Friday, April 30, 2010 4:59:43 AM
Ah, I see where the mistake is that you're making NottaSpy, you said: For the police to go any further requires probable cause, which is much harder than reasonable suspicion.
Have you read the changes Arizona made to the law to address concerns over racial profiling?
"Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word solely from the sentence, â€œThe attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.â€
Another change replaces the phrase â€œlawful contactâ€ with â€œlawful stop, detention or arrestâ€ to apparently clarify that officers donâ€™t need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status." <
Friday, April 30, 2010 2:50:21 AM
NottaSpy, I didn't have time to respond to the second part of your post. I`m up way too early today, and will attempt to log back in this afternoon if I have the time. I see where you are coming from, but, well, I`ll address that later.
Friday, April 30, 2010 2:27:30 AM
"Auburn, please explain how a person being here illegally is an inherent danger to public saftey."
Well for 1, as I've already shown, this group of illegals is 3 - 5 times more likely to commit serious crimes. Didn`t you see the stats I posted? Most are convicted criminals.
No different than you claiming that being an unlicensed driver is a danger. How so? Because one doesn`t have a license does not mean this person is a terrible driver. However, you`re making some assumptions yourself now. Profiling what the average unlicensed driver would be like?
You`ve seen the correlation on that end, so why not draw the parallels between the FACTS of what an illegal is (Someone fine with breaking our laws as their first in this country).
Sure, not all of them are `dangerous.` But enough of them are to warrant action. Just as an unlicensed driver is not inherently dangerous, but well, you know the rest. You drew your own conclusions Nottaspy.
Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:40:05 AM
BTW, even though I have already offered proof, here it is again. Kolender v. Lawson. That is a Supreme Court decision that requiring a person to present identification violates the 14th Amendment.
In that case, the man was loitering. Compare that to the AZ law where you don't even have to be loitering first.
What I find absolutely scary is that there are people actually defending the "Show me your papers" law. Why would anybody defend a shift in American law that brings us closer to real fascism (not fake fascism people accuse Bush and Obama of to win political points).