HEARTLESS wrote: SC, read the post by grrr on page one, in particular the "brown" reference.
Explain to me, if you would, what basis you believe law enforcement will use most often to make the determination that they should be requesting proof of immigration/citizenship status from an individual they make contact with. Frankly, I think they should be required to ask everyone, ask no one, or clear the existing legal requirement of reasonable suspicion. If they go one of those 3 routes, I don't see a problem.
1. There is a ton of "noise" (little squiggly, smugged lines) in and right around the sign's lettering that is not present on the other lettering seen in the picture (ie, the book in the bottom right corner, the girl's shirt in the middle left, the sign in the background). That lettering on the sign in question looks really fake to me.
2. The words on this guy's sign do not sound like the normal words that an illegal immigrant (or even legal immigrant) might write. Most of them want a chance to work legally someday, but know damn well they're gonna have to pay taxes in that scenario. Plus, is this guy holding the sign really that knowledgeable about police shootings in Arizona? I doubt it. Honestly, this sign reads the way my mother thinks. She's a midwestern, Republican, white lady who absolutely hates illegal immigration. She is constantly complaining about how "they get free health care", and "we gotta pay for ours."
HEARTLESS wrote: Read the law grrr. The excuse that everything the left doesn't agree with as being racist, greedy, or whatever weak agrument is getting old.
That's a thoughtful and well-reasoned response... :jk2:
Perhaps if you gave any meaningful rebuttal to criticism of the statute people might have a chance to be swayed by your superior 'agrument.'
HEARTLESS wrote: You seem to be able to speak for the Arizona cops, so please enlighten us with your knowledge.
You don't need to be a law enforcement officer to employ logic. There are no reliable indicators by which to judge an individual's immigration status that don't rely on visual cues suggesting the individual's ancestry.
If you disagree with that statement please feel free to tell me what indicators would lead someone to reasonably suspect that an individual was in the country illegally.
Since you brought it up, though, officers from the Tucson & Phoenix police departments have sued to block this law. Maybe you should consider what they have to say for themselves.
HEARTLESS wrote: You seem to be able to speak for the Arizona cops, so please enlighten us with your knowledge.
You don't need to be a law enforcement officer to employ logic. There are no reliable indicators by which to judge an individual's immigration status that don't rely on visual cues suggesting the individual's ancestry.
If you disagree with that statement please feel free to tell me what indicators would lead someone to reasonably suspect that an individual was in the country illegally.
Since you brought it up, though, officers from the Tucson & Phoenix police departments have sued to block this law. Maybe you should consider what they have to say for themselves.
What about their shoes? Surely you can tell if they are illegal aliens by their shoes. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) thinks so.
You are so funny, do you have a leftist blog that is telling you that the law (Arizona for the slow one in the crowd) is to seek out illegals? If so try this, go to any day labor employer, construction site (fewer and fewer in our great society, opps I meant economy), farm fields and so on, yell "la migra and we're from ICE, eh" and you can get those from both north and south of the border. Or just understand that if an officer sees what they percieve is a violation of law (speeding, expired plates or tags, dangerous driving, etc) then they are able to ask for identification and other proper required items.
