It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
reply to post by K J Gunderson
So they fixed the Unconstitutional parts of SB1070 and now it is useless? You really need to show me how it is now usless.
It still addresses illegal aliens in Arizona,
it still addresses the transport of illegal aliens and drugs,
it still addresses the employers of illegal aliens, it still addresses Entrapment, and it addresses illegal aliens on federal and state owned lands (which is becomming a real problem).
If it was/is useless then why does the President of Mexico have such a problem with it? Our immigration laws are not half as stringent as Mexico's.
But this thread was supposed to address the Massachusetts law comparing the reaction to it to the Arizona law, I haven't seen too much in the MSM about Mass. nor have I seen much on ATS about the Massachusetts law, which is why I started this thread in the first place.
Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
What is "reasonable suspicion"?
Going after the employers is very good though. Cut off the jobs, you just may cut off the flow of illegal immigration.
Can a police officer question me for no reason?
A police officer, just like any other ordinary citizen, has the right to approach you and ask questions and at least ask to search you or your possessions. However, you do not have to answer questions or comply with a search. A police officer, nevertheless, has no duty to inform you that you have the right to refuse to answer questions or comply with a search. Consent is key here - if you don’t consent, the police officer has no right to search or ask questions. However: If a police officer questions you without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, don’t get too excited: You don’t have any right to sue the officer for damages. Again, the police officer - just like anybody else - has the right to walk up to you and ask questions. But - just like with anybody else - you have the right to walk away.
What is reasonable suspicion?
To conduct a Terry search, or a stop and frisk, police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch but less than probable cause. And what does totality of circumstances mean? It refers to an assessment based on all the circumstances, which includes objective observations, information from police reports, and consideration of the modes of patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers.
What is probable cause?
Probable cause basically boils down to a “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime exists at the place being searched or that a suspect has committed a crime. Because a “reasonable belief” is a relatively fluid concept, probable cause determinations are based, in part, on a magistrate’s common sense as applied to the totality of the circumstances. In other words, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit for a warrant, including the truthfulness, credibility, and basis of knowledge of the persons supplying information, the test is whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place or that a suspect committed a crime.
their main export is hyperventilating liberals and murderous senators
Originally posted by METACOMET
The amendment didn't make the budget.
Lawmakers decided not to impose some of the stricter immigration measures that passed the state Senate with great fanfare last month, including the establishment of a 24-hour hotline to report companies that hire illegal immigrants and a requirement that the attorney general begin discussions with federal officials to offer help in enforcing immigration laws. Instead, lawmakers said, they decided to enshrine current practices that bar illegal immigrants from receiving state services into law.
Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Seems like they don't want to rock the boat where the businesses are concerned, are they mostly buisiness owners?
what exactly are these current practices to be enshrined into Law?
Basically we codified existing regulations, practices and policies of the commonwealth,' said Panagiotakos, D-Lowell. There are a lot of checks in the system and we wanted to make sure those checks stayed in the system.'
This comes down to no change in the immigration laws?
would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring.
It would also toughen penalties for creating or using fake identification documents
explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.
The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security
would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing
Every time I am stopped by a policeman, I have to show my papers. Drivers license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. And I am white