Arizona State Senator responds to Immigration

[phreakwars]

So if they need to secure the borders, why didn't they do just that instead of create a racist law?

.

.

 

umm... how can a law be racist?

 

anyone? anyone?

 

 

bueller? bueller?

If it WASN'T racist, why would it need an amendment saying race can't be used as a factor?

 

anyone? anyone?

[ImWithStupid]

If it WASN'T racist, why would it need an amendment saying race can't be used as a factor?

 

anyone? anyone?

 

 

Because of the usual racist, leftist, short sighted, race baiter, race whores, who can't see past their own racism.

 

Or, in your case, the mirror.

[eddo]

So if they need to secure the borders, why didn't they do just that instead of create a racist law?

.

.

 

umm... how can a law be racist?

 

anyone? anyone?

 

 

bueller? bueller?

If it WASN'T racist, why would it need an amendment saying race can't be used as a factor?

 

anyone? anyone?

 

Did the pre-amendment bill have anything about any specific race?

 

 

 

and again, how can a bill (an inanimate object, mind you) be racist?

 

 

implementation of a law can be racist. interpretation of a law can be racist. but if an officer is going to use this or any other law to be a racist, then he was already a racist to begin with and certainly doesn't need this to pick on the poor minorities.

[ImWithStupid]

 

Did the pre-amendment bill have anything about any specific race?

 

 

 

and again, how can a bill (an inanimate object, mind you) be racist?

 

 

implementation of a law can be racist. interpretation of a law can be racist. but if an officer is going to use this or any other law to be a racist, then he was already a racist to begin with and certainly doesn't need this to pick on the poor minorities.

 

 

Don't worry, it's the race whores who haven't read the law, and lie about the law that are still bitchin'.

 

They ignore the specific language against any use of race, ethnicity, or country or origin as a basis for reasonable suspicion and I have yet to hear anyone from the left, because they are too busy being race whores, that recognize the executive order signed by the governor requiring training for all law enforcement officers on how to legally and constitutionally implement and enforce the law.

 

They just feed off of baseless race baiting.

[phreakwars]

Oh look, now it's a "THOSE ON THE LEFT" argument. Boy, that sure doesn't help the meme that all right wingers are nothing but a bunch of racist jerks. Seems kinda strange that it's only the right wingers defending the law.

.

.

[eddo]

Oh look, now it's a "THOSE ON THE LEFT" argument. Boy, that sure doesn't help the meme that all right wingers are nothing but a bunch of racist jerks. Seems kinda strange that it's only the right wingers defending the law.

.

.

 

probably because they are the ones that are taking the time to actually read the law...

 

Napalitano

 

 

 

 

speaking of which, Phreak- have YOU actually read the bill?

 

if not, here it is.

[phreakwars]

Yes, I have read it, and like I said before, if it's not a racist law, why the need for an amendment?

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Oh look, now it's a "THOSE ON THE LEFT" argument. Boy, that sure doesn't help the meme that all right wingers are nothing but a bunch of racist jerks. Seems kinda strange that it's only the right wingers defending the law.

.

.

 

probably because they are the ones that are taking the time to actually read the law...

 

Napalitano

 

Holder

 

... P. J. Crowley,

 

President Obama,

 

Vice-President Biden,

 

everyone on the left...etc...

[timesjoke]

Yes, I have read it, and like I said before, if it's not a racist law, why the need for an amendment?

.

.

To pacify the radical left that are all jumping on the bandwagon attacking a law that they have never read but will gain them what they believe to be political clout just to be seen objecting to it.

 

Layers of protection Bender, they added a layer of protection "just to be sure" and as IWS said, they are also getting special training as a third layer of protection.

 

 

 

But I have to give special comment to eddo on what he said:

 

implementation of a law can be racist. interpretation of a law can be racist. but if an officer is going to use this or any other law to be a racist, then he was already a racist to begin with and certainly doesn't need this to pick on the poor minorities.

 

eddo hit the nail on the head, "if" a police officer wants to be racist, there are more than enough laws and methods already on the books to make it easy for him to push a racist agenda without this law.

 

 

 

As I have said before, this law is an attempt to deal with a massive problem, trying to say this is racist is not making any sense to those who have actually read and understands the law as it is written. Crying "racist" every couple days is starting to become like the little boy who cried wolf, the people are starting to no longer listen because you liberals have abused the word to describe things that have nothing to do with race for far too long. It is time to give the word a rest and start actually dealing with our severe problems instead of sticking our heads in the sand because we are scare of being called racist.

[phreakwars]

Like I said before, if they REALLY wanted to do something about the problem, then they would secure the borders on their own without crying for the FEDS to do it.

 

And if this law ISN'T racist, then why are so many Arizona cops against it?

 

Against it because they know damn well it puts them in a position where they have NO CHOICE but to racially profile people.

 

Are they "LIBERALS" too?

 

How about all the Arizona city's who are bringing up lawsuits... more LIBERALS?

 

YOUR "liberals this liberals that" shit gets stale pretty quick.

 

From Sheriff CLARENCE DUPNIK

 

First of all, the law is totally unnecessary. We already have the authority to stop and detain illegal immigrants and turn them over to the Border Patrol and we do that on a regular daily basis. This law will have no impact whatsoever on illegal immigration. None at all. We already have the authority. We didn’t need it. What the law now does is put us in a position where we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t, because on one hand we get sued by people who think we are illegally profiling and there is a clause in the law which I’ve never heard of in any other law, and I have been the Sheriff here for thirty years, that says any citizen who doesn’t think we are enforcing this law can sue us. That is just outrageous. It’s an anti-law enforcement law in my opinion. Puts us in an impossible situation. It puts us in an impossible situation with the Hispanic community. What they’ve done is driven a wedge between us and the Hispanic community. We depend on our community, Hispanics especially, for information, for cooperation in our crime-fighting efforts. What we really need to stop illegal immigration is more federal assistance on securing that border and we desperately need reform of immigration laws.

 

JUAN GONZALEZ: Sheriff, what about- you’ve raised, especially, questions about the standard for stopping people, the reasonable suspicion standard. Can you talk about that and your concerns about what that opens the door to?

 

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK: You bet. When the law was first passed, which would have been about nine days ago, there was a clause that said 'reasonable suspicion of anybody.' Every Hispanic in this country, especially in Arizona, must have awakened, and I’ve talked to many of them personally, the next day to feel like they’ve been kicked in the teeth, like they’re now second-class citizens, they have a target on their back because when they leave the house they’re going to have to take papers with them and prepare to be stopped and questioned. That, overnight, has made Hispanics second-class citizens.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what it is you actually are supposed to do if you were to enforce this law? The issue of reasonable suspicion. What do your sheriffs do? What do you do?

 

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK: Well, let me tell you what we do now, and I don’t anticipate doing anything differently. I don’t think the new law precludes state and local law enforcement from turning over immigrants, illegal immigrants, to the border patrol. But in the routine course of our duties, when we encounter illegal immigrants, and there are a variety of ways that that happens, especially out in the rural desert areas, once we determine that they are in fact illegal, we call the Border Patrol and turn them over to them. But if we were to enforce this law, what- you know, the people that passed this law are very quick to complain about government overstepping, which is one of their biggest complaints, and the second one is taxation. If we were to start enforcing this law instead of turning them over to the Border Patrol like we do now, we would have to put them the Pima County Jail. We would put the jail into a crisis over night. We would have to overwhelm the rest of the criminal justice system locally here and send the taxpayers a huge bill which is just nonsense, in my opinion. It’s irresponsible of the legislature to do this, and it would be irresponsible of me to do it as well.

 

JUAN GONZALEZ: but now, your county also includes a significant section of border area right there in southern Arizona. What do you say to those people in Arizona and other parts of the country who say that something has to be done to control the numbers of people who continue to pour into the United Stated over the border from Mexico?

 

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK: I would say to them what I just finished saying to you. The federal government needs to do a lot more to stop illegal immigration. One of the things they need to do is illegal reform. I understand that and they understand that as well. This isn’t rocket science. But a few years ago when the Bush administration militarized the border with the National Guardsmen, they put handcuffs on them. They weren’t allowed to do anything related to illegal aliens. They couldn’t even drive a bus that had illegal aliens in it. What we need to do is to put more people on the border to secure it, more technology, and more agents. But we really need reform.

 

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the issue that within days the Legislature attempted to amend the bill that had just passed? What were the amendments that they made and did it really have any substantive impact on the original legislation?

 

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK: It going to take legal experts with better legal minds than my own to answer that question. But the change that they made a week ago ,Thursday night before they adjourned, was they said you can’t use race, ethnicity, or country of origin solely as a reason for a stop.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Could you be in legal trouble for not enforcing the law, Sheriff?

 

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK: Well, that’s a question that lawyers are going to have to address. But in my opinion is that we are enforcing the law. If we’re arresting illegal aliens and turning them over to the Border Patrol, that seems to be a far better approach from every point of view than what the legislature has done to us.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Your police chief, the Tucson Police Chief, Roberto Villaseñor, says he’s worried about the impact of the law on investigations with victims and witnesses who might be afraid to come forward. He said he’s opposing the law’s enactment but will work to see that it’s implemented fairly in Tucson. Are you working with Chief Villaseñor?

 

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK: All of law enforcement in the state, I think, is working together. There are some of us who are elected officials and are taking political stands. But aside from that, there is a lot of, in my opinion, unanimity as to the problems that this law is causing for law enforcement. It’s an anti-law enforcement law in my opinion.

.

.

[phreakwars]

Oh look, ANOTHER liberal, strange, this one is a tea party favorite and claims to be Republican

 

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/04/marco-rubio-speaks-out-on-az-immigration-law.html

 

How about THIS Republican liberal?

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/23/1595732/obama-calls-for-overhaul-on-immigration.html

 

Or THIS one

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003549-503544.html

 

How about KKKarl Rove?

 

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2010/04/rove-says-he-has-problems-with-az-immigration-law.html

 

Jeb Bush

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36427.html

 

Yeah... LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS...

.

.

[timesjoke]

Like I said before, if they REALLY wanted to do something about the problem, then they would secure the borders on their own without crying for the FEDS to do it.

 

Just like if Obama wanted to do anything about this problem he would, and considering securing the border is the responsibility of Obama and company now, why should Arizona do what Obama is refusing to do?

 

Again, what you fail to understand is that this is a problem that exists without this law and the failures of our Federal Government caused this problem. If taking over everything from banks to car companies is considered a priority for Obama when it never was in the past and is certainly not spelled out in our Constitution, why is it Obama is hands off on securing our borders when that is very much a job requirement of the Federal Government?

 

 

 

And if this law ISN'T racist, then why are so many Arizona cops against it?

 

Some cops don't enforce speeding laws, that does not make speeding laws bad or wrong. A cop is a person and is subject to their own bias and political beliefs, a few cops being against this law does not even make me blink, few cops want more work piled on their desk, they do a tough job but they are still Government employees and the local sheriff has to get elected, in a community where there are a lot of latino voters, the sheriff has to take a possition against it publically even if he agrees with it in private.

 

 

Against it because they know damn well it puts them in a position where they have NO CHOICE but to racially profile people.

 

I worked the streets and still have to do serve on a reserve status to keep my certifications current in case I ever want to go back. A cop could just talk to the people and the ones who can't speak english very well and have no identification when you ask them for it to do a ticket or something are most likely illegal. This is not a big deal, in an area like Arizona a cop could get a few illegals every day if he wanted to. If I was with the INS I would go to construction sites and farms and get hundreds of illegals every week. Finding the illegals is not that hard and it would not require any real thinking to find them.

 

 

But for some reason the Federal Government does not "want" to find them, so good people sometimes have to make hard decisions to do what they must to survive, the State of Arizona is fighting for their survival in a time where they do not have the money to pay for the illegals, something has to be done.

 

 

Are they "LIBERALS" too?

 

The vast majority, yes.

 

 

How about all the Arizona city's who are bringing up lawsuits... more LIBERALS?

 

Most yes, almost every single complainer has never actually read the law and are only following liberal trends to resist any restriction to illegals comming to America. Ask these same people if they want the borders closed and they say no....so they are in fact liberals.

 

 

YOUR "liberals this liberals that" sh t gets stale pretty quick.

 

Not if it is the truth, you liberals call any attempt to restrict illegals comming to America racist, but it has almost nothing to do with race, it is about the law and our inability to pay for them.

 

 

 

Why is it the radical liberals never want to talk about the laws or the severe drain on the taxpayers these illegals represent? Why is it the problem is never discussed but any attempt at a solution is the talk of the town? This kind of law is only in existence because Liberals have blocked every attempt before now to fix the real problem. If Liberals get onboard with solutions and ideas I will respect their complaints but if all they are interested in doing is "blocking" any attempt at dealing with this huge problem then I don't care what they have to say, because they have shown themselves to be part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

Where is Obama on this problem? How about he negotiate with Arizona to drop this law and in turn he will promise to secure the border? Securing the border is his job you know, and it would help fix the problem so a State like Arizona does not feel all alone in the dark and having to take matters into their own hands because of an uncaring Obama Administration.

[hugo]

So if they need to secure the borders, why didn't they do just that instead of create a racist law?

.

.

 

umm... how can a law be racist?

 

anyone? anyone?

 

 

bueller? bueller?

 

 

The Fugitive Slave Act, Jim Crow laws, the seperate but equal doctrine established by Plessy. Yep, laws can be racist.

[phreakwars]

Oh look, ANOTHER liberal, strange, this one is a tea party favorite and claims to be Republican

 

http://blogs.tampaba...ration-law.html

 

How about THIS Republican liberal?

 

http://www.miamihera...mmigration.html

 

Or THIS one

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...549-503544.html

 

How about KKKarl Rove?

 

http://blogs.orlando...ration-law.html

 

Jeb Bush

 

http://www.politico....0410/36427.html

 

Yeah... LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS...

.

.

Come on TJ, How bout these guys? More Liberals? Did THEY not read it too?

.

.

[hugo]

Oh look, ANOTHER liberal, strange, this one is a tea party favorite and claims to be Republican

 

http://blogs.tampaba...ration-law.html

 

How about THIS Republican liberal?

 

http://www.miamihera...mmigration.html

 

Or THIS one

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...549-503544.html

 

How about KKKarl Rove?

 

http://blogs.orlando...ration-law.html

 

Jeb Bush

 

http://www.politico....0410/36427.html

 

Yeah... LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS...

.

.

Come on TJ, How bout these guys? More Liberals? Did THEY not read it too?

.

.

You can add Rick Perry to that list.

[hugo]

The revision fixes the problem I had with the bill.

 

AZ legislature “fixes� new immigration lawShare109posted at 10:55 am on April 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

printer-friendly After becoming a nine-day wonder on the national political stage, the Arizona legislature has amended its new law on immigration enforcement. Byron York notes that the conditions for investigating the residency status have gotten less ambiguous and more reflective of the intent of the legislature:

In the past days, some critics of the new Arizona immigration law have said that it will lead to Arizona becoming a police state. Many of the criticisms — some including the words Nazi and fascist — have been based on a general objection to the law and to the enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. But some have been specifically focused on a few key phrases in the law. …

The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,� which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…� Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact� was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.�

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact� from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.� In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.�

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,� says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.�

I agree that this issues of this passage got exaggerated, but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully? After all, it wasn’t just people on the Left who objected to the vague notion of “lawful contact� in this passage. Plenty of people on the Right also expressed concern about the potential for police to assume expansive powers to stop and question people with no probable cause other than assumptions about immigration status. Even some of the police in Arizona objected to it.

The Arizona legislature could have saved everyone the trouble by defining the parameters from the beginning. Governor Jan Brewer more or less had the same criticism, signing the bill but issuing an executive order to clear up the ambiguity by establishing rules for “lawful contact� simultaneous to the bill signing. The change now makes plain the intent to have Arizona law enforcement check residency status while enforcing the other laws of the state, a common-sense approach that other states should also adopt — since the federal government stubbornly refuses to enforce their own existing laws.

The new clarifications are welcome indeed, and should defuse the controversy that threatened to distract the GOP from the larger issues of economic crisis and government encroachment. But just as with the surprises that we keep finding in the ObamaCare bill, the entire problem could have been avoided had the legislature paid more attention to the details before voting it into law.

 

If the police are simply verifying legal status of individuals who would have been asked for identification anyways I see little problem from a civil liberties standpoint. We all know what happened with the general welfare and commerce clauses of the Constitution when they weren't specifically defined.

[timesjoke]

Come on TJ, How bout these guys? More Liberals? Did THEY not read it too?

.

.

 

Why is it your always wanting me to cover every tiny little point from you but you never answer a single question I ask of you?

 

 

Look bender, of course there are many people from all aspects of the spectrum who are both for and against this law, but the few you can name who are not pure liberals are so insignificant compared to those who are it is not an issue. This is the same point I make against abortion supporters, you only want to talk about the 1% part of the issue while completely ignoring the 99% of the problem.

 

 

Why can't you admit the Federal Government has the responsibility to secure the border?

 

Why can't you admit Obama is on vacation on this very bad problem?

 

Why can't you admit this discussion never happens if the Federal Government enforces the laws they are responsible for enforcing?

 

 

 

This law is a symptom, not part of the problem, we need our elected officials to fix the real problem and that is the completely open borders and illegals sucking our tax dollars out of us like a leech.

 

 

 

By the way, just because someone might be registered as a Republican that does not mean they were conservative, many like Specter who just got defeated were Republicans but voted very liberal and even Bush was very Liberal in his last two years so you have to look past their possition and see their policy in this instance and most of them against this is also against securing the border and that is a Liberal stand no matter what party they happen to be in at the time.

[phreakwars]

Dude, you get liberals on the brain.. get a life.

 

You just can't handle the fact that there are some Republicans out there with AT LEAST enough decency to know you don't turn people into second class citizens all for the sake of security.

 

Why can't you admit the Federal Government has the responsibility to secure the border?

I don't recall ever saying they didn't.

 

Why can't you admit Obama is on vacation on this very bad problem?

Bush could have fixed it too.. in fact, he tried, he was shot down by his own party... but now it's all Obama's fault.. how convenient.

 

Why can't you admit this discussion never happens if the Federal Government enforces the laws they are responsible for enforcing?

They could, but you insist on lower taxes, can't have your cake and eat it too.

.

.

[phreakwars]

The revision fixes the problem I had with the bill.

 

If the police are simply verifying legal status of individuals who would have been asked for identification anyways I see little problem from a civil liberties standpoint. We all know what happened with the general welfare and commerce clauses of the Constitution when they weren't specifically defined.

 

Once again, I agree with you Hugo, and once again, your creeping me out because I do.

.

.

[timesjoke]

Dude, you get liberals on the brain.. get a life.

 

You got racism on the mind, you get a life outside of the liberal shell you see everything through, this law has nothing to do with race, never did.

 

 

 

You just can't handle the fact that there are some Republicans out there with AT LEAST enough decency to know you don't turn people into second class citizens all for the sake of security.

 

The problem I have is they are all wrong, this law never did that even before the adjustment, everyone who thought it did never read and understood the law in the first place and were just jumping to conclusions based on political correctness and yes, many, many Republicans spend too much time trying to be politically correct instead of being informed. I don't like that part.

 

I don't recall ever saying they didn't.

 

lol, nice dodge.

 

Bush could have fixed it too.. in fact, he tried, he was shot down by his own party... but now it's all Obama's fault.. how convenient.

 

I thought Obama was the President of "change"? Why keep falling on that sword and making excuses? If everything Bush did was wrong, fine, do something different and get it done instead of trying to say it is okay Obama does nothing just because Bush did nothing?

 

I did not like Bush in his last two years either, I was very vocal against much of what he did but you Bender, you never say Obama is wrong, you never take a possition against what liberals ever do.

 

 

They could, but you insist on lower taxes, can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

What?

 

What the hell are you talking about? We woulf get a huge reduction in taxes spent if we got rid of the illegals, most of these States give illegals welfare, free medical, free education, even low income housing, all of that spent money goes back in the tax coffers when we no longer have to support people who are here illegally and not paying taxes.

 

 

Again, we have plenty of money to take over auto companies, we have plenty of money to take over medical care, we have plenty of money to take over banks, but we can't secure the border? Go to Colorado, grab the 4th ID and put them on the border, I doubt seriously we are in danger of Canada invading and no need to have a massive military buildup in Colarado. We pay these troops anyway as well as regular support so the difference in cost would be almost nothing to have them on the border instead of sitting outside Colorad Springs doing nothing. Then, after the border is secured, build the fence, no one step will fix this problem, but taking no steps will never fix the problem.

 

 

 

I'll ask you right out Bender, should the illegals be sent home?

 

Should we secure our borders?

[phreakwars]

Well OF COURSE the illegals should be sent back you moron, I have NEVER EVER defended an illegal. If they are illegal, they have broken the law and should be dealt with. My issue, the one you like to conveniently dodge, is AMERICAN CITIZENS being profiled.

 

How about we start cracking down on illegal Canadians and profiling people who might be possible illegal Canadians? How would you identify an illegal Canadian?

 

How about we start taking white people and asking them to show proof of citizenship? You carry your birth certificate with you at all times TJ? How happy would you be if Obama signed a law meant to curb illegal Canadians from entering and called for identifying potential illegals? How happy do you think white people would be about having to show proof of citizenship?

 

You'd hear all kinds of calls for a revolution, tyranny, and etc, etc.. HOW DARE ANYONE QUESTION A WHITE PERSONS CITIZENS STATUS!! HOW DARE GOVERNMENT STICK THERE NOSE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and all that crap.

 

You evidently have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with AMERICAN CITIZENS being subjected to such scrutiny just because they may have brown skin, or an accent. I do.

 

If that makes me a "BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL" then I am proud to be one, because I care about the rights and freedom of ALL citizens, not just a select few like you.

.

.

[eddo]

When I went to vote yesterday I, as a white male, was asked for identification.

 

should I be screaming racism now????

[phreakwars]

That's an election, of course you show'd ID. Your being ridiculous.

.

.

[phreakwars]

And I still want an answer to my question... how do you identify a potential illegal?

.

.

[phreakwars]

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact� from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.� In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.�

Now THAT, I have no problem with.

.

.