How many Democrats here like Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano never read the AZ leg but still criticize it?

Janets admission

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/17/...

Erics admission

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A

Youtube thumbnail

How many of you criticize it but all only know what CNN, MSNBC and Obama tells you

Update:

@Doorstop

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB216...

it wont take you long to read

Update 2:

@Doorstop

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/leg...

All versions includeing the orignal are on the website. Why dont you prove this claim you just made

Update 4:

you said 2 words and dident even quote a sentence from the bill.

how do you ever win arguments?

Update 5:

so you interpit legitimate contact which they redefned to be clearer to whistle blowers like you to lawful contact.

that is far from an admissions to racism

Update 6:

if the intent of the bill hasnt changed and the wording has just changed from legitimate contact to lawful contract i think its safe to say that was the goal

Update 7:

either way you perceive it.

the end product, lawful contact isnt racist

Update 8:

ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST

is the final product

Update 9:

i didnt agree it was racist to begin with

Update 10:

http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB216...

final version "FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN

OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY

OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE"

thats clear as water

and

supreme court agrees

http://www.cis.org/vaughan/Appeals-Court-Rules-Fav...

the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Muehler v. Mena, "that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status" in the context of a legitimate law enforcement action.

Update 11:

@Doorstop

lol ok

lets just forget that thats the amended version that just passed.

we can wait a few days

Update 12:

@Sidney

you where lied to read the damn bill

Update 13:

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.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Simply because this may be your way, you truly should not assume that everyone does/thinks/believes only what their chosen political party tells them to. I happen to think this is being way overblown, and that if a person is suspected to be an illegal, they SHOULD be asked for identification. (Although I'd imagine a fake id is easy enough to come by).

    What I cannot understand is why, when there was momentum on this issue many months ago, did our former leadership not do anything concrete about it at all. It was used to rile people up during campaign season, and used as nothing more than a talking point. That's too bad.

    I find it personally offensive that people come here illegally, then have the balls to demand anything of our government. GET OUT!

    And, yes, I am a liberal Democrat. I find it important to care for our citizens, but those who break the laws of this country cannot then expect to hide behind those laws they've already broken. All bets are off for them, as far as I'm concerned.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    What did Faux News tell you was in the bill then?

    I have read the original bill which made stereotyping mandatory. the new wording does nothing except remove the government admitting to stereotyping.

    Funny how you talk about reading the bill, when it is obvious you have not and then point others to it.

    AND THE PROOF IS RIGHT HERE FROM THE SAME WEBSITE:

    Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

    LEGITIMATE CONTACT? So that means seeing them at Walmart, the Donut Shop, Home Depot, EVERYWHERE.

    eat it con, you have been conned by the propaganda of the so called fair and balanced.

    Or if you are still too stupid to figure it out, Page 1, line 20 of your legalized racism. I win because I have facts on my side.

    You can call it whatever you want. It does not say "Investigative Contact". It does not say "Perpetrator Contact". It says Lawful Contact which means ANY contact while on duty. Sorry you understand the bill differently, but you are stretching the truth to assume that it means anything else.

    So you admit the goal was to hide the racism, at least we agree now. And I still win :)

    Ok, It says Lawful Contact in the final version posted on the Arizona Senate's Website, and again, any lawful contact is contact made by a law enforcement officer while on duty. Keep em coming, you are only digging the whole deeper.

    USING CAPS STILL MAKES YOU WRONG.

    According to the Arizona Senate's own website, your own source, the law says LAWFUL CONTACT. Page 1 Line 20. Ignore it all you want, you are proven wrong, using your own source. just stop.

    Apparently. you can not read the words "UNOFFICIAL" all over your "final copy"

  • 10 years ago

    When a politician screams about a law, yet never quotes any part of it. And all the politicians are

    saying the exact same thing--then rest assured nobody has read the bill.

    Its all a political ploy to gain votes.

    Can you believe they not only didn't read the bill, but went to China and told them AZ was committing

    human rights violations!!

    That ticks me off the most.

    Whats funny about libs, you can have the politician admitting it on video, and the libs will still refuse

    to believe.. Head firmly placed in the sand.

  • Sidney
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed similar bills. You miss out on quite a bit when you reject every reliable news source, and only believe what Fox tells you to.

    According to the New York Times:

    "It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

    It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced."

    According to police when they arrest illegal immigrants they now turn them over to the border patrol, which is trained to deal with illegal immigrants. This law will take police away from investigating serious crimes and undermine the trust Hispanic people have for police, as well as filling jails with Hispanics.

    Who is going to call police about a crime if they are afraid they will be accused of being an illegal immigrant? Where are the extra police going to come from to do the job of border patrolmen. Are they going to get the training border patrolmen get? Jailing suspected illegals, who may be citizens, will cost taxpayers. How is AZ going to pay for all this in view of budget cuts, with tax increases?

    But the worst part of this bill is that police will have to suspect people because they might resemble other people who have entered the country illegally. What would cause a police officer to suspect someone is in the country without authorization, other than that he looks Hispanic? There are many Hispanic people who were born in Arizona. Are they supposed to carry their birth certificates around with them? Are naturalized citizens supposed to carry their papers? This is intrusive and ridiculous.

    There is no crime committed that the police know of, it is just a witch hunt looking for someone who might have committed a crime. So people who look like they might be Mexican will have to carry papers like Jews did in Nazi Germany. In other words they are presumed guilty until proven innocent. If Arizona starts discriminating against Hispanics, that opens the door to others being discriminated against.

    "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

    Benjamin Franklin

    "Undocumented immigrants in Arizona now face six months in jail and a $500 fine for the first offense – misdemeanor trespass – and an additional $1,000 fine for the second offense, which becomes a felony.

    By establishing a separate state crime for anyone who violates federal immigration law, the new Arizona law contravenes the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate U.S. borders.

    SB 1070 creates a cause of action for any person to sue a city, town or county if he or she feels the police are not stopping enough undocumented immigrants. Even if a municipality is innocent, it will still be forced to rack up exorbitant legal fees to defend itself against frivolous lawsuits."

    Illegal immigrants who come here to work are not drug smugglers and criminals. This law will do nothing to catch real criminals.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Scott
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    I would bet dollars to donuts that 90% or more of the people that oppose the law have not read it regardless of party affiliation.

    To Doorstop: Fox news didn't tell us what was in it, we read it ourselves. It was only like 11 pages. You should try it.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    And people wonder how the 2000+ page healthcare bill got passed.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.