Want to "boycott" Arizona? Do it in the dark!:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...yback-boycott/
Want to "boycott" Arizona? Do it in the dark!:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...yback-boycott/
"This game isn't worth it. The National Football League isn't worth it. There's golf to be played and tennis to be served up and other things to be done out there besides worryin' about a friggin' football game."----The prophet Sam Wyche
Sweet.
That's why governments shouldn't be boycotting anything by anybody.
If consumers want to boycott something, then so be it, but the government needs to get out of the "personal feelings" department, and just do their damn jobs.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
Really? THAT's why? Why, exactly, is THAT why?Originally Posted by BlazerBenner
A consumer is someone who purchases something from a supplier. Thus, a City is a consumer. They DID decide to boycott something.If consumers want to boycott something, then so be it,
I may agree with this. We'll have to see where you go with it.. . . but the government needs to get out of the "personal feelings" department, and just do their damn jobs.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
Senators press for NG to deploy to Mexico border: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/...order_security
Good point there: IS IT a national issue? If so, then it SHOULD be fed funded - i.e. we SHOULD all have to help pay for it. I say yes it is. Border security is a national responsibility.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
Stupid and idle threat. Who woudl suffer from that? Arizona power companies. In fact, I doubt they woudl comply. They need money too.
Conservatives have been calling for the NG on the border for many years. McCain is only now "getting it". Yes, it should be done and yes it should be federally funded. Obama is for a huge federal gov't except where the border is concerned.
The immigration question is so easy I don't see what the hangup is. Immigration reform should consist of three parts:
1) Secure the border (with fences, NG, whatever it takes) Other countries secure their borders Including Mexico. We can do it if the will is there
2) Deport all illegals who commit crimes in this country
3) As for the law abiding folks who entered illegally, allow them to stay and work under a guest worker program. How you want to set it up can be debated but they have to show that they're working and make them register so we can keep track of them.
A path to citizenship and a way for them to bring all their family/friends in with them does not need to be a part of reform.
It's really that simple, but liberals keep blocking every attempt to do any of that in Washington every time someone with common sense brings any of it up.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
You missed the point of Arizona's response...but that is not unusual.
"This game isn't worth it. The National Football League isn't worth it. There's golf to be played and tennis to be served up and other things to be done out there besides worryin' about a friggin' football game."----The prophet Sam Wyche
Let's hope the GOP is smart enough to exploit this politically come November. This issue is a huge win for them
And, naturally, Columbus' Obamatron Mayor jumps into the fray:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...o-Arizona.html
Hey forget just the city workers--let's just boycott all future BCS Championships in Glendale that the OSU football team may be in! Mr. Get-My-Face-Time-In-The-Papers Mayor would be all over that one!
"This game isn't worth it. The National Football League isn't worth it. There's golf to be played and tennis to be served up and other things to be done out there besides worryin' about a friggin' football game."----The prophet Sam Wyche
Good grief I can NOT STAND Coleman. What a freakin TOOL. I'd vote Palin as mayor of Columbus over him.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
Wow!
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
I used to like him, but he lost me when he asked for a taxpayer funded bailout of Nationwide Arena after begging and pleading to pass an income tax increase last year and supported moving the casino to the west side. He's too busy catering to the people who really run this city-the Wolfes.
"After the last 10 years, hell is where people here go on vacation when they want to get some R & R from the rigors of watching Browns football."- Bud Shaw, Cleveland Plain Dealer
He lost me when he "needed" a 25% income tax increase to offer the same bloated set of city "services" as before, on the backs of the live-elsewhere, unfortunately work in the City, productive non-residents.
Screw that moron.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
I can see your point. You don't live in the city but yet have to pay for city services, some of which you use (road maintenance) and some that you don't (like our trash pick up-thank you very much by the way! LOL!) and I didn't agree with the income tax increase either and voted against it. I'm in the reverse situation. I work in a different municipality and live in Columbus so I have to pay the income tax (to Westerville, in this case) and then have to pay the additional .5% to Columbus because I live there, which sucks, too!
As for the whole Nationwide Arena bailout, I see they found some other sucker (OSU) to take over managing it. Seeing as OSU is a state school, I sincerely hope that none of my tax dollars are going to fund this endeavor either.
Last edited by shebengal; 05-22-2010 at 08:28 PM.
"After the last 10 years, hell is where people here go on vacation when they want to get some R & R from the rigors of watching Browns football."- Bud Shaw, Cleveland Plain Dealer
Now, I WANT Hilliard to raise their income tax to 2.5%, which I'd expect is merely MINUTES from happening. Since the money goes to your residence municipality rather than your employment municipality in Central Ohio, I'd rather it went to Hilliard than Columbus.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
By ERICA WERNER and JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 37 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.
Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, according to lawmakers and administration officials. The moves come as chances for action on comprehensive immigration reform, Obama's long-stated goal, look increasingly small in this election year.
But Obama is under pressure to do something with the issue front and center after Arizona's passage of a tough crackdown law.
The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, an administration official said.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending National Guard troops to the border.
Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move, and Republicans planned to try to require it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.
