• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona

LiberalAvenger said:
:spin::spin::spin:
Click to expand...

Nice you post on the wrong thread and give no facts and i am spinning?
JC-hysterical.gif
 
Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona
Click to expand...

Can anyone say, "deriliction of duty"?
 
Sooo....what are the political ramifications for the Messiah and his corrupt political party when it becomes public knowledge that HIS administration is releasing thousands of known criminals that have been properly and legally arrested by local authorities?
 
Mickey Shane said:
Well, that didn't take long. They stuck it right on the first page:



Lines 22 through 24.
Click to expand...

Stating that when a reasonable suspicion exists that someone might be an Invader a law enforcement officer is required to check that person's status is "discriminatory"?

What a joke.

There's nothing wrong with the law, and you people are terrified that other states might decide to become American again, following Arizona's lead.
 
Kandahar said:
Suppose he's drunk and you can't understand anything he's saying. But he's a white guy wearing a NASCAR shirt and drinking a Budweiser. Do you haul him in for illegal immigration?
Click to expand...

If he's drunk and he's driving he's getting hauled in for a pleasant night with the cops anyway, isn't he?
 
Kandahar said:
What if you receive a call to that residence due to a domestic disturbance, and a white guy answers the door holding a Budweiser and wearing a NASCAR t-shirt? You ask to see his ID, and he can't find it.

Do you haul him in for suspected illegal immigration?
Click to expand...


No, there's no "reasonable suspicion" that he's an Invader.

If he can only jabber in spanish, it's his tough luck if he's a citizen and never bothered to learn the language of the country he's in. Whatever, that's still not discrimination, not so long as the standards of probable cause are maintained.
 
Orion said:
The AZ law was made without really consulting the Federal government, who the illegals would be referred to. It was a pretty reactionary law for that reason.

What if AZ refers illegals to the Fed and the Fed says that some of them can stay? Is AZ going to threaten to leave the union? :roll:
Click to expand...

The federal government can't allow them to stay unless they change the laws.

it's what the whole discussion is about, the federal government's utter refusal to enforce it's own laws and it's complete disregard for the will of the majority of the citizens that they're supposed to be representing.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, there's no "reasonable suspicion" that he's an Invader.

If he can only jabber in spanish, it's his tough luck if he's a citizen and never bothered to learn the language of the country he's in. Whatever, that's still not discrimination, not so long as the standards of probable cause are maintained.
Click to expand...

"Jabber in Spanish"? Sir, you are very insulting to people who speak Spanish.:(
 
LiberalAvenger said:
"Jabber in Spanish"? Sir, you are very insulting to people who speak Spanish.:(
Click to expand...

No, I'm very accurate with the words I use.

People who CHOSE to be insulted when words are correctly used are doing so inside their own minds for their own purposes. And they can feel as insulted as they please, however much makes them happy.

Or not.

Perhaps next time they could learn the language of the land they've chosen to invade?
 
Mickey Shane said:
Well, that didn't take long. They stuck it right on the first page:

Lines 22 through 24.
Click to expand...

I've looked at lines 22 through 24. I'm not seeing anything bigoted or racist. Perhaps you can actually explain yourself instead of acting as if people should be mind readers and tell us why you think there's something wrong with line 22 through 24?
 
Caine said:
Can you tell me what is bigoted on there?

Anything?

Is it your refusal to understand that reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that Police agencies have been using in the United States for decades?
Click to expand...

When reasonable suspicion means that you are brown and speak Spanish, Yes that is wrong.
 
Zyphlin said:
I've looked at lines 22 through 24. I'm not seeing anything bigoted or racist. Perhaps you can actually explain yourself instead of acting as if people should be mind readers and tell us why you think there's something wrong with line 22 through 24?
Click to expand...
I interpret it as saying: reasonable suspicion that you are an illegal alien.

So, deport away AZ. No one is stopping you yet.
 
Mickey Shane said:
Russian?

How many Russians are crossing the US-Mexico border in Arizona on foot?
Click to expand...

What does that matter? There are illegal Russians all over the US and they are white and don't speak English blowing your pathetic theory away.

Until you can accept illegals are not only Hispanic you will never understand the problem.
 
American said:
Link


Well so they may decide not to enforce federal law against illegal aliens. This is great, and supports the conclusion that the Feds won't do anything.....as usual.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Dismantling Federal Law never seemed so easy.

If that is the case, it might be nice to do like kind with the IRS.

To help matters along, let's start defunding its organs.
I think a vast majority of the volk believe it should be less intrusive too.

Can you say... "Yes we Can"?

.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
When reasonable suspicion means that you are brown and speak Spanish, Yes that is wrong.
Click to expand...

I dont see that in the legislation.

Can you show it to me?
 
Mickey Shane said:
I interpret it as saying: reasonable suspicion that you are an illegal alien.

So, deport away AZ. No one is stopping you yet.
Click to expand...

Mickey Shane said:
When reasonable suspicion means that you are brown and speak Spanish, Yes that is wrong.
Click to expand...

.........

My head's going to ****ing explode.

Look, people, seriously....please....logic and common sense is your friend. Stop running from it.

Reasonable Suspicion existed prior to this law. It didn't magically come from the world of faries and unicorns (otherwise known as "where Rev gets his avatars") to land within the Arizona Law. Its a known, long standing, legal standard for police officers used the country over that is a step below "probable cause" that allows officers to take slightly more forward action but not actually arrest based on it.

For example, Reasonable Suspicion must be had by an officer to be able to frisk a suspect. Now, ask yourself this: "Is it legal for a police officer to walk up to a random black man and begin to frisk him because he's black"? If the answer is "No, of course not" you're correct. However if you go look at the laws or statutes governing frisking you will not find a section that says "It is illegal for an officer to frisk a suspect simply because said suspect appears to be African American". See, the FEDERAL government has found that race can not be a part of the reasoning for reasonable suspicion, and as such it is unconstitutional which essentially means its illegal. So going "I asked him for papers because he's mexican looking" is absolutely no more legal or different than going "I frisked him because he looked black".

Reasonable Suspicion must use specific and articulable facts and inferences, as the officer may be required to relate these to a superior such as a higher officer or a judge. Going "um, he's brown" is NOT a legitimate articulated fact or inference allowable under reasonable suspicion, so using such would cause the case to fall apart, open up the officer for possible punishment, and set the department or state up for possible legal issues.

You can interpret it that way if you wish Mickey, that's fine. It just means you're wrong, and you're making that interpretation from a stance of ignorance about what the standard is and how it works. Reasonable suspicion IS wrong when it means that you are brown and speak Spanish...good thing that's NOT what it means.
 
explodedheadguy said:
Reasonable Suspicion must use specific and articulable facts and inferences
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples for the above? Just make up some hypothetical please.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
What does that matter? There are illegal Russians all over the US and they are white and don't speak English blowing your pathetic theory away.

Until you can accept illegals are not only Hispanic you will never understand the problem.
Click to expand...

If you have ever been to Washington State or Oregon it is almost like you have to speak Russian just to survive. They are everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom