Diamondbacks Bullpen Forum Index Diamondbacks Bullpen
The baseball forum that doesn't suck
 
 Home       News Feed 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Dave Zirin: Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Diamondbacks Bullpen Forum Index -> Anything Goes
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
THE SHADOW
Face of the Franchise


Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7171

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THE SHADOW wrote:
Any oldtimers around here remember,

"I flew with the Duke" bumper stickers? Laughing


The Duke dies. Shocked

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/22/20100622former-newpaper-editor-tully-dies.html
_________________
I'm no longer a sellout!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TAP
"Personality of a thumb-tack" - E Byrnes


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 25953

PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Peggy? Anybody home?

Looks like Miss Teen South Carolina 2007 gained weight, moved to Wisconsin, and got herself elected to the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors.

Should we cry or laugh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EvilJuan
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 13940
Location: The carpark outside Milliways

PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cry. Definitely cry.
_________________
New Regime: SOS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TAP
"Personality of a thumb-tack" - E Byrnes


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 25953

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurie Roberts / The Arizona Republic today wrote:
I don't like SB 1070. It opens the door to profiling and even if it didn't, it just seems silly for the cops to be chasing around town busting landscapers while heavily-armed drug smugglers march through our deserts and into our neighborhoods. But I understand the frustration that led a majority of this state's residents to look to people like Pearce for answers, because the feds seem far, far away from Arizona – both in mileage and mindset.

These days, even Janet Napolitano – who just two years ago was asking her precedessor over in Homeland Security to leave National Guard troops at the border – is repeating the new mantra that the border is more secure than it's ever been. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management is posting signs in the Sonoran Desert National Monument about 80 miles south of Phoenix, warning visitors about drug and human traffickers passing through the area.

I remember the good old days when then-Gov. Napolitano was sending bills to the Justice Department asking to be reimbursed for the hundreds of millions of dollars Arizonans pay to house illegal immigrants who are in our prisons because the feds aren't doing their job.

“Arizonans already pay a high price for illegal immigration,” she wrote in a 2005 letter accompanying an invoice. “I'm demanding that the federal government live up to its obligations and stop pushing the burden onto the taxpayers of Arizona.”

I don't think she ever got much response out of the Bush administration and Team Obama doesn't seem any more inclined to pay its bills. In fact, Obama last year recommended eliminating funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which is intended to reimburse states for their costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants. In the end, Congress defied him and allocated $300 million to the program.

In Arizona, 6,100 of the state's 41,000 prison inmates are here illegally, according to Tasya Peterson, a spokesman for Brewer.

The last time the feds kicked in to help, she said, was in 2008. According to figures provided by the state, it cost Arizona $120.4 million to incarcerate illegal immigrants that year, not counting the expense of arrest and prosecution. The feds picked up about 10 percent of the tab: $12.8 million, leaving Arizona taxpayers to shoulder the rest of a burden that exists because the federal government can't – or won't -- do its job.

Brewer last week informed Obama that we are now shelling out $150 million a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants.

Instead of our own government suing us this week – what, five lawsuits over SB 1070 isn't enough? -- perhaps the Justice Department might like to conserve its resources and pay its bills which, in Arizona, are long, long past due.

According to Brewer's office, the feds now owe us $750 million to cover prison costs dating as far back as 2003.

Maybe it's time for us to file a lawsuit of our own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
qudjy1
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12060

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TAP wrote:
Laurie Roberts / The Arizona Republic today wrote:
I don't like SB 1070. It opens the door to profiling and even if it didn't, it just seems silly for the cops to be chasing around town busting landscapers while heavily-armed drug smugglers march through our deserts and into our neighborhoods. But I understand the frustration that led a majority of this state's residents to look to people like Pearce for answers, because the feds seem far, far away from Arizona – both in mileage and mindset.

These days, even Janet Napolitano – who just two years ago was asking her precedessor over in Homeland Security to leave National Guard troops at the border – is repeating the new mantra that the border is more secure than it's ever been. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management is posting signs in the Sonoran Desert National Monument about 80 miles south of Phoenix, warning visitors about drug and human traffickers passing through the area.

I remember the good old days when then-Gov. Napolitano was sending bills to the Justice Department asking to be reimbursed for the hundreds of millions of dollars Arizonans pay to house illegal immigrants who are in our prisons because the feds aren't doing their job.

“Arizonans already pay a high price for illegal immigration,” she wrote in a 2005 letter accompanying an invoice. “I'm demanding that the federal government live up to its obligations and stop pushing the burden onto the taxpayers of Arizona.”

I don't think she ever got much response out of the Bush administration and Team Obama doesn't seem any more inclined to pay its bills. In fact, Obama last year recommended eliminating funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which is intended to reimburse states for their costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants. In the end, Congress defied him and allocated $300 million to the program.

In Arizona, 6,100 of the state's 41,000 prison inmates are here illegally, according to Tasya Peterson, a spokesman for Brewer.

The last time the feds kicked in to help, she said, was in 2008. According to figures provided by the state, it cost Arizona $120.4 million to incarcerate illegal immigrants that year, not counting the expense of arrest and prosecution. The feds picked up about 10 percent of the tab: $12.8 million, leaving Arizona taxpayers to shoulder the rest of a burden that exists because the federal government can't – or won't -- do its job.

Brewer last week informed Obama that we are now shelling out $150 million a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants.

Instead of our own government suing us this week – what, five lawsuits over SB 1070 isn't enough? -- perhaps the Justice Department might like to conserve its resources and pay its bills which, in Arizona, are long, long past due.

According to Brewer's office, the feds now owe us $750 million to cover prison costs dating as far back as 2003.

Maybe it's time for us to file a lawsuit of our own.


THAT i agree with.
_________________
Throw fucking strikes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prosopis
Face of the Franchise


Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 5271
Location: Sonoran desert

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TAP wrote:
Laurie Roberts / The Arizona Republic today wrote:
I don't like SB 1070. It opens the door to profiling and even if it didn't, it just seems silly for the cops to be chasing around town busting landscapers while heavily-armed drug smugglers march through our deserts and into our neighborhoods. But I understand the frustration that led a majority of this state's residents to look to people like Pearce for answers, because the feds seem far, far away from Arizona – both in mileage and mindset.

These days, even Janet Napolitano – who just two years ago was asking her precedessor over in Homeland Security to leave National Guard troops at the border – is repeating the new mantra that the border is more secure than it's ever been. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management is posting signs in the Sonoran Desert National Monument about 80 miles south of Phoenix, warning visitors about drug and human traffickers passing through the area.

I remember the good old days when then-Gov. Napolitano was sending bills to the Justice Department asking to be reimbursed for the hundreds of millions of dollars Arizonans pay to house illegal immigrants who are in our prisons because the feds aren't doing their job.

“Arizonans already pay a high price for illegal immigration,” she wrote in a 2005 letter accompanying an invoice. “I'm demanding that the federal government live up to its obligations and stop pushing the burden onto the taxpayers of Arizona.”

I don't think she ever got much response out of the Bush administration and Team Obama doesn't seem any more inclined to pay its bills. In fact, Obama last year recommended eliminating funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which is intended to reimburse states for their costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants. In the end, Congress defied him and allocated $300 million to the program.

In Arizona, 6,100 of the state's 41,000 prison inmates are here illegally, according to Tasya Peterson, a spokesman for Brewer.

The last time the feds kicked in to help, she said, was in 2008. According to figures provided by the state, it cost Arizona $120.4 million to incarcerate illegal immigrants that year, not counting the expense of arrest and prosecution. The feds picked up about 10 percent of the tab: $12.8 million, leaving Arizona taxpayers to shoulder the rest of a burden that exists because the federal government can't – or won't -- do its job.

Brewer last week informed Obama that we are now shelling out $150 million a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants.

Instead of our own government suing us this week – what, five lawsuits over SB 1070 isn't enough? -- perhaps the Justice Department might like to conserve its resources and pay its bills which, in Arizona, are long, long past due.

According to Brewer's office, the feds now owe us $750 million to cover prison costs dating as far back as 2003.

Maybe it's time for us to file a lawsuit of our own.


I have a lawyer friend who works as public defender for the illegals. All paid for by the state. He says it is the easiest gig ever. Illegal is caught. My buddy gives him to choices plead guilty and be shipped back to Mexico or plead not guilty. If the illegal pleads not guilty he will be found guilty and sent to prison. I forget how long the prison term was but it was enough that it was an easy decision to plead guilty. My friend says he is paid an obscene amount of money to do that. He told me he feels guilty doing it and even though he is a lawyer I believe him. I think the amount of money he is paid for this work weighs on his conscious.
_________________
I have become comfortably numb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THE SHADOW
Face of the Franchise


Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7171

PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I mean.

ACLU issues travel warnings to Arizona and some Republican guy running for corp commish wants to turn off power to illegals.

Just fix it. Im sick and tired of all the crap.
_________________
I'm no longer a sellout!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David B
Hall of Famer


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 3466
Location: Portland

PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prosopis wrote:
I have a lawyer friend who works as public defender for the illegals. All paid for by the state. He says it is the easiest gig ever. Illegal is caught. My buddy gives him to choices plead guilty and be shipped back to Mexico or plead not guilty. If the illegal pleads not guilty he will be found guilty and sent to prison. I forget how long the prison term was but it was enough that it was an easy decision to plead guilty. My friend says he is paid an obscene amount of money to do that. He told me he feels guilty doing it and even though he is a lawyer I believe him. I think the amount of money he is paid for this work weighs on his conscious.


Why do I find it hard to believe that a lawyer (any lawyer) would feel guilty about being over-paid? I either call Bullshit on this, or your lawyer friend needs to find a different line of work so he can sleep at night.
_________________
The greatest feeling in the world is to win a major league game. The second-greatest feeling is to lose a major league game. ~Chuck Tanner, quoted in The Sporting News, 15 July 1985
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TAP
"Personality of a thumb-tack" - E Byrnes


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 25953

PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First Phil Jackson; now Tony LaRussa supports Arizona. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vPDNDS5fug&feature=player_embedded
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheDesertSurfer
Number Retired


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 14354
Location: Oakland,CA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TAP wrote:
First Phil Jackson; now Tony LaRussa supports Arizona. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vPDNDS5fug&feature=player_embedded

Tony is absolutely correct. If the Federal Govt won't take care of the state, the state will take care of itself.
Did I mind when, on my way back from Nogales, I was stopped and my trunk checked for illegal aliens? Hell, no. Whatever it takes to enforce the immigration laws, let's do it. And when Arizona's law enforcement officials are threatened by assassins from Mexican drug cartels, lets step it up all the more.
And the lead article's comment that Hispanic players like Gerardo Parra would be cheered on the field and have their papers checked off the field is the stinkiest pile of horseshit in a long time. As far as I know, every foreign player who plays in MLB is cleared by the state department.
Every person should be carrying some proof of his legitimacy in this country at all times. I carry a driver's license and woe unto California if they issue DLs to illegal aliens. All this crap about rights for illegal aliens is put out by greedy businesses looking for cheap labor and they are willing to compromise all that's holy for a buck.
WHATEVER IT TAKES to enforce the law, that's what should be done.
_________________
Restore democracy to the United States of America. Ban national blackouts so I can see all the Dbacks games on MLB-TV
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prosopis
Face of the Franchise


Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 5271
Location: Sonoran desert

PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

David B wrote:
Prosopis wrote:
I have a lawyer friend who works as public defender for the illegals. All paid for by the state. He says it is the easiest gig ever. Illegal is caught. My buddy gives him to choices plead guilty and be shipped back to Mexico or plead not guilty. If the illegal pleads not guilty he will be found guilty and sent to prison. I forget how long the prison term was but it was enough that it was an easy decision to plead guilty. My friend says he is paid an obscene amount of money to do that. He told me he feels guilty doing it and even though he is a lawyer I believe him. I think the amount of money he is paid for this work weighs on his conscious.


Why do I find it hard to believe that a lawyer (any lawyer) would feel guilty about being over-paid? I either call Bullshit on this, or your lawyer friend needs to find a different line of work so he can sleep at night.


He is a character. Great story teller. Before he was a lawyer he was a clown for Barnum Bailey circus. Its not BS that he feels guilty about it. He has not stopped either Wink He gives a lot away to the church. I have a funny story that is to long to type, about how he got into lawyering. If we ever meet up remind me and I will tell it.
_________________
I have become comfortably numb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

levski wrote:
shoewizard wrote:
This is stupid.

How many of baseball's owners do you think are republican and support republican politicians ?


How many states have the stupidest ass anti-immigration laws you've ever seen?


Levski, you might want to avoid Rhode Island.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjkzMmNjMjIxMjIxYWNmODA0OGI3ZTU5MmIyZGUyMjg=

Quote:
It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation..(some text removed, available at link)...But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”


Quote:
Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?


See, here in AZ the LEO must have suspicion of another offense to question a person's immigration status, where in R.I., no reasonable suspicion clause exists.
_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:

See, here in AZ the LEO must have suspicion of another offense to question a person's immigration status, where in R.I., no reasonable suspicion clause exists.


What a coincidence. The reasonable suspicion clause is what makes our law racist, by giving law enforcement a loophole to let english speaking white people go while arresting spanish speaking latinos.

It is the wink, wink, nudge, nudge to all the white people in this state, so they don't have to worry about their 12 year old kid getting rounded up or their grandmother in Sun city who doesn't carry ID because she hasn't driven in 30 years getting rounded up.

If that clause were removed and I was certain that legal white people who cannot prove who they are would have their rights infringed on the same as latinos will, I would have less of a problem with this law.

EDIT: I also went through the entire federal immigration code searching for the words "where reasonable suspicion exists" since all I have heard is how this mimics the federal law, and I did not find those words anywhere.

So I guess the federal code doesn't include the part of this law that I consider racist either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:
deweyniner wrote:

See, here in AZ the LEO must have suspicion of another offense to question a person's immigration status, where in R.I., no reasonable suspicion clause exists.


What a coincidence. The reasonable suspicion clause is what makes our law racist, by giving law enforcement a loophole to let english speaking white people go while arresting spanish speaking latinos.

It is the wink, wink, nudge, nudge to all the white people in this state, so they don't have to worry about their 12 year old kid getting rounded up or their grandmother in Sun city who doesn't carry ID because she hasn't driven in 30 years getting rounded up.

If that clause were removed and I was certain that legal white people who cannot prove who they are would have their rights infringed on the same as latinos will, I would have less of a problem with this law.

EDIT: I also went through the entire federal immigration code searching for the words "where reasonable suspicion exists" since all I have heard is how this mimics the federal law, and I did not find those words anywhere.

So I guess the federal code doesn't include the part of this law that I consider racist either.


I'm not sure I follow your logic.

The Rhode Island law is OK because an LEO may stop anyone they want because, in the LEO's mind, the person MAY be an illegal immigrant, whereas the Arizona law is bad because it says that the person must be stopped for a violation of another law first?

I would think that the RI law is a little more intrusive on civil liberties than the AZ law...but then again, many states have these types of laws...yet...only Arizona gets skewered in the news.
_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine


Last edited by deweyniner on Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baxter's DD
Hall of Famer


Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 2596
Location: Highway 85 Revisited

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:

EDIT: I also went through the entire federal immigration code searching for the words "where reasonable suspicion exists" since all I have heard is how this mimics the federal law, and I did not find those words anywhere.

So I guess the federal code doesn't include the part of this law that I consider racist either.


You're not going to find the phrase "reasonable suspicion" in CFR 8, 12 or any other federal law. Why? It's not there. It doesn't stem from legislative or executive action, but instead judicial review. Should "where reasonable suspicion exists" be in SB 1070? No, but by dint of its redundancy as opposed to perceived racism.

Briefly, Terry v. Ohio (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1) allows a LEO to briefly detain and question a suspect, provided the
Chief Justice Warren wrote:
...police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion...simple 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer' is not enough

This holds true thanks to the US Supreme Court regardless of the circumstances involving a Terry stop. But the rabbit hole goes deeper. Once such a stop is invoked, based on Arizona's Stop and Identify Statute (ARS 13-2412, http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) the person being stopped is required to comply with a request for identification. This type of law has been upheld by Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554) To wit:
Justice Kennedy wrote:
Hiibel argues that his conviction cannot stand because the officer's conduct violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree...Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment...

Your continued obfuscation of the issue by claiming "reasonable suspicion" is somehow racist is asinine. It has a long pedigree of use upheld through case law (as opposed to statutory and regulatory law in the CFR or ARS) rather than being conjured into existence to oppress minorities.

Now, if you're concerned about enforcement of SB 1070 - and I certainly am to an extent - then I encourage you to work towards electing a better County Sheriff than Joe Arpaio* and city councilmembers pushing a restrained and fair enforcement of state laws by local LEOs. Indeed, any use of quoting Hiibel shows the dangers of having a just law irresponsibly enforced.

Also, a comprehensive federal overhaul of immigration laws and an improvement in border security renders this all effectively moot. I'd rather deal with an issue that affects the entire citizenry at the federal level rather than slapping an Arizona sized band-aid on the issue; afterwards we can go back to discussing how soon we can ship Qualls out of town.


*Unless you don't live in Maricopa County, but even then I'd argue you should work against electing Joe Arpaio out of human decency.
_________________
LETS GO GIBBY!
iViva Zavada! - The 'Stache will last!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baxter's DD wrote:

Your continued obfuscation of the issue by claiming "reasonable suspicion" is somehow racist is asinine. It has a long pedigree of use upheld through case law (as opposed to statutory and regulatory law in the CFR or ARS) rather than being conjured into existence to oppress minorities.


So if "reasonable suspicion" in entrenched in existing law, why was explicitly written into this bill? Legislation is carefully written.

I don't think my analysis if offbase, especially considering the ties to white supremacist and white supremacist organizations held by several authors of this bill.

Remove that language from this bill and make it like every other law on the books, so that this law states if you don't have ID and cannot be proven to be a citizen, you will be held as a criminal, regardless of whether the LEO "suspects" you are an illegal or not, regardless of whether you speak perfect english or are white, brown, black, whatever. You will catch more illegals that way, and you will take away my biggest complaint about this legislation.

As it stands I see this bill as one of the most racist I have seen in my lifetime, because of the huge loophole that one little line allows for in the way a LEO can treat a legal spanish speaking latino American vs. a legal english speaking white American.

I don't know about you, but to me, having a law that can be applied by race is the definition of racism.

I want white people to have to worry about whether their 2 year old has proper identification when a mother gets pulled over (which is a lawful contact with that 2 year-old according to this law). I want the elderly white people in Sun City who don't have idenification because they don't drive to have to worry about getting hauled away like legal elderly latinos will have to worry about the same thing.

I want people of all races to have to worry about the ramifications of this law.

I suspect that if they removed that one line this law would take care of itself and vanish shortly thereafter, when the Libertarian movmement that is supposedly big in this state suddenly wakes up and freaks out when they found out that their rights were going to be infringed on like latino's rights will be infringed on...along with the huge amount of power this law gives law enforcement officials to hold legal citizens without proper identification.

Until the supporters of this law put their money where their mouth is and making it fair and equal like every other law and remove this language, I will continue to call it racist and fight it.

I, and many of us against this law, have all pointed to this language since day 1 as one of the key things that makes this law racist and wrong and if it is really as black and white as you say, then this clause should be able to be removed without any impact to the overall law itself, except it wouldn't be open to interpretation by the arresting officer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oops
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
TAP
"Personality of a thumb-tack" - E Byrnes


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 25953

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:
oops

did you fart?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TAP wrote:
YBC-Dog wrote:
oops

did you fart?


No double posted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:
[...legal spanish speaking latino American vs. a legal english speaking white American...


Just a silly question, but how do you plan to differentiate between a 'legal spanish speaking latino American' and an 'illegal spanish speaking mestizo' and a 'legally visiting spanish speaking mestizo'?

That should cover all latino illegal aliens, not just Mexicans.

I'm not dismissing the fact that there are Euro-type illegal aliens in the country, nor the Afro-type illegal aliens, or the middle eastern or Asian type illegal aliens.

Never mind the fact that several states have laws on the books that are closer to RI's than to AZ's, yet, the Feds are coming after AZ and not the other states.

Never mind the fact that the Feds are derelict in their duty per Article IV. Section 4.

Quote:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
qudjy1
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12060

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="deweyniner"]

Never mind the fact that the Feds are derelict in their duty per Article IV. Section 4.

Quote:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


Two wrongs dont make a right. just because the federal gov is doing something wrong - doesnt mean AZ should go and do something wrong too.
_________________
Throw fucking strikes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YBC-Dog
Veteran Presence


Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 1884
Location: Phoenix

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:

Just a silly question, but how do you plan to differentiate between a 'legal spanish speaking latino American' and an 'illegal spanish speaking mestizo' and a 'legally visiting spanish speaking mestizo'?

That should cover all latino illegal aliens, not just Mexicans.


Exactly why I have a problem with this law. How do you do that without trampling on the fourth amendment rights of legal latino citizens?

I am all for cracking down on illegal immigration. I personally don't think it is even one of the top 3 issues facing this state or nearly the problem the people who are against it claim it is, but I do have concerns about the cartels, smuggling, and border security, which this law will do nothing to stop.

I am not for cracking down on illegals at the expense of trampling on legal citizens rights, and especially if we are going to write the law so it leaves interpretation up to LEO via some vague reasonable suspicion standard that can really only be applied via racial profiling.

Isn't all of this about enforcing the law and catching illegals?

Just think, if we removed the language that I want removed, we could get rid of those Canadian illegals and European illegals and Asian illegals and all the other illegals that are going to slip through the cracks thanks to the way this law is worded.

Infringe on everyone's rights equally, or nobody. It's the American way.

And the dirty little secret here that nobody wants to acknowledge is we should have had border security 4 years ago while Bush was President (I believe that legislation called for something like 30K national guard on the border), but the anti-amnesty crowd, many of whom are the same people now whining the federal government isn't doing their job, killed it.

One of our own senators, John McCain was leading the way and I believe he now has the nickname Juan McCain amongst the anti-immigration crowd thanks to his work on that legislation.

I bet if they revived the same bill and tried to push it through Congress, most of the people complaining about the federal government not doing anything would be fighting that legislation that would do something tooth and nail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Baxter's DD
Hall of Famer


Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 2596
Location: Highway 85 Revisited

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YBC-Dog wrote:

So if "reasonable suspicion" in entrenched in existing law, why was explicitly written into this bill? Legislation is carefully written.

I, and many of us against this law, have all pointed to this language since day 1 as one of the key things that makes this law racist and wrong and if it is really as black and white as you say, then this clause should be able to be removed without any impact to the overall law itself, except it wouldn't be open to interpretation by the arresting officer.


You are 100% correct with this. I am at a loss as to why that phrase was included and my belief is it can be removed without impact. Frankly, I have very little faith in politicians in Arizona from either side of the political aisle and their legislation crafting abilities.
_________________
LETS GO GIBBY!
iViva Zavada! - The 'Stache will last!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
levski
Number Retired


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 17727

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deweyniner wrote:

Never mind the fact that the Feds are derelict in their duty per Article IV. Section 4.

Quote:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


Invasion??? Even Scalia would mock your interpretation of the Constitution...
_________________
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first call promising." Cyril Connolly, 'Enemies of Promise'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deweyniner
Everyday Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

levski wrote:
deweyniner wrote:

Never mind the fact that the Feds are derelict in their duty per Article IV. Section 4.

Quote:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


Invasion??? Even Scalia would mock your interpretation of the Constitution...


I doubt it.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/mexican-military-incursion-texas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11226144/

Quote:
Armed men in Mexican military uniforms have illegally crossed into the United States to provide cover for drug smugglers, and have fired upon U.S. Border Patrol agents on several occasions, a congressional panel was told Tuesday.

Border Patrol Union President T.J. Bonner detailed three incidents since 2000 in which U.S. agents were chased and fired upon by what he characterized as Mexican soldiers operating inside U.S. borders. Bonner testified before the House Homeland Security Investigations Subcommittee on Tuesday.


FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/06/mexican-militar.html

http://poe.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=186321
_________________
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."--Thomas Paine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Diamondbacks Bullpen Forum Index -> Anything Goes All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 28 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



visitors since April 13, 2006.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group