Muscatine

Arizona immigration

Posted in: Muscatine

I have read the law and it is all about profiling. I'm going put it on the record that I believe this law will be overturned by the Supreme Court based on racial issues. Laws before it, that do this type of thing, have been overturn. It's wrong. 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Then how did the supreme court allow the Civil Rights Act and other anti-racial discrimination laws to be passed, davie? They were all about race.

 

You have read the law? Really? We have to dutifully question your interpretation then, as we saw your interpretation of US code and "common-law"  put to play in another post without having the full faculties of knowing one has nothing to do with the other. You lost miserably in that debate, davie.

 

Good luck with your going on record with this, davie, and stating such an absolute.....but the US Supreme Court is already on record opposite of what you want. And just think....they were liberal-controlled when they made their ***UNANIMOUS***decision.

 

I can help here a little:

 

Supreme Court Unanimously OKs Racial Profiling

May 24, 2008  |  
Either racial profiling is odious and unconstitutional, with personal and social consequences for communities of color -- or it's not.

On April 23, the U.S. Supreme Court, without any dissent, decided that it was not. The ruling obliquely, but forcefully, slammed the courthouse door on any attempts to challenge this widespread law enforcement practice.
-----------------------------------------------------
Or maybe:  http://www.motorists.org/other/home/supreme-court-racial-profiling/
------------------------------------
"...a third case has raised concern among civil rights advocates. In the 2008 case of Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court declined, without explanation, to hear the case of a man who was kicked off an American Airlines jetliner in Boston because a flight attendant thought he looked like a Middle Eastern terrorist.
-------------------------------------------------
"The police did not search Moore at the scene. Rather, they took him to his hotel room where they searched him and found crack cocaine. Moore is African-American living in Portsmouth, Virginia, where more than 50 percent of the population is Black. The Supreme Court refused to address the issue of racial profiling."

 

So much for your absolutes once again! Cry 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court Unanimously OKs Racial Profiling

May 24, 2008  |  
Either racial profiling is odious and unconstitutional, with personal and social consequences for communities of color -- or it's not.

On April 23, the U.S. Supreme Court, without any dissent, decided that it was not. The ruling obliquely, but forcefully, slammed the courthouse door on any attempts to challenge this widespread law enforcement practice.
-----------------------------------------------------
Or maybe:  http://www.motorists.org/other/home/supreme-court-racial-profiling/
------------------------------------
"...a third case has raised concern among civil rights advocates. In the 2008 case of Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court declined, without explanation, to hear the case of a man who was kicked off an American Airlines jetliner in Boston because a flight attendant thought he looked like a Middle Eastern terrorist.
-------------------------------------------------
"The police did not search Moore at the scene. Rather, they took him to his hotel room where they searched him and found crack cocaine. Moore is African-American living in Portsmouth, Virginia, where more than 50 percent of the population is Black. The Supreme Court refused to address the issue of racial profiling."

 

So much for your absolutes once again! Cry 

 

So we have a bet?

 

 

So we have a bet?

----------------------------

That would be a ridiculous wager on your part...because I merely pointed out the liberal supreme court stance on it. The unanimously-approved profiling case and the other cases I provided show they would not hear or rule on other cases that came at them after their big decision.

 

"Laws before it, that do this type of thing, have been overturn." Maybe years ago....but you don't have a leg to stand on now! Your just.....wrong. (Again)

 

 

 

So we have a bet?

----------------------------

That would be a ridiculous wager on your part...because I merely pointed out the liberal supreme court stance on it. The unanimously-approved profiling case and the other cases I provided show they would not hear or rule on other cases that came at them after their big decision.

 

"Laws before it, that do this type of thing, have been overturn." Maybe years ago....but you don't have a leg to stand on now! Your just.....wrong. (Again)

 

Apparently Arizona law makers agree with me. So much so they have went back and changed the wording of the law.

 

Phoenix -- Arizona lawmakers have approved several changes to the recently passed sweeping law targeting illegal immigration.

If Gov. Jan Brewer supports the changes, they will go into effect at the same time as the new law, 90 days from now.

The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

 

Oh gee, not to gloat, but who was right? Who said it was about race?Wink

 

Advertise Here!

Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo

istockphoto_2518034-hot-pizza.jpg

For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!

Buynow