In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, McCain said the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border has "greatly deteriorated." He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent, and he asked for $250 million more to pay for them.
"I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent ... as well as an additional $500 million, but it's simply not enough," McCain said.
Democrats were considering countering McCain's amendment with a proposal of their own after disclosure of the White House plans.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said that the administration would announce the deployments late in the day Tuesday. But the White House wasn't expected to formally send the spending request to Capitol Hill until after the Memorial Day recess, said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Homeland Security and Pentagon officials have been jousting over the possible National Guard deployment for the better part of a year. Pentagon officials worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border and did not want Guard troops to perform law enforcement duties.
In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. But that program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and to deal with Mexico's drug violence that has been spilling over into the United States.
More than 20,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed now, mostly along the Southern border.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
By ERICA WERNER and JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 37 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.
Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, according to lawmakers and administration officials. The moves come as chances for action on comprehensive immigration reform, Obama's long-stated goal, look increasingly small in this election year.
But Obama is under pressure to do something with the issue front and center after Arizona's passage of a tough crackdown law.
The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, an administration official said.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending National Guard troops to the border.
Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move, and Republicans planned to try to require it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.
In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, McCain said the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border has "greatly deteriorated." He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent, and he asked for $250 million more to pay for them.
"I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent ... as well as an additional $500 million, but it's simply not enough," McCain said.
Democrats were considering countering McCain's amendment with a proposal of their own after disclosure of the White House plans.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said that the administration would announce the deployments late in the day Tuesday. But the White House wasn't expected to formally send the spending request to Capitol Hill until after the Memorial Day recess, said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Homeland Security and Pentagon officials have been jousting over the possible National Guard deployment for the better part of a year. Pentagon officials worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border and did not want Guard troops to perform law enforcement duties.
In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. But that program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and to deal with Mexico's drug violence that has been spilling over into the United States.
More than 20,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed now, mostly along the Southern border.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
Excellent job, President Obama!
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
It's a start but I'd love to hear his excuse for why he's not sending more
Money?
Logistics?
Fulfilled the request from Border Patrol?
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
Sure we can all guess but why can't Obama end the guessing and just tell us?
He's busy winning the gay vote in San Francisco right now. Thought he already won it with the Supreme Court nominee.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
Obama trying to win the Mexican vote....
By BOB CHRISTIE, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 42 mins ago
PHOENIX – The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and the state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix argues that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations usurps federal authority. "In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."
The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law declared invalid.
The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics. State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.
"It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence. State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who opposes the law, said the suit should help settle questions over what states can do when they don't think federal laws are being adequately enforced. "I hope this galvanizes Congress to gain the moral courage they need to address this (immigration) crisis," Sinema said.
Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration. Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman called the decision to sue "a terribly bad decision." "Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this," spokesman Paul Senseman said.
Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect. Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona also lashed out at the administration's decision, saying "the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law."
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.
"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed." The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement. Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government's involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona's measure. "It's important to have the federal government's view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they're the best people to say that," Bender said.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unprecedented and unnecessary." He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute. "The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
Here is the case citation:
CV-10-1413-PHX-NVW (Regarding SB1070) United States of America v Arizona, State of, et al
And the Federal Court cite:
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/
It costs to view the case particulars at the moment. I will try and access through another portal, review, and post it here (If I remember!).
I would love to see how it's styled...it is more than likely just an injunction to stop the implementation of the bill later this month. Or it could be a full-blown mandamus...which will seek to have the law stopped in its tracks via constitutionality angles. If that is the case...this might not stop until the US Supreme Court. Fascinating states rights vs federal jurisdiction case...I can't wait to see how Holder framed this.
"This game isn't worth it. The National Football League isn't worth it. There's golf to be played and tennis to be served up and other things to be done out there besides worryin' about a friggin' football game."----The prophet Sam Wyche
Here it is...all 54 pages....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33987317/U...ary-Injunction
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
This is a fascinating case. I don't see that Az is violating any Constitutionality laws because they are not enforcing FED laws here. If they find an illegal they are merely detaining them briefly in order to give ICE the chance to arrest them. If ICE declines then the individual is released.
My prediction-- the Supreme Court will uphold the Arizona law.
BTW, on a tangental issue, it looks like almost all close Supreme Court decisions will be 5-4. I read a recent article where Justice Kennedy is unlikely to retire while Obama remains in office. The background on this story is that Kennedy was very dismayed by Obama "calling out" the Supreme Court over the decision to strike down key portions of the McCain/Feingold early this year. In some regards, this may make Kennedy a more reliable member of the conservative bloc on the bench. He was once more of a swing vote but in light of the Democrats cramming unpopular legislation down the American's throat, Kennedy may now see his role of limiting Democrats and liberal legal views. Just something to ponder.
Don't underestimate the power of the Dark Side!
Stupid logic. You claim Kennedy is upset that Obama called out the SC for striking down McCain/Feingold. The American people support McCain/Feingold. Then, you say the Dems are cramming "unpopular legislation" and Kennedy is against this. If Kennedy was for things that are popular, he would have upheld McCain/Feingold.
Which is it?
Not logic.
Just stupid.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
Leave it to a Clinton appointee to circumvent States' rights and the unwillingness of the Federal government to enforce federal laws in exchange for the Mexican vote.
By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writers – 13 mins ago
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton shifts the immigration debate to the courts and sets up a lengthy legal battle that may not be decided until the Supreme Court weighs in. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that most angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision. She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar action elsewhere, prompted a boycott against Arizona and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the state's border with Mexico is awash in drugs and smugglers that authorities badly want to stop.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told The Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status. In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowd clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced. "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled.
Federal authorities have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
The core of the government's case is that federal immigration law trumps state law — an issue known as "pre-emption" in legal circles. The judge pointed out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims that U.S. law supersedes state law. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce pre-empted laws," Bolton wrote.
Supporters of the law took solace in the fact that the judge did keep several portions of the law intact, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as "sanctuary cities."
"Striking down these sanctuary city policies have always been the No. 1 priority of SB1070," said Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the law. Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
The law, along with most of the other States' and fed laws on immigration, are stupid.
The biggest reasons for illegal immigration are much more easily solved:
1. Don't grant US citizenship to babies born in this country, to non-US-citizens
and
2. Harshly punish companies found to be employing illegal workers.
Cops have too much power already. The LAST thing we need are jack-booted thugs pulling over everyone with a tan and demanding a bribe, sex or legal immigrant documentation.
Take away the MOTIVES (employment, citizenship), and the behavior will change.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
That's not what this is about. It's about the police in Arizona checking immigration status with those that they already stopped for questioning about something else. As illegal immigration is already tied to major crime issues throughout Arizona (and here in Oregon, and I'm sure in most of the other 50 states), the Police should be checking immigration status exactly the same way they check for priors or warrants in other states whenever they have someone detained. It's already illegal for anyone to walk around without proof of ID (it's called vagrancy) in any State, it's just an extension of this already existing law.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
I'm not agreeing with your claim that it's illegal to not carry ID, but if it's true, then I oppose that as well. This country is headed in the WRONG direction with all these cops.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
I also COMPLETELY disagree with the entire premise of a "Terry Stop".
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
I feel good about police departments. The majority of Officers are good people. Of course, there are some pricks, but for the most part, they are generally good.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
We had a situation here last year where a young (rookie?) cop pulled over two motorcycles going ~150mph on the highway. Speeds for which any private citizen would be arrested and subject to serious charges that would involve jail or at least thousands in fines (typically first offense is a suspended sentence and $2500 + court costs + attorney fees). This cop approaches the riders, learns they're also cops, then turns off his microphone, has a chat with them and lets them go without citation. I believe it was SIX DAYS later, after the incident became public knowledge, that the cops issued a simple traffic ticket - $100 fine or so.
I've personally been in a car with a cop who was pulled over. They just held their badge out the window - the cop didn't even ever get to the car. Just turned around when he saw the badge. Might take more than that today with all the fake badges available, but same corrupt premise: the law applies to US, but NOT TO THEM.
Even beyond the concept that MOST of them are corrupt to some extent, is the encompassing concept that the entire structure of the laws and organization of the police forces is designed NOT to protect but to control/oppress/extract-income-from the citizenry. I've lived 46 years now and NEVER had a cop directly aid me in anything. But I have paid traffic fines despite NEVER crashing into another car, harming others' property or otherwise being a threat to society. I've also been robbed at gunpoint while working at a little grocery store, and watched the cops drive by while I stood there with my hands in the air with a pistol touching my chest. I also see that we STACK people in jail for things that shouldn't even BE illegal such as drug use/possession or prostitution (ok, few are jailed for a few prostitution charges I'll grant you), at an enormous societal and fiscal cost.
I'm not saying there's no place for law or police. But with the focus of reams of cops on traffic citations - to the ridiculous extent of traffic cameras, aircraft and other levels of effort that vastly exceed actual protection/security work that MATTERS, along with stupid laws behind them and ever expanding power to hold, search or even arrest people based upon little more than appearance or dislike, it's no wonder me and many others are concerned and disenchanted.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
There's nothing wrong with that.
"The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.
"You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."
I remember that incident and was outraged that those cops didn't lose their jobs. They are supposed to uphold the law, not flaunt it. Also, I have a friend whose dad was a cop back and she, her brothers and her mom all had replica badges with his number on it in case they got pulled over to get out of a ticket.
The last time we tried to get a cop's attention because we needed directions, he wound up ticketing my husband for not wearing a seat belt. He claimed he could see from the side of the road that it wasn't on. I do know some good cops, but they are not all perfect and some of them do think they are above the law.
"After the last 10 years, hell is where people here go on vacation when they want to get some R & R from the rigors of watching Browns football."- Bud Shaw, Cleveland Plain Dealer
We disagree. Cops should be held to AT LEAST the same standard as private citizens when it comes to prosecution, and to a HIGHER standard when it comes to getting/keeping a job post conviction.
The road that is built in hope is more pleasant to the traveler than the road built in despair, even though they both lead to the same destination. - Marian Zimmer Bradley
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/ima.../oilTicker.swf
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote