Arizona bill 1070

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yep, too bad a warning shot wasn't policy, someone would still be alive today.

well bullets kinda travel fast and far, so firing warning shots in the air, especially in an urban setting, might not be the best idea. even in the desert the bullets could travel far and hit who knows what.

again, write your congressman :wink:
 
well bullets kinda travel fast and far, so firing warning shots in the air, especially in an urban setting, might not be the best idea. even in the desert the bullets could travel far and hit who knows what.

again, write your congressman :wink:

Right.

Urban area=shitload of people=bad idea.

Desert=travel far with nothing to obstruct it but the next innocent bystander=bad idea.

1070 I am so sick of the entire debate by this point.

It really does not change existing policy in any significant way- it neither allows mass round ups of people who look illegal nor gives the police/other LE agencies any new power or tools.

The claims of both sides are BS being thrown into the air to distract and get votes in an election year. Not solve the problem, thats for damn sure.

BVS, do you know when to drop anything? I usually agree with you, but come on! You're not out there getting rocks thrown at you, why nitpick the guy who is actually experiencing it?

Certainly no need to equate it to torture defenses, its apples and oranges. No one who tortured people during the Bush years was confronting a live, active threat, they were abusing for the sake of abuse or under the false assumptions that it would provide valuable information.

The Border Patrol are not out there to kill as many people as possible, and you can be damn sure they regret ever having to fire their guns, much less kill someone. BigJohn strikes me as the kind of guy who wants to do his job and get the minimal amount of people hurt or placed in any danger whatsoever as possible.

If you can't see how rocks flying at you could possibly be deadly and certainly justify a response, then I just don't understand that line of reasoning at all.

Are they supposed to start hurling the rocks back like its school recess for reform school kids? (Its not a fight, the BP is there to END the situation)

Are they supposed to run?

The kids have to be pretty stupid to not back off when guys with guns who are trained to use them start reaching for them while simultaneously pleading with them to stop.

As for the Holder investigation, the Glenn Becks of the world will no doubt spin it as "Obama now going after the Border Patrol for doing their jobs, worst President ever, treason, etc."

The reality? There would be an investigation after any law enforcement shooting that resulted in an injury or death. That goes for local, state and federal agencies.
 
BVS, do you know when to drop anything? I usually agree with you, but come on! You're not out there getting rocks thrown at you, why nitpick the guy who is actually experiencing it?

A 15 year old boy lost his life due to a rock, if you want to call it nitpicking then go right ahead.
 
Anchor babies isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.


they should quit while they are ahead




why does being born here grant automatic citizenship,
perhaps we should all have to earn it, or periodically qualify for citizenship
 
A 15 year old boy lost his life due to a rock, if you want to call it nitpicking then go right ahead.

Lack of context.

Multiple rocks, thrown by multiple people, there was a threat, so they acted to stop it.

Nowhere has anyone suggested that the loss of life was anything but tragic.

Perhaps the kid should not have been throwing rocks, he had that power in his hands to avoid the entire situation.

Again, regret for the loss of life is present all around, but how stupid must the kid be to start throwing rocks at guys with guns???

The nitpicking, I was referring to all of the assumptions you were making about how the BP's job should be done, what challenges they face, how they should have responded, etc.

All I know is if I was getting rocks hurled at me, I would view it as a major threat. One to the temple, and you could be killed instantly. You say "dead because of a rock" like the kid was playfully throwing a bean bag or some sand.

The BP responded, as well they should have.

It should have been clear that I was not calling the death of a 15 year old nitpicking.

Again, I am pretty sure the last thing BP wanted to do was kill the kid.
 
The nitpicking, I was referring to all of the assumptions you were making about how the BP's job should be done, what challenges they face, how they should have responded, etc.

All I know is if I was getting rocks hurled at me, I would view it as a major threat. One to the temple, and you could be killed instantly. You say "dead because of a rock" like the kid was playfully throwing a bean bag or some sand.

We don't know the size of or how these rocks were beging thrown. So let's not pretend one of has all the details and one doesn't. Of course they shouldn't have been throwing them, but my whole point is that the policy should be revisited if this is something common, a kill shot does not not seem like a reasonable response for someone throwing a rock. I have family in law enforcement, it's a hard job, and restraint is part of the job.
 
Right, like they're gonna have the time to go "well gee, that rock was just a pebble, let's wait and see the size of the next one. Oh shit! That one was a little bigger, i wonder had that hit me in the head would it have killed me? DUCK!!!!! Oh, that one was only the size of a golfball......"
 
well, this could have some people upset

activist judges, coming to aid of illegals again


Court blocks deportation over minor drug convictions

3:06 PM PDT, June 14, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked the government Monday from routinely deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession convictions, a decision that immigrant-rights lawyers said will spare tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding residents from being sent out of this country.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said a Texas man who had pled guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, an anti-anxiety drug, had been wrongfully deported.

Jose Carachuri-Rosendo was taken into federal custody after he pled no contest to having the Xanax pill without a prescription. Both an immigration judge and the U.S. court of appeals in New Orleans ruled he must be deported because his second drug possession conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony."

His case illustrated the potentially harsh impact of a 1996 federal law that was intended to rid the nation of immigrants who were criminals and violent offenders. Previously immigrants could ask for leniency if they had a job, a family or other ties in this country.

The new law, by contrast, required the deportation of any non-citizen convicted of an "aggravated felony."

But Congress did not carefully define this term. Since then, immigration judges have been deciding which crimes fit the definition.

Monday's ruling marks the third time in six years that the Supreme Court has intervened and ruled that these judges have gone too far.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the government's view defies common sense. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony'," he wrote.

Because of its strict wording, the 1996 law had required deportation even for legal residents who have lived in the United States for decades and served in the U.S. military. And despite the high court's ruling, immigrants convicted of drug charges still could be deported.

They will, however, have a chance to seek leniency before an immigration judge.

"Today's ruling will affect tens of thousands of immigrants, but it is hard to get a specific number," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project in New York.

In 2009, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 139,188 so-called "criminal aliens," but this number included both lawful residents and illegal immigrants, officials said.

The U.S. appeals court in New Orleans and Chicago were among those that said a second drug possession conviction triggered the automatic-deportation rule. Had the Supreme Court agreed with that view, it would have allowed the government to move forward with thousands of deportations, immigration experts said.

Peter Spiro, a Temple University Law Professor and former clerk at the high court, said the justices acted after waiting in vain for Congress to fix the 1996 law.

"This is another in a long line of cases in which the Court is pushing back," he said. "They are giving very clear cues they want this law defined more narrowly."

Six years ago, the court rejected the Bush administration's view that a drunk driving conviction amounted to an aggravated felony. Four years ago, the court in an 8-1 decision rejected deportation for a South Dakota man who pled guilty to cocaine possession -- a felony under state law, but a misdemeanor under federal law.

In its decision, the high court said a second drug possession conviction was not an aggravated felony even if it was a repeat offense. Stevens said the common-sense use of the words "aggravated" and "felony" refer to a serious or violent crime that would be punished by more than a year in prison.

"Congress, like 'Humpty Dumpty', has the power to give words unorthodox meanings," he said, but there is no evidence that Congress meant to make minor drug offenses into aggravated felonies. He noted that drug trafficking does qualify as a felony requiring deportation.

Carachuri-Rosendo, 32, was born in Mexico and came to Texas with his parents when he was five. He became a lawful permanent resident, worked as a carpet installer, and has a wife and four children.

He served 20 days in jail for a misdemeanor marijuana charge. He spent 10 days in county jail for the Xanax pill before he was taken into federal custody and deported to Mexico.

Under Monday's ruling, he can seek to return.
 
We don't know the size of or how these rocks were beging thrown. So let's not pretend one of has all the details and one doesn't. Of course they shouldn't have been throwing them, but my whole point is that the policy should be revisited if this is something common, a kill shot does not not seem like a reasonable response for someone throwing a rock.

I highly doubt they would have shot if it had been a few pebbles. So far, I'll give the BP the benefit of the doubt as I know law enforcement aren't generally amped up to fire their weapons for no good reason. No one enjoys killing people, unless they are seriously disturbed.

I never claimed to know, however.

You are right, neither of us has all the details, the difference is you had, in spite of that, concluded your own long distance investigation.

I have jumped to no conclusions, just giving the BP the benefit of the doubt pending a professional investigation to determine the facts, justification, etc. I fully support such an investigation, and will personally apologize to you if they shooting is found to be unjustified.

I don't think this is something very common, if it were, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I have family in law enforcement, it's a hard job, and restraint is part of the job.

Agree 100%.

Restraint and proper temperament are vital for a good law enforcement officer. "Super Cop" attitudes will quickly get the Police into situations that they could have avoided in the first place and put them in great danger. That is why the academies go to great length to weed out super cop who is roided up and ready to go with everyone.

I just don't see how you can jump to the conclusion that this officer showed lack of restraint given:

1.)The situation had already become physically hostile, a hostility he did not initiate. Restraint is probably most effective in preventing these kind of conflicts in the 1st place. Once they start, responding is tough to judge as lacking in restraint, unless there is something blatantly excessive given the task at hand.

2.)We don't know the level to which there was a threat presented by the rocks yet, that will be determined during the investigation.
 
aol news

(June 26) -- Comments by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that most illegal immigrants enter the United States to smuggle drugs rather than seek work have prompted a wave of criticism.

But Brewer is standing by her comments.

Speaking Friday, Brewer said that "the majority of illegal trespassers" entering Arizona "are bringing drugs in," Fox News reported.

Now, representatives of the National Border Patrol, Mexican politicians and human rights groups are attacking her claim and calling on her to provide hard evidence to back it up.

"That governor is racist," Francisco Loureiro, who runs an immigrant shelter in the Mexican city of Nogales, told Fox. "She has to look for a way to harm the image of migrants before American society."

T.J. Bonner, president of the union that represents Border Patrol agents, told CNN that Brewer's comments, don't "comport with reality -- that's the nicest way to put it."

In April, Brewer enacted a controversial law that grants the local police greater authority to check the legal status of people they stop. Brewer has seen her popularity soar since the bill and has traveled to the White House to discuss the law with President Barack Obama.

The White House plans to mount a legal challenge to the law, which Obama described as "misguided."

Late on Friday, Brewer issued a statement defending her comments. The statement cited a report by the Los Angeles Times that highlighted the increasing roles of Mexican drug cartels in the business of smuggling people into the United States. Brewer added that "many federal government reports have drawn the same conclusions."

The statement did not quell the criticism.

Jaime Farrant of the Tucson-based Border Action Network told Fox News that he has "no evidence" that most people are entering to smuggle drugs, while Mexican Senator Jesus Ramon Valdes, who represents the Mexican border state of Coahuila, said the comments were racist and ignorant.

"Traditionally, migrants have always been needy, humble people who in good faith go looking for a way to better the lives of their families," Ramon Valdes told Fox News.

Still, some are in agreement with Brewer's comments. On the Governor's Facebook page, commenters described her as "gutsy", and one called for her to run for president in 2012.

Jimmy Cuneo left a comment describing Brewer as "the only politician in the USA doing their job!"

Larry Birns, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington, D.C., called Brewer's comments "an exaggeration, but not by much," as Mexican drug cartels become more and more influential in illegal immigration."

The people-smuggling industry "has gone from a sort of do-it-yourself, small guy operation, to big business," Birns said. "There's going to be a lot more violence on the border."
 
aol news

(June 26) -- Comments by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that most illegal immigrants enter the United States to smuggle drugs rather than seek work have prompted a wave of criticism.



she is of course entirely wrong. the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not drug carrying extortionists. she must know this. which means she's lying.

New FBI Data Confirms Falling Crime Rates in Arizona | Immigration Policy Center

the truth of the matter is that most immigrants -- illegal or not -- come here very eager to exchange work for money. so the easier it is to get here legally, and the quicker we make those who are already here legal (about half of all "illegals" have simply overstayed their visas), the easier it will be to root out the one guy who's swallowed a condom filled with cocaine and has Osama Bin Laden's phone number scrawled on his left hand.
 
On the Governor's Facebook page, commenters described her as "gutsy",

Yeah, 'cause making racial stereotypes is a TOTALLY "gutsy" thing to do :eyebrow:.

and one called for her to run for president in 2012.

Ugh, yeah, how 'bout not (don't give the GOP any ideas, MrsSpringsteen! I shudder to think of THAT ticket)?

What an idiot.

I guess it doesn't even matter if she's wrong, because she's appealing to fear and stereotypes and it's working

Of course. Because some people are stupid that way :sigh:.

Angela
 
Yeah, 'cause making racial stereotypes is a TOTALLY "gutsy" thing to do :eyebrow:.



Ugh, yeah, how 'bout not (don't give the GOP any ideas, MrsSpringsteen! I shudder to think of THAT ticket)?

What an idiot.



Of course. Because some people are stupid that way :sigh:.

Angela

I am with you!

It takes no guts at all to pass a law that really changes nothing only to cash in on the fear and anxiety of the electorate.

And thats all this is, the last time illegal immigration came up was 2006. These people have no desire to actually solve the problem.

It takes no guts at all to do what most politicians do with a few exceptions.

It takes guts to be a cop, a soldier, a teacher, a firefighter, an every day working person facing the uncertainties about their jobs and families.

What do any of these politicians have to worry about?

Win or lose, they'll all be just fine.
 
What do any of these politicians have to worry about?

Win or lose, they'll all be just fine.

Not completely true.

FOXNews.com - Car Crash Involving Mass. Lawmaker, Suspected Illegal Immigrant Heats Up Debate

a suspected illegal immigrant allegedly crashed into a state lawmaker's car while driving drunk last week... police reports that show suspect Isaias Naranjo was arrested after crashing into state Rep. Mike Moran's car at 60 miles per hour and then bragging to police that they couldn't punish him.

According to the report, the suspect "just laughed, slurring that he was going to go back to 'my country' Mexico. 'Nothing is going to happen to me, man.'"

Though the suspect is being held after his blood alcohol content registered at .25, Massachusetts State Police spokesman David Procopio told FoxNews.com that state policy prohibits police from looking into the suspect's immigration status.
 

Cranky fella.

To be honest, I have no problem with taking a hard line against illegal immigration.

I do feel that it would be more effective to take a harder line against companies and individuals that hire illegal workers. When the jobs disappear so will much of the illegal immigration.

I also think that the argument that "they're stealing our jobs" is a lot of crap. They're doing the types of jobs that most Americans won't do, for pay that most Americans would consider far too low.
 

I was talking about their lives in general.

Mike Moran is a lawyer, I actually have run into him personally a few times, not a bad guy.

But he is a lawyer with a practice billing $100+ per hour, you think if he loses an election he won't be just fine?

That was my point. They all(or most of them) regardless of party, like to pretend they are principled and gutsy, etc when 90% of what they do requires no courage whatsoever and will not impact their quality of life at all.

Sure, you have the occasional profile in courage, but outside of that, a lot of hot air and very little personal risk/sacrifice.

The accident happened about a month ago, he's alright.

Got rear ended by an illegal drunk.

Is that your point?

Because 2 perfectly legal citizens just killed a Massachusetts State Trooper last week while driving drunk.

The cops wont be checking his status, but the Department of Corrections does as a routine matter. Thats why we know he's going back.

The fact is, if you are stopped in MA and are arrested, just like in AZ, it will be quickly ascertained if you are illegal or not.
 
Cranky fella.

To be honest, I have no problem with taking a hard line against illegal immigration.

I do feel that it would be more effective to take a harder line against companies and individuals that hire illegal workers. When the jobs disappear so will much of the illegal immigration.

I also think that the argument that "they're stealing our jobs" is a lot of crap. They're doing the types of jobs that most Americans won't do, for pay that most Americans would consider far too low.

Stark is a long standing idiotic raving lunatic.

Good post!
 
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's voter identification law in a 4-1 decision Wednesday, saying the Legislature has the power to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Wednesday's ruling is the latest decision in a string of lawsuits trying to overturn the politically charged 2005 law -- among the strictest in the nation -- but it may not bring an end to the challenges.

Critics of the law said it would keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. The Indiana Democratic Party challenged the law in federal court, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution. But the nation's highest court upheld the law by a 6-3 vote in April 2008.

Related in that the usual crowd of victimology-peddlers, grievance-mongers, ACLU lawyers and community organizers (aka, liberals) now barking so loud about Arizona 1070 reflexively called the Indiana law fascist, racist and discriminatory as well.

Hang in there Arizona. When the Blame America Corps is marching against you it can only mean you're doing the right thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom