The following is not joke but has not been verified, same disclaimer needed.

[kidcatfish]

GREAT ANSWER FROM THE GOVERNOR!!!!!!

 

TELL THEM JAN

 

 




 

 Jan's response to Bob

 Seems about right to me.


 The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes
AZ's new immigration laws.
 Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in
response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

 "What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were
sneaking
 into games without paying?

 What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers
and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce
their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.
 Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who
sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink?
 And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured,
the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"
 --Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
 

[SANDMAN5]

 

[RoadKill]

GREAT ANSWER FROM THE GOVERNOR!!!!!!

 

TELL THEM JAN

 

 




 

 Jan's response to Bob

 Seems about right to me.


 The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes
AZ's new immigration laws.
 Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in
response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

 "What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were
sneaking
 into games without paying?

 What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers
and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce
their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.
 Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who
sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink?
 And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured,
the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"
 --Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
 

Some of the gate-crashers will buy eats and drinks from the many vendors,the ticket buyers probably will NOT because they squandered their savings on a ticket! If you penalize the more fiscally responsible gate crashers those vendors will suffer and less tax revenue will be generated and that will hurt the entire economy because tax rates will then have to increase. Not all gate-crashers could ever afford hotdogs and a coke in the first place so out of fairness they will get them free (just to get them hooked on it) and then once they see what they are missing they too will contribute to the economy in the way mentioned above! The spoiled ass ticket buyers will recieve nothing as a penalty for their irresponsibility with they own money and will be charged more in they future for tickets to cover the price of free hotdogs to gate crashers as a lesson against greed! 

The Suns are not greedy or spoiled and always do the right thing for humanity,this will be explained in detail to the bankruptcy court just after the "bailout" application is filed .

[Bobbo]

If Governor Brewer actually wrote that statement, she should be removed from office for incompetence because she does not understand the difference between state government and a private for-profit business.

Maybe Bob could offer some suggestions to Governor Brewer on how to better run the state:

1 ) Immediately revoke all business licenses and liquidate all corporations.  Incorporate the state into a for-profit corporation.  Citizens are now direct employees of Arizona, Inc.
2 ) All businesses are owned by the state.  All profits are sent to the state comptroller, who decides on the wages paid to the “employees”.
3 ) Employees are subject to an annual performance review.  Substandard work will result in termination and ejection from the state.
4 ) Employees will not have any rights, but must file a grievance if they feel that they are treated unfairly.  Judgment will be rendered solely by the executives of the state.
5 ) When profits are down, layoffs will result, and you must leave the state immediately.  A guard will monitor you while you pack, and escort you out of the state.

Obviously, my point is that there are enormous differences between government and business philosophies.

Her purported statement about being forced to give food, drink, and medical care shows a lack of understanding of federal and state welfare programs, and the source of that funding.  Governor Brewer has the power to change or eliminate the state portion of their welfare system, but in doing so, will lose out in federal funding.

[G-Man]

I think you're reading too much into it, Bobbo.

I think her point was to show that you can't run anything and keep it going when you are forced to give away the product....whether it's for profit or not.

I think she could have gone further by saying what if some of the gate crashers stole from, or injured, or kidnapped, the paying customers, each other, or the security force.  Or what if the gate crashers were attacked by the paying customers because they took matters into their own hands because they felt cheated and put upon to cover the deficet in operating costs.

I really wish the federal gov't would handle their responsibilities towards this situation.  It's their inactivity, fear tactics, and Obama's refusal to protect and uphold the constitution that has made a mess, and once again, polarized the nation along racial and political lines.  And before I am attacked....yes, I know it's not just Obama.   Every admin. since Reagan has dropped the ball on this.

[DIGGER]

GREAT ANSWER FROM THE GOVERNOR!!!!!!

 

TELL THEM JAN

 

 




 

 Jan's response to Bob

 Seems about right to me.


 The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes
AZ's new immigration laws.
 Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in
response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

 "What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were
sneaking
 into games without paying?

 What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers
and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce
their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.
 Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who
sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink?
 And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured,
the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"
 --Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
 

Some of the gate-crashers will buy eats and drinks from the many vendors,the ticket buyers probably will NOT because they squandered their savings on a ticket! If you penalize the more fiscally responsible gate crashers those vendors will suffer and less tax revenue will be generated and that will hurt the entire economy because tax rates will then have to increase. Not all gate-crashers could ever afford hotdogs and a coke in the first place so out of fairness they will get them free (just to get them hooked on it) and then once they see what they are missing they too will contribute to the economy in the way mentioned above! The spoiled ass ticket buyers will recieve nothing as a penalty for their irresponsibility with they own money and will be charged more in they future for tickets to cover the price of free hotdogs to gate crashers as a lesson against greed! 

The Suns are not greedy or spoiled and always do the right thing for humanity,this will be explained in detail to the bankruptcy court just after the "bailout" application is filed .

Gosh Roadkill, and Bobbo..........I agree nothing wrong with gate crashing......only if you get caught don't cry cause you go to jail......or in their case get deported.

[Bobbo]

My point was simply to show the lack of reasonable comparison.

A game ticket is something you will almost always have with you at the game.  Proof of citizenship is NOT something everybody carries with them.

Arizona wants the right to arrest and detain people when they have no evidence of a crime.  Should we allow the Suns to have full police authority to arrest and detain non-ticket holders until they determine if they actually paid for a ticket?  What about VIP guests or franchise owners who may not even have a ticket?

Arizona isn’t forced to provide free food and medical care to anyone.  They choose to do it so they qualify for federal funds.  Should the Suns ignore someone who is injured at a game if they can’t produce a ticket?

[G-Man]

My point was simply to show the lack of reasonable comparison.

A game ticket is something you will almost always have with you at the game.  Proof of citizenship is NOT something everybody carries with them.

Arizona wants the right to arrest and detain people when they have no evidence of a crime.  Should we allow the Suns to have full police authority to arrest and detain non-ticket holders until they determine if they actually paid for a ticket?  What about VIP guests or franchise owners who may not even have a ticket?

Arizona isn’t forced to provide free food and medical care to anyone.  They choose to do it so they qualify for federal funds.  Should the Suns ignore someone who is injured at a game if they can’t produce a ticket?

You are perpetuating the fear tactic.  The law specifically stops someone from being arrested or detained in the absence of a crime.  You know this because, if you've been really listening over the past several months, it's been stated thousands of times.  ANY time a person is detained by police, for any reason, they are asked for ID.  If it can't be produced, the person can be detained until they are able to demonstrate who they are and where they live.  This is the norm in this country, in every state, county, city, and town.  If I'm wrong, please show me where.  Also, by law, LEGAL aliens are required to carry their "papers" at all times.

Arizona's hospitals, like ALL hospitals in the country, cannot legally turn away anyone.  It's within the national patient's bill of rights and posted in every emergency room in the country.

In NYC, there is a tactic used by police called Stop and Search (or Stop and Frisk).  If anyone is walking in a neighborhood where a crime is committed, and remotely fits the description, they can be detained and searched by police.  And this law was created without even thinking about illegal immigrants.

Aaaaand, I was asked to leave Shea stadium because I couldn't produce my ticket.  We snuck down to better seats in the 7th inning and got caught.  Security asked to see my stub and I couldn't find it.  I was escorted out of the stadium.  At a concert in Madison Square Garden, we got caught smoking.  Security grabbed us and took our ticket stubs.  They told us to go back to our seats and if we were caught doing anything again, we would be asked for our tickets.  As we wouldn't have them when asked, we would be kicked out.  This was theur policy, I guess.

[Bobbo]

You are perpetuating the fear tactic.  The law specifically stops someone from being arrested or detained in the absence of a crime.  You know this because, if you've been really listening over the past several months, it's been stated thousands of times.  ANY time a person is detained by police, for any reason, they are asked for ID.  If it can't be produced, the person can be detained until they are able to demonstrate who they are and where they live.  This is the norm in this country, in every state, county, city, and town.  If I'm wrong, please show me where.  Also, by law, LEGAL aliens are required to carry their "papers" at all times.

If you will read the proposed amendment, you will see that they are not changing the law to ask for ID (which is already on the books), but to ask for proof of citizenship.  This is a much higher level than a mere ID.  If an officer thinks you are here illegally, he can arrest or detain you until your citizenship can be verified.  Lack of citizenship papers is NOT a crime.  Where are your citizenship papers?

This is contained in Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, paragraph E.

Can you post the section where this amendment specifically stops officers from arresting someone in the absence of a crime?

Aaaaand, I was asked to leave Shea stadium because I couldn't produce my ticket.  We snuck down to better seats in the 7th inning and got caught.  Security asked to see my stub and I couldn't find it.  I was escorted out of the stadium.  At a concert in Madison Square Garden, we got caught smoking.  Security grabbed us and took our ticket stubs.  They told us to go back to our seats and if we were caught doing anything again, we would be asked for our tickets.  As we wouldn't have them when asked, we would be kicked out.  This was theur policy, I guess.

How would you feel if the security officer arrested you and took you to a holding cell for the weekend and waited until Monday when the banks are open to verify that you bought a ticket?  What if you bought it with cash?  You would be OK with being charged with a crime since you lost the ticket?

[gregc]

bobbo, they are not being charged with anything if they can prove they are legal.  If they can't then they are illegal and should be charged, and deported.     Try and walk around Mexico with out any ID and see what happens to you.  Bet we treat the illegals a whole lot better then Mexico would treat and illegal.

[valkmc]

bobbo, they are not being charged with anything if they can prove they are legal.  If they can't then they are illegal and should be charged, and deported.     Try and walk around Mexico with out any ID and see what happens to you.  Bet we treat the illegals a whole lot better then Mexico would treat and illegal.

Although I agree with most of the law and think illegals should be deported, I don't like to see the comparison with Mexico's policy on immigration. There is a reason Mexico is so F'd up and most of it has to do with the way their government runs the country. The US is better than Mexico and we should not look to how they do things.

[sugerbear]

i for one wouldn't mind AT ALL to carry my birth certificate with me at all times.
i carry my drivers license, ssn card, insurance card, etc why not a birth certificate.
or passport whichever is more secure.
but then we are talking about the gvnmt issuing passports.............

[PAVALKER]

You are perpetuating the fear tactic.  The law specifically stops someone from being arrested or detained in the absence of a crime.  You know this because, if you've been really listening over the past several months, it's been stated thousands of times.  ANY time a person is detained by police, for any reason, they are asked for ID.  If it can't be produced, the person can be detained until they are able to demonstrate who they are and where they live.  This is the norm in this country, in every state, county, city, and town.  If I'm wrong, please show me where.  Also, by law, LEGAL aliens are required to carry their "papers" at all times.

If you will read the proposed amendment, you will see that they are not changing the law to ask for ID (which is already on the books), but to ask for proof of citizenship.  This is a much higher level than a mere ID.  If an officer thinks you are here illegally, he can arrest or detain you until your citizenship can be verified.  Lack of citizenship papers is NOT a crime.  Where are your citizenship papers?

This is contained in Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, paragraph E.

Can you post the section where this amendment specifically stops officers from arresting someone in the absence of a crime?

Aaaaand, I was asked to leave Shea stadium because I couldn't produce my ticket.  We snuck down to better seats in the 7th inning and got caught.  Security asked to see my stub and I couldn't find it.  I was escorted out of the stadium.  At a concert in Madison Square Garden, we got caught smoking.  Security grabbed us and took our ticket stubs.  They told us to go back to our seats and if we were caught doing anything again, we would be asked for our tickets.  As we wouldn't have them when asked, we would be kicked out.  This was theur policy, I guess.

How would you feel if the security officer arrested you and took you to a holding cell for the weekend and waited until Monday when the banks are open to verify that you bought a ticket?  What if you bought it with cash?  You would be OK with being charged with a crime since you lost the ticket?

Bobbo,

I believe you are perpetuating the fear tactic.  Sit back and think and apply some common sense here.  If you or I were stopped doing something illegal in our own state (which is what the AZ Police would do as well), we would be required to show a valid ID or be detained until our identity could be verified.  I don't carry a citizenship card or birth certificate, and I am not sure what forms of ID you may or may not carry, but I have my State Issued drivers license, my Retired Military ID Card and my License to Carry Firearms, along with some other misc credit and owners cards.  The information contained on my ID cards  (which I am required to carry and show on many different occasions or purposes) is normally entered into the NCIC data base during a police stop etc, and that system holds records of information on my identity, address, crime record, etc etc... and also citizenship.  If this system does not hold information on my identity, then I have no doubt that I would be detained until I could prove who I am and my citizenship status.... as it should be, especially since I was initially stopped for something illegal.  I am all for the AZ law to be passed and enforced... in case you couldn't gather that.   Keep in mind, illegals don't have any valid ID cards and are not in the NCIC database (unless they have previously been detained/arrested for criminal activity) and proof of citizenship is required or they are breaking the law by being in this country illegally.... and should be detained/deported accordingly.  The law is intended to be in place to help those legal citizens of the state/country and not as harassment for those illegals, who are breaking the law anyhow.... a law that the Federal Government has not been willing to enforce.  

[Skinhead]

My point was simply to show the lack of reasonable comparison.

A game ticket is something you will almost always have with you at the game.  Proof of citizenship is NOT something everybody carries with them.

Arizona wants the right to arrest and detain people when they have no evidence of a crime.  Should we allow the Suns to have full police authority to arrest and detain non-ticket holders until they determine if they actually paid for a ticket?  What about VIP guests or franchise owners who may not even have a ticket?

Arizona isn’t forced to provide free food and medical care to anyone.  They choose to do it so they qualify for federal funds.  Should the Suns ignore someone who is injured at a game if they can’t produce a ticket?

If you lose your ticket and they ask for it you may be ejected.  If you can speak English they may deduce you are a citizen (I know, not all citizens speak english, maybe that should be required).   Also most legal residents will have a drivers license or state issued ID card, I know I do and I carry it when ever I leave my house and am asked to produce it regularly.  I have never been asked for citizenship documents, but then I AM A CITIZEN.  My wife is a NATURALIZED, LEGAL CITIZEN.  I think you are confused by the difference between legal and Illegal, and citizen and SCUM SUCKING PARASITE!

[Bobbo]

bobbo, they are not being charged with anything if they can prove they are legal.  If they can't then they are illegal and should be charged, and deported.     Try and walk around Mexico with out any ID and see what happens to you.  Bet we treat the illegals a whole lot better then Mexico would treat and illegal.

Although I agree with most of the law and think illegals should be deported, I don't like to see the comparison with Mexico's policy on immigration. There is a reason Mexico is so F'd up and most of it has to do with the way their government runs the country. The US is better than Mexico and we should not look to how they do things.

    

[G-Man]

The Attorney General of Virginia stated that in his state, police officers regularly ask for proof of ID and then run the person through every database there is, right there on the side of the road (if stopped for a traffic offense).  Virginia has the largest ICE holding facility in the country and the state will legislatively be going after local municipalities that has been deemed as places that harbor illegal immigrants. 

This is the same Attorney General that is filing the lawsuit against the healthcare bill.  A true American in my book.

True Americans are not against immigration.  They are against illegal immigration.  Unfortunately the difference is lost on too many people. 

I think that all tax paying citizens should be polled regarding this issue.  I say tax paying citizens because those that don't pay taxes don't have a real interest in it and are not affected by it financially.  Let tax payers decide if they want to continue paying for this.

And the problem is not just coming from Mexico.  West Africans are also coming and having "anchor" babies in large numbers.  I'm sure there are other depressed nations around the world who have "figured" out our weaknesses as well.  Why should hard working Americans have to make up for the tyranny, lawlessness, and/or failed governemnts and societies around the world?  We already give billions in aide all around the world, why do our citizens have to suffer hardships due this here at home.

I know I'm all over the place, but this issue does have a lot of facets and stings on many levels.

[Bobbo]

The Attorney General of Virginia stated that in his state, police officers regularly ask for proof of ID and then run the person through every database there is, right there on the side of the road (if stopped for a traffic offense).  Virginia has the largest ICE holding facility in the country and the state will legislatively be going after local municipalities that has been deemed as places that harbor illegal immigrants. 

Again, this issue isn’t about simply asking for an ID.  Even illegals can get ID’s and driver’s licenses, I hear.  This proposed law establishes a higher bar of proving you are a citizen.  If you can’t immediately prove you are a citizen, the officer can arrest and detain you until you prove you are a citizen.  The concept of guilty until proven innocent flies in the face of freedom and our constitution.

[Varmintmist]

Bobbo,

Hate to break it to ya, but get popped breaking the law without ID and I dont care if you are burnt orange with pink polka dots, you are going to be a guest of Johnny Law until you come up with ID.
The AZ law (not admendment BTW) only mimics the Fed law and authorizes no new powers of detention on the local police. It does give the cops a way to deal with illegals other than making a phone call to ICE

[Bobbo]

Bobbo,

Hate to break it to ya, but get popped breaking the law without ID and I dont care if you are burnt orange with pink polka dots, you are going to be a guest of Johnny Law until you come up with ID.
The AZ law (not admendment BTW) only mimics the Fed law and authorizes no new powers of detention on the local police. It does give the cops a way to deal with illegals other than making a phone call to ICE

Please read the section I keep referring to:  Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, paragraph E

Police have had the power to detain you until you are identified for a long time.  I don’t dispute that.  The proposed law allows an arrest for not being able to prove citizenship on the spot, which could be a problem for natural born citizens who obviously don’t carry immigration papers.

[Serk]

Please read the section I keep referring to:  Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, paragraph E

And here is that section for everyone's edification:

E. IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:

   1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
   2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Seems pretty straight forward to me...

[Bobbo]

Please read the section I keep referring to:  Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, paragraph E

And here is that section for everyone's edification:

E. IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:

   1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
   2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Seems pretty straight forward to me...

I'm referring to the proposed article 8.

Here is a link to make it easier for you:


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[G-Man]

Again, this issue isn’t about simply asking for an ID.  Even illegals can get ID’s and driver’s licenses, I hear.  This proposed law establishes a higher bar of proving you are a citizen.  If you can’t immediately prove you are a citizen, the officer can arrest and detain you until you prove you are a citizen.  The concept of guilty until proven innocent flies in the face of freedom and our constitution.

But this already happens all over the country.  It happens to legal US citizens....why should the same standards be thrown out in Arizona.

Bobbo, with all the respect in the world, I can't understand your arguments.  I, you, my mother, and anyone else you can see, feel, touch, or hear can and will be detained until they can demonstrate who they are if police are given a reason to come into contact with you.  

"The concept of guilty until proven innocent flies in the face of freedom and our constitution."  If we took guilty until proven innocent  literaaly, as you would like us to, then nobody would every be allowed to be arrested unless they were actually caught directly in the act of committing the crime and the judge and jury witnessed the crime.  I believe it is more accurate to say that you can't be convicted until proven guilty.  People are arrested, stopped and frisked, pulled over on the road, etc, thousands of times a day in this country, without proof of guilt.  Proof of guilt is further down the road in the process.

[Varmintmist]

+1

If a officer can make a reasonable guess that you might have committed a crime, he can ARREST you, me, anyone. If you end up without ID, you will be a guest of the state for a while.

The local police now have the power spelled out to arrest you if they have a reasonable suspision that you have broken immigration law. The Feds already had that so I am not sure where your argument is comming from.

Same powers, more local enforcement.

[Serk]

Okay, so THIS is the part you have a problem with?

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Is that correct?

If so, let's try a thought experiment...

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED CAPITAL MURDER.

Still disagree with it? If not, what's the difference? Both are crimes, pure and simple.

[big turkey]

The fool says in his heart there is no God.

Thanks for reminding me Bob.


This is on all your posts, just noticed it.

Big Al

[john]

 I think you are confused by the difference between legal and Illegal, and citizen and SCUM SUCKING PARASITE!       

[RoadKill]

If all the illegals go away we can concentrate on dealing with the homegrown parasites. I can not afford both...can you?

[Bobbo]

Okay, so THIS is the part you have a problem with?

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Is that correct?

If so, let's try a thought experiment...

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED CAPITAL MURDER.

Still disagree with it? If not, what's the difference? Both are crimes, pure and simple.

There is quite a difference between “removable from the US” and capital murder- evidence.  In capital murder, there is a body, a coroner’s investigation that determined homicide, and possibly a murder weapon.  Forensics may tell something about the killer.  That’s a lot of evidence to support the arrest of a suspect.  What is the evidence of being here illegally?  The lack of paperwork? Speaking Spanish? Looking Hispanic?  Those things can also describe a natural born citizen, so it is ambiguous evidence.

[Serk]

In capital murder, there is a body, a coroner’s investigation that determined homicide, and possibly a murder weapon.  Forensics may tell something about the killer.  That’s a lot of evidence to support the arrest of a suspect.

While those would also support the arrest, all of those things would primarily be used to CONVICT someone of the crime. The requirement of evidence to ARREST someone of a crime is much much lower. If there's a reasonable suspicion of someone having committing a crime (Be it murder, or being in this country illegal, or any other crime), then the police have the authority to arrest someone and hold them while the details are researched. Is there the ability for this to be abused? Of course, but it's no different then the ability to arrest and hold someone for any other crime that the police already possess...

I guess what I'm saying is, the CRIME of being in this country illegally should be treated NO differently from any other CRIME. That's all I'm saying...

[Bobbo]

I guess what I'm saying is, the CRIME of being in this country illegally should be treated NO differently from any other CRIME. That's all I'm saying...

I don’t think anyone disagrees with your statement.

The problem is credible evidence.  If your local police suspects you of being a child molester and arrests you every week or so, and keeps you in jail while they question the children in your neighborhood, you would eventually consider it a violation of your rights.  You don’t have paperwork declaring you straight.  There is no evidence other than the officer’s suspicion.  A law that allows that does more harm than good.

[MP]

So, Bobbo, how do YOU propose to look at anyones right to be here?

Under the standards you have put forth, once one is across the border, no one can ask for any papers at any time to verify that you are here legally.

What would YOU DO?

You are one of those who keep telling us what we CANNOT do, but refuse to offer any concrete alternatives.  Or, do you?

If you have a reasonable method to check on illigals, I am more than willing to listen.

MP

[Serk]

The problem is credible evidence.  If your local police suspects you of being a child molester and arrests you every week or so, and keeps you in jail while they question the children in your neighborhood, you would eventually consider it a violation of your rights.  You don’t have paperwork declaring you straight.  There is no evidence other than the officer’s suspicion.  A law that allows that does more harm than good.

And that's exactly the state we're in right now. If an officer had reasonable suspicion that someone was molesting children, they would arrest and hold that person while research was conducted. That's the way the law is right now. (Although being straight or not has nothing to do with being a child molester or not, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

And if the same person were being arrested over and over for frivolous reasons, that person would have grounds for a harassment lawsuit against the officer or the department. That goes if the person was being repeatedly falsely arrested for being in the country illegally, or for being a child molester or anything else.

By denying the AZ law from going into effect we have basically said illegal intruders into this country are in a special class that can't be questioned. The crime of being in this country illegally isn't really a crime, wink wink, nudge nudge... All the law was doing was bringing being in this country illegally into the same class as any other crime.

[alph]

The fool says in his heart there is no God.

Thanks for reminding me Bob.


This is on all your posts, just noticed it.

Big Al

prove it.  i can prove that through the actions of most all christians, i would reather go to hell then to be surrounded by a bunch of back stabbing lieing good for nothing criminals that only have to say "oh jesus forgive me for i have sinned....." and all is good, and they go on their merry way.....

Opps, sorry, I know that the original post was about Arizona’s illegal immigration prevention program, but when I’m called a “fool” for not believing in god, I kinda get upset…..

On a related note, this morning when I was leaving work there’s this Mexican guy staring at my cycle saying “one of these days I’m going to steal your motor cycle…..”

How am I supposed to take that statement?  He’s proven to me that he doesn’t care for following our laws when it comes to immigrating to this country, why would he care about following any other law we have?

[Bobbo]

And that's exactly the state we're in right now. If an officer had reasonable suspicion that someone was molesting children, they would arrest and hold that person while research was conducted. That's the way the law is right now. (Although being straight or not has nothing to do with being a child molester or not, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

That’s exactly my point!

In your response you said, “If an officer had reasonable suspicion that someone was molesting children”.  That would mean there was evidence of a crime that led the officer to come to that conclusion.  My point was that if the officer suspected you of being a child molester without any evidence of a crime, he could arrest you while checking to see if a crime was committed.  Those are two very different scenarios.

The term “straight” is not specific to homosexuality; it also means a non-pedophile.

By denying the AZ law from going into effect we have basically said illegal intruders into this country are in a special class that can't be questioned. The crime of being in this country illegally isn't really a crime, wink wink, nudge nudge... All the law was doing was bringing being in this country illegally into the same class as any other crime.

You should read the proposed law, SB1070, and Judge Bolton’s ruling to understand the true situation in Arizona.

[Serk]

In your response you said, “If an officer had reasonable suspicion that someone was molesting children”.  That would mean there was evidence of a crime that led the officer to come to that conclusion.  My point was that if the officer suspected you of being a child molester without any evidence of a crime, he could arrest you while checking to see if a crime was committed.  Those are two very different scenarios.

Probable cause has a much lower level of requirement then evidence. Evidence implies proof. Probable cause means there's reason to believe a crime has been committed and that a person was the perpetrator of said crime. There's no provision in there for an officer to arrest someone without reasonable suspicion that the person had committed the crime of being illegally in this nation. The provision requires "THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

Probable cause is grounds to arrest anyone for anything at anytime, all this law did was bring the crime of being in this country illegally in line with any other crime.

You should read the proposed law, SB1070, and Judge Bolton’s ruling to understand the true situation in Arizona.

Unlike the attorney general or the president, I have read the law, although I have not as of yet read Judge Bolton's temporary injunction (Not a ruling, that will come much later, for now it's just a temporary injunction.)

[Bobbo]

Probable cause has a much lower level of requirement then evidence. Evidence implies proof. Probable cause means there's reason to believe a crime has been committed and that a person was the perpetrator of said crime. There's no provision in there for an officer to arrest someone without reasonable suspicion that the person had committed the crime of being illegally in this nation. The provision requires "THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

Probable cause is grounds to arrest anyone for anything at anytime, all this law did was bring the crime of being in this country illegally in line with any other crime.

The phrase “probable cause” is a conclusion based on “evidence” much like “I need to eat” is a conclusion based on “I’m hungry”.  The two are not different levels of the same expression.  If an officer observes a used glass pipe on your seat, that is evidence.  The officer can then conclude that there is probable cause to search your car for drugs based on that evidence.

What evidence can an officer observe to make the probable cause conclusion that someone is here illegally?  How is that evidence distinguished from the same evidence that is present from a legal resident?

Unlike the attorney general or the president, I have read the law, although I have not as of yet read Judge Bolton's temporary injunction (Not a ruling, that will come much later, for now it's just a temporary injunction.)

Judges make rulings.  Judge Bolton’s ruling resulted in a preliminary injunction of only three parts of SB 1070.  The case is now on appeal.

[Serk]

Bobbo, I see your point in regards to how do you tell someone's here legally or not by a visual inspection, but remember this law stipulates that it only comes into effect if a person has already come into contact with police for some OTHER crime being committed.

Once someone has been "picked up" for suspicion of another crime, that person can be compelled to provide valid information, and if the person refuses, or produces invalid or fraudulent identification, that's a pretty good indicator that the person is not in this country legally, or at least enough of a red flag to justify further research into their status (And real identity).

[f6john]

     Does anyone know what size blade it takes to split a hair? 

[Serk]

     Does anyone know what size blade it takes to split a hair? 

Depends on if the hair came from the head of a citizen, a legal immigrant, or an illegal immigrant... 

[f6john]

     Never thought of that, and for some of us it would be almost impossible  to find a hair to split after beating our head against the wall for so long!