View Poll Results: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Incorrect understanding of the law and its consequences.

    27 47.37%
  • Intentional effort to mislead, with a goal of increasing opposition.

    24 42.11%
  • Correct understanding of the law and its consequences.

    11 19.30%
  • Sincere disagreement with both the law and its consequences.

    25 43.86%
  • Other (Please explain).

    7 12.28%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 95

Thread: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-12-11 @ 12:32 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    939

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Then the Flapper should be elected, not the marionette.
    Why? Anyone can read...

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    02-12-11 @ 12:32 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    939

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Depends on what the word "is" means. If they are getting their info from news or pro illegal people, the interpretation can be wrong. They may be given bad advice/info.
    Now you are just reaching.

  3. #33
    Student MikeVFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VT
    Last Seen
    01-24-12 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    276

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Liberals want you to think it's racist because its effective and will lose them votes in the future. Sweet and simple.

    This is done through mainstream media. I moved to VT recently and people up here are outraged by the law, BUT THERE ARE NO ILLEGALS HERE. They dont understand the problem but they care because the media tells them to, its pathetic.
    Last edited by MikeVFF; 05-19-10 at 09:57 PM.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeVFF View Post
    Liberals want you to think it's racist because its effective and will lose them votes in the future. Sweet and simple.
    You get the prize.

  5. #35
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by pro-bipartisan View Post
    An aid or advisor tells them, duh, how do you think politics works?
    It's a short bill, written with the clear knowledge that the libs were going to find anything in the bill that smacked of racial profiling. Nothing in the bill does, so it stands to reason that either.....

    #1. The "advisors" can't read.

    #2. The "advisors" lied about what was in the bill.

    #3. The libs are lying about what their "advisors" told them was in the bill.

    #4. The libs didn't read it and are talking out their asses.

    Take your pick.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    It's a short bill, written with the clear knowledge that the libs were going to find anything in the bill that smacked of racial profiling. Nothing in the bill does,
    Please check the posts on the first page. You're also welcome to deny that what is quoted from the law there actually exists and that mexicans and liberals together are just making it up and half the country lives in lalaland... the half you're not part of.

  7. #37
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    mo
    Last Seen
    03-16-11 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    88

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Additionally, there's the matter of what constitutes "lawful contact." Illegal immigrants will be dissuaded from reporting crimes against them or against others, for fear that they will be deported.
    Seems to me that is where probable cause comes in. Reporting a crime would not be probable cause to ask for immigration status

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    It's not the reporting of the crime thats the probable cause.

  9. #39
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Probably this part. Whatever defines 'reasonable suspicion'.
    Shouldn't be hard. There's really no reason anyone couldn't know what the definition of this is that has a vague understanding of the interwebs and that wonderful thing called Wikipedia:

    "Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion."
    As you'll see "Reasonable Suspicion" as a legal standard is not a new thing, nor a nebulus creation of this law and this law alone. It is a long standing legal definition that has a specific purpose and is intentionally vague due to its lower risk of damage (as compared with the slightly higher "probable cause" which is required for actual arrest).

    Namely is the requirement for articulated facts and inferences to justify the use of an action based on reasonable suspicion. Since it is illegal in the United States to conduct searches based solely on racial profiling, and since there has been no evidence presented by anyone opposing this bill of any portion of the bill that somehow overturns that statute, "Because the person was hispanic" is not in any way, shape, or form legally allowable as "Reasonable Suspicion".

    Indeed, even as a broader group of reasonings U.S. v. Montero-Camargo found that race couldn't be used in anything other than when looking for a specific suspect.

    So just as its illegal to Frisk someone (Something requiring reasonable suspicion) based on the notion that "He's black", so too could you not ask someone for their papers simply because of the notion "He's Hispanic".

    If you're issue with this law is that Reasonable Suspicion is too broad then you have a large amount of other laws you should've been, and need to start, campaigning against.

  10. #40
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Please check the posts on the first page. You're also welcome to deny that what is quoted from the law there actually exists and that mexicans and liberals together are just making it up and half the country lives in lalaland... the half you're not part of.
    I've read the law...... have you?

    If so, point out what part you find to be a bad law and explain why.... cite the bad parts, don't read more into it than is there.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •