Immigrants break into rental house and camp out and police do nothing.

[westvirginia]

the best thing about this bill . . it is bringing the issue to the forefront of national debate.

 

WV . . read the bolded part. I am surprised that such an outspoken defender of liberty like yourself isnt outraged by this. It empowers the cops to stop and ask ANYONE for their proof of citizenship. It doesnt not require other reasons for the inquiry. Asking for their proof of citizenship is enough to a cop to stop someone now.

 

See, that's what I'm saying - I'm don't think you're right. I think that the law requires there be another reason to stop/challenge the individual.

 

However, I can see how this could be rife with abuse. I'm actually an open-borders guy, but to do that we have to get rid of welfare, gov't schools, stepping on other countries overseas, etc...

[TimC]

When I lived in Chelan County (WA State), we voted in a right wing wack job who cost our county millions trying to fight (i.e..ingore) the federeal Endangered Species Act.

 

We've got a nutjob AG in Virginny right now named Ken Cuccinelli that sues everyone over everything.

[bpwallace49]

See, that's what I'm saying - I'm don't think you're right. I think that the law requires there be another reason to stop/challenge the individual.

 

However, I can see how this could be rife with abuse. I'm actually an open-borders guy, but to do that we have to get rid of welfare, gov't schools, stepping on other countries overseas, etc...

 

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.

 

That means if the officer thinks they might be illegals, a cop can pull over anyone, at any time to check. Please note they make VERY sure that strong language in the bill protects any cops from civil suits against them for doing this. The "reasonable suspicion" is under the guise of "trespassing".

 

So there isnt another reason needed, at least when they are driving or might be a passenger in a car.

[wiegie]

If I were an illegal, I would buy one of those yellow ribbon "support our troops" stickers and puit on the back of my car.

 

[montster]

Guys, my understanding is that this is the portion of the law in question:

 

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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."

 

 

That sounds like to me that the officer has to have another reason to stop the person - not just that their "brown".

 

 

 

See, that's what I'm saying - I'm don't think you're right. I think that the law requires there be another reason to stop/challenge the individual.

 

However, I can see how this could be rife with abuse. I'm actually an open-borders guy, but to do that we have to get rid of welfare, gov't schools, stepping on other countries overseas, etc...

 

what is "reasonable suspicion"? i say it's so vague as to be meaningless. what is "lawful contact"? if a mexican guy is in line behind a cop waiting to get some coffee, and the cop says, "nice weather we're having," and the mexican replies, "no habla ingles," does that fit the criteria?

[bpwallace49]

That sounds like to me that the officer has to have another reason to stop the person - not just that their "brown".

 

 

 

 

 

what is "reasonable suspicion"? i say it's so vague as to be meaningless. what is "lawful contact"? if a mexican guy is in line behind a cop waiting to get some coffee, and the cop says, "nice weather we're having," and the mexican replies, "no habla ingles," does that fit the criteria?

 

Exactly. The cop could be "investigating" if the person is trespassing on US soil. It even says they dont need a warrant in the bill . . . .

 

WV, you dont have any input here? Anti Gubmnet advocate that you are?

[wiegie]

what is "reasonable suspicion"?

That's easy: If a person uses chopsticks instead of a fork to eat rice, he very likely an illegal.

[TimC]

Put an f'n lawnmower in front of him...if he starts running around cutting everything in sight, you got him.

 

Or put an American white baby in front of her...if she starts feeling the need to raise it so the real Mom can do her own thing, you got her.

[westvirginia]

Guys, you are reading me wrong here - I am an open borders guy, and agree that this will be abused (if not it'd be a damned miracle). What I'm saying is, I think you're reading the law wrong - they have to have another reason to stop the person before asking him to prove citizenship. Take it easy....

[bpwallace49]

Guys, you are reading me wrong here - I am an open borders guy, and agree that this will be abused (if not it'd be a damned miracle). What I'm saying is, I think you're reading the law wrong - they have to have another reason to stop the person before asking him to prove citizenship. Take it easy....

 

Wv, have you read the bill? Cause I have several times and do not get that at all. They specifically list cops being immune to lawsuits regarding this, and specificlaly list "trespassing" as a suspected offense for police to use.

 

I REALLY hope that this spurs some federal reform sooner rather than later so the Arizona law can be eliminated in favor of something that covers ALL states.

[westvirginia]

Wv, have you read the bill? Cause I have several times and do not get that at all. They specifically list cops being immune to lawsuits regarding this, and specificlaly list "trespassing" as a suspected offense for police to use.

 

I REALLY hope that this spurs some federal reform sooner rather than later so the Arizona law can be eliminated in favor of something that covers ALL states.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it really wouldn't surprise me. The way I read that portion of the law I quoted though. Like it freakin' matters anyway. What's one more freedom trampled on?

[TimC]

Happy Cinco De Mayo everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

Remember to kick a Mexican.

 

But only after he's down, of course.

[driveby]

PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state's sweeping law against illegal immigration -- changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.

 

The follow-on bill makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.

 

The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

 

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

 

"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.

 

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

 

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

 

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

 

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

 

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as Josh Gordon-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.

 

Pearce defended that provision, saying there shouldn't be a restraint on when police act on a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in the country illegally. "It is a lawful contact," Pearce said.

 

The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.

 

Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.

 

Brewer likely will sign the follow-on bill, said the spokesman, Paul Senseman.

 

Pearce said that change doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed.

[bushwacked]

 

When Capn and Soup get a tan, they better keep the lawn trimmed and keep their papers handy.

[westvirginia]

Couple things:

 

Aliens have been required to carry on their person documents proving their status since 1940.

 

I notice no one has shed any tears over the rancher who was killed by an illegal which prompted all this. That man had a right to life, that, because fedgov isn't doing it's damned job (for votes! no less), he lost it. But all monster seems to be worried about is that a brown person might be hassled. I just don't get that at all.

[bpwallace49]

Couple things:

 

Aliens have been required to carry on their person documents proving their status since 1940.

 

I notice no one has shed any tears over the rancher who was killed by an illegal which prompted all this. That man had a right to life, that, because fedgov isn't doing it's damned job (for votes! no less), he lost it. But all monster seems to be worried about is that a brown person might be hassled. I just don't get that at all.

 

Weird that you seem so at peace with this decision. You get all inflamed about other rights being trampled on, but when it doesnt directly affect you then it is "what is the big deal"? Is your defense of civil liberties selective to how they impact you directly?

 

I have forgotten the details, but was an illegal caught and charged with that murder? or was that just an assumption. (seriously asking . . . did they catch a an illegal or just assume it was an illegal?)

 

Good info on the aliens having to provide documentation. I wonder how selectively THAT has been enforced. Administration after administration have bobbed and weaved their way out of being responsible for this issue. I doubt the Obama admin will be any different, and nothing will get done . . AGAIN. How many states will pass something different to appease their base consituents? How many different laws will there be across the US before the fed take their thumbs out of their rears and DO something about it? Freakin fedgov . .

[westvirginia]

Weird that you seem so at peace with this decision. You get all inflamed about other rights being trampled on, but when it doesnt directly affect you then it is "what is the big deal"? Is your defense of civil liberties selective to how they impact you directly?

 

I have forgotten the details, but was an illegal caught and charged with that murder? or was that just an assumption. (seriously asking . . . did they catch a an illegal or just assume it was an illegal?)

 

Good info on the aliens having to provide documentation. I wonder how selectively THAT has been enforced. Administration after administration have bobbed and weaved their way out of being responsible for this issue. I doubt the Obama admin will be any different, and nothing will get done . . AGAIN. How many states will pass something different to appease their base consituents? How many different laws will there be across the US before the fed take their thumbs out of their rears and DO something about it? Freakin fedgov . .

 

I'm at peace with this because it can't be any other way right now. It's just making the best of a bad situation. As I said before, I'm an open borders guy. But to truly do that, we have to be at peace with the rest of the world (not nation building), go to something like a consumption tax where everyone will have to pay for services, or get rid of all welfare, unemployment and gov't schooling. It's more pragmatic than I usually am, but it really frosts my tail that people expect to come here, suck the tit and then have us bow down and kiss their little brown asses for the privilege of them living off us.

[bpwallace49]

I'm at peace with this because it can't be any other way right now. It's just making the best of a bad situation. As I said before, I'm an open borders guy. But to truly do that, we have to be at peace with the rest of the world (not nation building), go to something like a consumption tax where everyone will have to pay for services, or get rid of all welfare, unemployment and gov't schooling. It's more pragmatic than I usually am, but it really frosts my tail that people expect to come here, suck the tit and then have us bow down and kiss their little brown asses for the privilege of them living off us.

 

fair enough.

[montster]

Couple things:

 

Aliens have been required to carry on their person documents proving their status since 1940.

 

I notice no one has shed any tears over the rancher who was killed by an illegal which prompted all this. That man had a right to life, that, because fedgov isn't doing it's damned job (for votes! no less), he lost it. But all monster seems to be worried about is that a brown person might be hassled. I just don't get that at all.

 

way to misrepresent my entire argument!

 

here are my exact words:

 

... this isn't about "hassling" a few people for the supposed good of the many. it's about singling out one group of people based on how they look. you're essentially saying, "i can tell just by looking at you that you don't belong here. prove to me you do." it's the presumption of guilt, based on nothing else than a suspicion that someone is here illegally.

 

i understand the need of arizona to address its illegal immigration problem. i am not advocating that those here illegally should be allowed to stay here indefinitely. but giving law enforcement carte-blanche to question anyone based on a mere suspicion of illegal residence is not only misguided, it's incredibly lazy.

 

this is not an issue of putting up with "inconvenience," it's about not having a say in the matter, simply because of how you look. it's not an issue of a "small subset" of a group breaking the law, it's about defining the entire group by the actions of that small subset -- and then somehow rationalizing that this is acceptable.

 

and, again, i'm not arguing that illegal immigrants aren't lawbreakers. i'm saying that not every hispanic-looking person is an illegal. you seem not to care about the differentiation. just round 'em up and sort 'em out!

 

moreover, you said the law would most certainly be abused:

 

Guys, you are reading me wrong here - I am an open borders guy, and agree that this will be abused (if not it'd be a damned miracle). What I'm saying is, I think you're reading the law wrong - they have to have another reason to stop the person before asking him to prove citizenship. Take it easy....

 

how the law plays out remains to be seen. i know changes have been made, and that, due to the law, the problem has become a national conversation now. that's good. but regardless of how this law is enforced, my argument has been to counter those who say that, as of now, the best solution is to assume every brown-skinned person is here illegally. plenty here have advocated that. how you can call yourself a civil libertarian and then say you're ok with painting an entire group of people as criminals is beyond me. you can't have it both ways.

 

and, yes, i know about the rancher, robert krentz. it's a tragedy he died. but it is possible to feel sadness for his death and yet not want to round up every brown-skinned person who looks the least bit illegal. moreover, you make the federal government partially to blame for his death ("for votes! no less"). i guess i'm to assume that the politicians who now toss around krentz's name do so for purely altruistic reasons (not for votes! no way).

[WaterMan]

Indians

Blacks

Japs

Jews

now Mexicans, sweet

[westvirginia]

way to misrepresent my entire argument!

 

here are my exact words:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moreover, you said the law would most certainly be abused:

 

 

 

how the law plays out remains to be seen. i know changes have been made, and that, due to the law, the problem has become a national conversation now. that's good. but regardless of how this law is enforced, my argument has been to counter those who say that, as of now, the best solution is to assume every brown-skinned person is here illegally. plenty here have advocated that. how you can call yourself a civil libertarian and then say you're ok with painting an entire group of people as criminals is beyond me. you can't have it both ways.

 

and, yes, i know about the rancher, robert krentz. it's a tragedy he died. but it is possible to feel sadness for his death and yet not want to round up every brown-skinned person who looks the least bit illegal. moreover, you make the federal government partially to blame for his death ("for votes! no less"). i guess i'm to assume that the politicians who now toss around krentz's name do so for purely altruistic reasons (not for votes! no way).

 

I'm sorry man - I'm more pissed that no one gives a crap about this dead rancher than anything and I did misrepresent your comments. Mea-culpa.

[borge007]

I'm sorry man - I'm more pissed that no one gives a crap about this dead rancher than anything and I did misrepresent your comments. Mea-culpa.

Nicely done!

[SEC=UGA]

IMO... Something, anything has to be done to curb illegal immigration and deport the offenders. There are many inconveniences in one's life that one must shoulder. The illegal immigration problem has become such an incredible burden on the southern border states and the sunbelt states that the only recourse we have is to begin to profile and check those matching the descruption of an illegal immigrant, if that means we have to check all hispanic looking people, dark people, so be it. Until someone comes up with a better manner by which we can identify illegals from Mexico and other latin American, Central American and South American countries (and in certain areas SE Asians and Africans) we will have to profile and legitimate citizens may be inconvenienced, GET OVER IT!!!!

 

What I hear from those arguing against the bill isn't a solution, but rather political rhetoric. THere is no condemnation of illegals, rather condemnation and comparissons of those that are for this legislation to Nazis. THere is no constructive argument, or proposed solutions, for laws that will alieviate the burden that illegals place on the states that they are seemingly occupying. There is rhetoric from the fed gov that they will not respond to deportation requests that they will not help AZ, no solution offered, just complete alienation of a state that the fed is constituionally mandated to protect from just this type of invasion. And, from the people on this board who are against the law I see no mention of any way to identify illegals that would go outside of the realm of profiliong and be an effective means to curtailing and deporting those here illegally.

 

Secondly, amnesty/citizenship is not the response or the position that we should take in regard to the illegals. What I would propose is this: The Fed mandate each state in concert with ICE give a 90 day window where all illegals can report to a local jurisdictional office and document that they are in the country. They bring proof of employment with them, regiuster their address, confirming it with a utility bill in their name, and supply proof of citizenship to their home country. Upon doing this they will receive a work visa valid for 1 year. The employee and employer will be tied together in a state/federally administered DB. If that person is terminated from employment, the employer must notify the state and feds of the termination. The terminated party then has 2 weeks to report to the proper authority to clarify that they are looking for work and to notify the administrators of their intentions. If the person does not report, the visa is yanked and they must report for a deportation/administrative hearing in which they stipulate why they should be allowed to stay. If they do report, they must continue to check in monthly and update the bureau/administrato as to the status of their job hunt. At the end of each year, when the visa expires, they must reapply and provide proof of employment, address, etc... If they fail to do this they can and will be deported upon being found.

 

In concert with this, the illegal must sign waivers that stipulate any child born to them while they are on this visa is not a US citizen. If that child is born to an American citizen, well not much you can do about that.

 

This work visa is not a green card and years spent in the US on said visa will not count toward one gaining citizenship in the US. THere is a different avenue for that and they must go through those channels.

 

To me, this is a fesible and workable option (and very kind IMO). Until tht happens, I think we need to profile the crap out of them and Josh Gordon out the illegals.

[TimC]

Another one in Madison....

 

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12457133

 

Operation Welcome Home advocates moving homeless into foreclosed homes

Posted: May 10, 2010 12:45 PM EDT

 

Operation Welcome Home MADISON (WKOW) -- A homeless advocacy group held a news conference and what the group called an "Open House" Monday on Madison's west side, to announce a formerly homeless family will be moving into a foreclosed home on Tempe Drive.

 

At the news conference, leaders of the group, called "Operation Welcome Home," asked the Madison Police Department and the Dane County Sheriff's Office not to take action against the family members but to instead "provide solutions that the government and banks have been unable to offer."

 

Cynthia Lin, president of the board of directors of Freedom Inc., spoke out in favor of Operation Welcome Home.

 

Lin said, "We are concerned watching how people of color are systematically excluded from decisions about how land and space is used in Madison."

 

For more information on Operation Welcome Home, click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have a banner that reads "Housing is a Human Right". I guess breaking and entering is too. Or forcing someone to build you a house without paying for the labor and materials involved? Hippies are soooo delusional.

[driveby]

Another one in Madison....

 

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12457133

 

Operation Welcome Home advocates moving homeless into foreclosed homes

Posted: May 10, 2010 12:45 PM EDT

 

Operation Welcome Home MADISON (WKOW) -- A homeless advocacy group held a news conference and what the group called an "Open House" Monday on Madison's west side, to announce a formerly homeless family will be moving into a foreclosed home on Tempe Drive.

 

At the news conference, leaders of the group, called "Operation Welcome Home," asked the Madison Police Department and the Dane County Sheriff's Office not to take action against the family members but to instead "provide solutions that the government and banks have been unable to offer."

 

Cynthia Lin, president of the board of directors of Freedom Inc., spoke out in favor of Operation Welcome Home.

 

Lin said, "We are concerned watching how people of color are systematically excluded from decisions about how land and space is used in Madison."

 

For more information on Operation Welcome Home, click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have a banner that reads "Housing is a Human Right". I guess breaking and entering is too. Or forcing someone to build you a house without paying for the labor and materials involved? Hippies are soooo delusional.

Madison is a beautiful city and a great place to visit but it's a cesspool of liberal lunacy.