Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
From my understanding this is untrue. In Arizona they would only ask if they were stopped for something else.
Let's go back to the bill shall we?
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN
What is lawful contact? Is it clearly defined? Because from what I understand, lawful contact would merely be a police officer approaching a person
out of "concern" for them.
It's silly to argue that this law merely gave police officers the power to do a backround check on individuals charged with something else, they
were already doing this for some time now.
Watch an episode of cops sometime, feel free to do so on the episodes before
officers were already doing backround checks on suspected criminals and obviously if they were illegally here it'd pop up. We did not need the Arizona
law to make it possible for police officers to do so, and obviously the Arizona law was not for that purpose, otherwise it'd further prove that is was
a useless waste of tax payer money.
Not in your home, but more in public and in your car.
Where does it say this in the bill? If you read it, it clearly leaves out limitations to where police officers could approach a person they were
"suspicious" of. Let's not forget as well, not everybody owns a house in this country. Some people live in houses or apartments and don't own it. This
law leaves it open for police officers to harass people in their own homes. It made no clear limitation to where police officers could approach an
individual. It is of little difference to what the OP is rallying against.
it sucks for Arizona that they were left in a position to have to defend a border that the Federal Government is responsible for.
Arizona had decades to sort out their border fence, instead they decided to leave it to this very moment, right before to 2010 midterm elections
conveniently. I've seen the border fence in california with Mexico, it is pathetic, there are parts falling off, it looks like something made out of
junk. It's a joke, but it's been like this for decades. And if you believe this is all the federal government, your playing into the games of state
republican politicians, because for years they were too busy spending time on terrorism and abortion.
You want to sort out illegal immigration in this country? Fine. Go after both
state and federal governments over their inaction over the border
fence, go after the businesses that continue on hiring the illegals (hence the reason why they come here). Don't go after american citizens who pay
their taxes, who are rightfully here, and those who have the right to be left alone in their homes. Don't go harrassing american citizens merely
because they look out of place, that is not going to solve the problem. You create a society of division that way.
Maybe they didn't come up with the best solution...but at least they tried.
An invasive law on privacy is not what I consider "trying", it is a pathetic political ploy to garner votes from very angry and misguided americans.
"Trying" would be to push for me enforcement on businesses that break the law, trying would be on calling the governments out on this border fence.
Trying would be rallying for troops to be based on the borders.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)