A better tale of two protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cerise said:
Please indicate the language in SB1070 you can use to back up your statement.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's right in there. Any "lawful contact". No offense needed.

Here's the language from your text "B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY".
 
The constitutional problem arises because, as a practical matter, "reasonable suspicion" will never arise towards anyone who isn't a Latino.
 
spike said:
Sure, it's right in there. Any "lawful contact". No offense needed.

Here's the language from your text "B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY".
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

"LAWFUL CONTACT" in the context of that bill, as well as in the fed. law, is limited by NOT using RACE as a reason to approach a person. The bill says it loud and clear. Read it again.

The section you are citing speaks to the point that after reasonable suspicion is established that an attempt can be made to determine the immigration status. "Reasonable suspicion" cannot be the color of a person's skin, or the language they speak.

Using race to check immigration status would be "UNLAWFUL CONTACT."

But just for shits and giggles, where does that bill describe "Lawful Contact" as allowing contact based on race?? You seem to think it does, or you wouldn't have said it.
 
MrBishop said:
The constitutional problem arises because, as a practical matter, "reasonable suspicion" will never arise towards anyone who isn't a Latino.
Click to expand...
THIS^ is what liberals actually believe.

Since mezzicans represent the largest % of illegals there will certainly be more of them caught. How is that racist, that's demographics of the area ....and the problem. How does this surprise anyone?
 
Cerise said:
But just for shits and giggles, where does that bill describe "Lawful Contact" as allowing contact based on race?? You seem to think it does, or you wouldn't have said it.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said it allowed it based on race. That was not what we were talking about. I said "no offense needed".

You were wrong.
 
spike said:
Please point out where I said it allowed it based on race. That was not what we were talking about. I said "no offense needed".

You were wrong.
Click to expand...
Good then we all agree the law is equitable, equal protection for all races. It does however require some degree of suspicion, the long recognized gold standard of police work.

Really, you would make a better argument if you just typed with your face. --- Just a suggestion.
 
spike said:
Equally fascist. My point has always been about freedom.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just like renting a bicycle at the beach, fucking fascist. 40+ states already require you to carry ID. Seems that national ID is part of the new immigration bill. <<fucking democrat fascist.


spike said:
Are you just trying childish trolling to make up for a lack of ability to debate this issue?
Click to expand...
No really, it will help. You are lacking quite a bit at this point.

1272484786100.jpg
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Yeah, just like renting a bicycle at the beach, fucking fascist. 40+ states already require you to carry ID.
Click to expand...

Proof?

Seems that national ID is part of the new immigration bill. <<fucking democrat fascist.
Click to expand...

That is not something you would be required to carry whenever you leave the house.


No really, it will help. You are lacking quite a bit at this point.
Click to expand...

It would only help you since you keep being proven wrong repeatedly the way I'm typing now.

But keep up the trolling. It only makes you look weaker.
 
Do you know why retarded people always look happy? -- because they are happy.

Have another happy day. I have better things to do right now.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Do you know why retarded people always look happy? -- because they are happy.
Click to expand...

I've seen some that definitely did not look happy. What does this have to do with immigration? Some sort of attempt to change the subject since what you're saying on the immigration law isn't working out well for you?
 
But the "lawful contact" doesn't mean any contact based on race......Please highlight where in the law you believe it does.
 
Cerise said:
But the "lawful contact" doesn't mean any contact based on race......Please highlight where in the law you believe it does.
Click to expand...

Cerise, where did I say based on race? I simply showed that you were wrong that there was an offense needed.
 
Uhhh....I don't think so. You still can't back up what you say with a LINK.

BTW....what is your definition of "Lawful Contact" with regards to this AZ bill?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top