I would like to use an analogy they love to use.

Do these people sound like hmmmmm dare I say, Orly Taitz?

Originally posted by richierich

Arpaio is a supporter of this bill and is typical of the mentality of the people that think that this will help anything.

Sheriff Joe is under Federal Investigation.

For practices this bill "might" make legal.

waronracism.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by richierich

Arpaio is a supporter of this bill and is typical of the mentality of the people that think that this will help anything.

Sheriff Joe is under Federal Investigation.

For practices this bill "might" make legal.

waronracism.blogspot.com...

Sheriff Arpiao is not the discussion of this thread. Straw man

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
Before I go though.....

I started this thread about 8:00 this morning.

82 REPLIES and 22 Later...NOT ONE person has proven the case against this Bill per my OP and it's original premise.

Not ONE PERSON.

It helps when you ignore posts and simply handwave good information.

Patting yourself on the back for ignoring opposition?

Ignore posts? I'm very active in this thread and have answered more than many OP's answer in their own threads.

I only ignored ONE person here to my knowledge.

Not patting myself on the back either, just stating that NOBODY in this thread has shown where the Bill advocates "racism" or "taking of rights", in it's wording and intent.

Ok I just got started reading and found this:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE
33 OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY
34 NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE


I would like to have that changed to WILL NOT CONSIDER RACE. This would mean that the law will apply to everyone regardless of their race. That "MAY" in there gives a hint that race will play a PART when stopping someone.

I will continue reading after somebody addresses this, and then I'll throw something else in here if I find anything else.

I think all states should close the borders . but that is just my views on the subject .

300 Million already here, Times that with more people moving here from all over the planet = 3rd world nation

What good would it be to open all borders

[edit on 21-5-2010 by AndersonLee]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by AndersonLee]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW


Here in Los Angeles, we all know that Illegal hangout in parks, gas stations, industry warehouses, home improvement centers, (home depot, etc.)

There's a group in a parking lot just sitting there looking at every car drive up and motioning toward them.

You are Stereotyping.

I was born & bred in Los Angeles before moving to Arizona. And my brother was a contractor in LA.

As far as I know its been a long time since "Jose's" hung around on street corners etc. They have designated areas now - - which are checked and monitored by immigration. Of course they can independently choose to hang any place they want.

I worked for a meat processor in Gardena. As far as I knew all the workers were legal and documented. The managers/supervisors were mostly from South America - - well educated - - spoke perfect English. Then they had the Amnesty program. Guess what - - not one of them was legal.

I'm not against an illegal immigration bill - - but like someone else said - - the "potential for abuse".

Laws are subject to interpretation - that's why we have lawyers and judges.

Otherwise - - might as well have a "black & white" vending machine where the arresting officer punches in the crime - - and the machine kicks out a sentence.

I gave ONE instance out of many from my own experience. Your 'experience" can also be valid.

Now care to answer my OP about THE BILL?

Originally posted by bartholomeo

Ok I just got started reading and found this:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE
33 OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY
34 NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE


I would like to have that changed to WILL NOT CONSIDER RACE. This would mean that the law will apply to everyone regardless of their race. That "MAY" in there gives a hint that race will play a PART when stopping someone.

I will continue reading after somebody addresses this, and then I'll throw something else in here if I find anything else.

MAY...as in "May I have a glass of water"

Not PERHAPS as in MAYBE

"MAY" is a common word used with the word "NOT".

As in "No you MAY NOT have a glass of water"

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by richierich

Arpaio is a supporter of this bill and is typical of the mentality of the people that think that this will help anything.

Sheriff Joe is under Federal Investigation.

For practices this bill "might" make legal.

waronracism.blogspot.com...

Sheriff Arpiao is not the discussion of this thread. Straw man

Then tell that to those who are discussing it.

My point is only this bill might make those kinds of abuses legal.

Those kind of abuses are FACT. You wanted FACT.

I think another poster noted this above, but the main legal issue, from my standpoint as well as various bodies suing over the bill, is the idea of due process and race.

Why is it acceptable for an officer to ask you to prove your innocence in the case of immigration, but not any other time? It is illegal and unconstitutional for an officer to ask me to prove I didn't commit a burglary, or prove that I didn't commit any other crime. This is considering my guilty until proven innocent, which is the antithesis of the Constitution. In the case of the Arizona bill, however, citizens (and non-citizens) are being ordered to prove innocence, otherwise they are assumed guilty.

Again, I'll repeat: there is no legal requirement for anyone to provide identification to an officer, federal or otherwise. You have to give a name and date of birth...that's it. Why should I have to prove my citizenship when I've committed no crime and am being stopped because I don't speak English well or I'm in an area frequented by illegal immigrants?

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

Originally posted by bartholomeo

Ok I just got started reading and found this:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE
33 OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY
34 NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE


I would like to have that changed to WILL NOT CONSIDER RACE. This would mean that the law will apply to everyone regardless of their race. That "MAY" in there gives a hint that race will play a PART when stopping someone.

I will continue reading after somebody addresses this, and then I'll throw something else in here if I find anything else.

MAY...as in "May I have a glass of water"

Not PERHAPS as in MAYBE

"MAY" is a common word used with the word "NOT".

As in "No you MAY NOT have a glass of water"

I believe the poster was focusing on the word "SOLELY" rather than "MAY". The inclusion of "SOLELY" suggests that race is allowed as evidence in conjunction with other factors. In fairness, I believe the word "solely" was removed in a later iteration of the bill.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by richierich

Arpaio is a supporter of this bill and is typical of the mentality of the people that think that this will help anything.

Sheriff Joe is under Federal Investigation.

For practices this bill "might" make legal.

waronracism.blogspot.com...

Sheriff Arpiao is not the discussion of this thread. Straw man

Then tell that to those who are discussing it.

My point is only this bill might make those kinds of abuses legal.

Those kind of abuses are FACT. You wanted FACT.

Another Straw Man...wow

"Might make".....might deals with future possibility. Future possibilities and speculation isn't FACT...it's a supposition.

"Those kinds of abuses are fact"

Yes.....AND...?

Please cite where the Bill states that Arizona intends to do what you described. My OP did not ask for what "might' happen, that is another topic.