T1B

No, it isn't, Goobs. "Unreasonable searches and seizures" is so vague as to be useless. It always has to be applied in a case-by-case basis. The Constitution makes no specific provisions regarding what is and isn't "reasonable" regarding the search for illegal aliens. "Probable cause" always seems to come into play, and who in their right mind could deny that there exists probable cause right now along our southern border? Moreover, our federal government has a duty to protect that sovereign border. If millions of people from any nation marched over the border of another nation, that nation would have a right to defend itself by any means necessary.

The fact that our government has allowed this country to be overrun by illegals is inexcusable, and it's also illegal. They're looking the other way as their laws are being broken.

Toddowen wrote:
So isn't tazing a guy that runs out on a baseball field, right shitslurp?


Stay out of the debate of what is constitutional. You prolly don't even have the right to vote, I'll bet.

You're so desperate to crawl up mvscal's colon, you've forwarded you mail to his small intestine.
It couldn't be more obvious that you're completely in man-love with him. He must truly be sickened by you and T1B in general for allowing you this venue to spew your "faithful girlfriend" routine.

ughhhh

OCmike wrote:You "ID everyone that's brown" dolts are ironically fast-tracking amnesty. The quickest way for the Left to remedy all of the American Hispanics who will be illegally stopped is to make every illegal alien legal.

They don't have the votes or the support to do it, you fucking halfwit. 60% of the country supports this law.

mvscal, I don't give a shit about asking a messican for ID as long as it's not based solely on skin color. If nothing else, it's horribly inefficient based on the brazillions of legal Hispanics in the Southwest.

I support many anti-illegal measures, but this one is poorly written and fuels the opposition, which is how they'll eventually get the needed votes in DC.

OCmike wrote:I support many anti-illegal measures, but this one is poorly written and fuels the opposition,

It is identical to the requirements in Federal immigration law, you handwringing fucktard.

OCmike wrote:mvscal, I don't give a shit about asking a messican for ID as long as it's not based solely on skin color. If nothing else, it's horribly inefficient based on the brazillions of legal Hispanics in the Southwest.

I support many anti-illegal measures, but this one is poorly written and fuels the opposition, which is how they'll eventually get the needed votes in DC.

Dumbfuck...the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. Current federal prohibits illegal immigration yet it "fuels the opposition" who intend to legalize as many as possible.

Van wrote:No, it isn't, Goobs. "Unreasonable searches and seizures" is so vague as to be useless. It always has to be applied in a case-by-case basis. The Constitution makes no specific provisions regarding what is and isn't "reasonable" regarding the search for illegal aliens. "Probable cause" always seems to come into play, and who in their right mind could deny that there exists probable cause right now along our southern border? Moreover, our federal government has a duty to protect that sovereign border. If millions of people from any nation marched over the border of another nation, that nation would have a right to defend itself by any means necessary.

The fact that our government has allowed this country to be overrun by illegals is inexcusable, and it's also illegal. They're looking the other way as their laws are being broken.

Checkpoints at or near our borders are reasonable. Where Indy lives, probably not. That was the original discussion, Indy's willingness to submit to random checkpoints.

Goober McTuber wrote:
Checkpoints at or near our borders are reasonable.

Not really. At the border, yes. "Near" the border, not so much. It's been tried. Having to wait an hour at a checkpiont 50 miles from the border on the I 5 or the I 15 to go from Oceanside to San Clemency or from Fallbrook to Temecula is not reasonable.

http://home.znet.com/schester/fallbrook ... point.html

Thankfully, they do not operate these checkpoints anymore. At least for now.

Ah yes, where Indy lives...

Maybe dude's got some feisty Mexicans up there?

Van wrote:Screw, it's also un-American - or at least it's supposed to be - to allow illegal aliens to run amok in our country. We are supposed to be a nation ruled by codified law, are we not? Illegals are here illegally, aren't they?

That doens't mean that AZ can set imigration policy.

Van wrote: Now, should you happen upon sixteen indigent-looking Hispanics loitering in front of Home Depot, that would seem to me to be a "reasonable" reason for you to request that they produce proof of their legal status in this country.

Huh? If you really think that then you are a idiot. Have YOU ever worked hiring people in an industry dominated by Hispanic workers? Most people that 'look' like illegals are not so how is it reasonable to ask for papers based on looks?
Who do you look like? Mcveigh? Manson? Peterson? A Menendez brother maybe?

Van wrote:If they are unwilling to do so, I see no problem with the state taking it upon themselves.

mvskkkal wrote:It is identical to the requirements in Federal immigration law, you handwringing fucktard.

Then you need to read, and understand the Constitution. It is not AZ's job nor is it AZ's job to declare war or sign a tready with Mexico.

Van wrote:"Unreasonable searches and seizures" is so vague as to be useless.

WTF? Word have meanings. You use words and expect people to know them, why is the Constitution any different?

My biggest problem with this law is that all the arguments against it are either lies (see Jmak) or just plain false arguments.

JMak wrote:

OCmike wrote:mvscal, I don't give a shit about asking a messican for ID as long as it's not based solely on skin color. If nothing else, it's horribly inefficient based on the brazillions of legal Hispanics in the Southwest.

I support many anti-illegal measures, but this one is poorly written and fuels the opposition, which is how they'll eventually get the needed votes in DC.

Dumbfuck...the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. Current federal prohibits illegal immigration yet it "fuels the opposition" who intend to legalize as many as possible.

If enforcement hinges on ID checks then the public support (locally) will be zero within a week. The way you solve this issue is like drugs: by attacking the suppliers, not the users.

If you eliminate the jobs supply, they leave on their own. That way you save billions in jail and deportation costs, as well as maintain the public's overall approval.

Rounding them up in paddy wagons would probably make for a great "Cops" miniseries, but would obviously end badly for everyone.

Moving Sale wrote:see Jmak

No thanks.

OCmike wrote:If you eliminate the jobs supply, they leave on their own.

How would you do that... force employers to only hire those with a valid SSN?

Read what the Governor of Arizona says:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... wer/100505

Mikey wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:
Checkpoints at or near our borders are reasonable.

Not really. At the border, yes. "Near" the border, not so much. It's been tried. Having to wait an hour at a checkpiont 50 miles from the border on the I 5 or the I 15 to go from Oceanside to San Clemency or from Fallbrook to Temecula is not reasonable.

http://home.znet.com/schester/fallbrook ... point.html

Thankfully, they do not operate these checkpoints anymore. At least for now.

Even more laughable are the checkpoints they run up north. Like this one that claimed 4 lives before INS finaly shut it down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/nyreg ... .html?_r=1

Even more laughable is that the checkpoints are an open secret, always on the Interstates and can be avoided by anybody smart enough to take Route 9 or 7 (depending on which side of Lake Champlain you're on),

Speaking as a resident of Arizona for the last 18 years and for MANY of the healthcare workers who I've spoken with on this issue here: THANK GOD something is being done. I agree with this law 100% as it applies to ALL 'illegal' immigrants (non taxpayers mind you) in the state, it is NOT a racial issue as it is written. Remind yourselves of the idea that if the Feds had protected the border to begin with, it wouldn't be a state's issue to shoulder. At least the issue has been raised though, for fuck's sake SOMEBODY had to do it.

88 wrote: As I understand the AZ law, it intends to empower and require that AZ law enforcement personnel and state/county/municipal agencies inquire about the immigration status of a person when (1) the person is arrested for another offense or applies for state benefits and (2) there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is present in the State in violation of federal immigration law.

You need to re-read the law you stupid assfuck.

Th wrote: At least the issue has been raised though, for fuck's sake SOMEBODY had to do it.

At least one part of your post was true. :wink:

88 wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:As I understand the AZ law

You understand the Arizona much better than I do.

Considering the number of state and national Republicans who are opposed to this law, and that Tucson and Flagstaff have sued the state over the law, do you think that perhaps the Arizona Legislature could have come up with something better?

Like what?

Declare a new holiday.

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:As I understand the AZ law

You understand the Arizona much better than I do.

Considering the number of state and national Republicans who are opposed to this law, and that Tucson and Flagstaff have sued the state over the law, do you think that perhaps the Arizona Legislature could have come up with something better?

No, they could not. What part of 60% approval for this measure are you dumbfucks struggling to comprehend?

Jsc810 wrote:

mvscal wrote:

OCmike wrote:I support many anti-illegal measures, but this one is poorly written and fuels the opposition,

It is identical to the requirements in Federal immigration law, you handwringing fucktard.

Just wondering, do you think that states and the Congress have the same authority to pass laws?

Nope. Xth Amendment much, Counselor? Bill o' Rights out front shoulda told ya. Dork.

mvscal wrote:
No, they could not. What part of 60% approval for this measure are you dumbfucks struggling to comprehend?

I saw a survey where residents of Arizona were asked if they felt illegal immigration was a serious problem in their state.

29% of those surveyed answered "Yes, I feel it is a major issue."


The other 71% answered "No habla ingles."

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:
No, they could not. What part of 60% approval for this measure are you dumbfucks struggling to comprehend?

I saw a survey where residents of Arizona were asked if they felt illegal immigration was a serious problem in their state.

29% of those surveyed answered "Yes, I feel it is a major issue."


The other 71% answered "No habla ingles."

That would mean then that at least 44% of the "no habla ingles" crowd approved of the measure. That's assuming that 100% of the 29% approved.

Ponderous. But maybe not surprising.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:As I understand the AZ law

You understand the Arizona much better than I do.

Considering the number of state and national Republicans who are opposed to this law, and that Tucson and Flagstaff have sued the state over the law, do you think that perhaps the Arizona Legislature could have come up with something better?

No, they could not. What part of 60% approval for this measure are you dumbfucks struggling to comprehend?

I had dinner with my sister from Maricopa last night. She said that among the ranch/land-owning and home-owning crowd, the level of support for the measure is close to 90% across all racial demographics.

As for the language of the law, residents there don't have a problem with it because "Sherrif Joe" already has a strict policy about not approaching someone based on race alone. This law was just meant to put their policies currently in place into state law. But many are calling for a change to the wording, since it could easily be misconstrued as being "if they're brown, take 'em down".

OCmike wrote:But many are calling for a change to the wording, since it could easily be misconstrued as being "if they're brown, take 'em down".

Handwringing, PC horseshit. Illegal immigrants from which country are overrunning Arizona and other states in the southwest?

A: Ireland
B. Norway
C. France
D. Mexico

So, you're a LEO out on patrol and you pull over a beater pick up truck with a Mexican in a cowboy hat with bleary, bloodshot eyes who doesn't speak a lick of English, is obviously intoxicated and has no driver's license or insurance ie your average Mexican.

What is your response? Would it be "racial profiling" to ask this dickbag if he belongs in this country?

We really need to wake the fuck up and get with the program. Racial profiling is nothing more than effective police work. Limited resources need to be applied in the most efficient manner and that means profiling.

If those beaners in Arizona were chanting "USA!", "USA!" instead of "Mexico!", "Mexico!" during their celebration/protest/riot I might have some sympathy. I consider what's happening down there to be an invasion. Rat's deserting a sinking ship named "Mexico!" No need for the National Guard. Send regular army and marines down there and shut the border down.

mvscal wrote: So, you're a LEO out on patrol and you pull over a beater pick up truck with a Mexican in a cowboy hat with bleary, bloodshot eyes who doesn't speak a lick of English, is obviously intoxicated and has no driver's license or insurance ie your average Mexican.

Decided to show us you self-loathing side again.

Just because YOU are a stupid fucking mezican doesn't mean they all are.

Wolfman wrote:Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants his city to boycott Arizona.

Evidently that doesn't include the electrical power that LA gets from Arizona. I'm sure AZ can "rectalfy" that situation.

L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.

...Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles' electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.

Yet another sanctimonious hypocrite is hung by his own short and curlies. Good job kicking your own ass, Tony.

I love it when a plan comes together!

poptart wrote:Liberals are allowed to spew racism, 88.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ident.html