Forty Protesters Downtown Are Trying to Be Arrested to Draw Support for Immigration Reform

Comments

1
yes you can what?
2
"Gonzalez explains that with Arizona's new racial profiling law, which gives law enforcement the authority to stop anyone and request to see their immigration papers. "

This is not a sentence.

Also it is factually incorrect.

You Stupid Lying Cunt.
3
@2 - Classy
4
Yes, you can miss the point entirely through wilfull (or just regular 'ol) ignorance
5
One-thousand deportations a day sounds like a good first step toward immigration reform.....
6
13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bi…
7
2 Gracias!
8
7 was @3
9
Where is your "Everybody draws Muhammed Day" entry? I had mine publish at I PM exactly
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/0…
10
@9
Please try to keep your comments respectful and on topic.
You Stupid Cunt.
11
*sigh* ...
12
The caveat is that *criminal* deportations under Obama have seen the biggest increase. Are they losing any sleep over that? I'm not. In my mind, sound immigration policy means that if someone enters this country illegally and commmits crimes, they need to leave. There is no reason why we should tolerate that.

I'm kind of disappointed that these folks are treating "deportation" like its a four-letter word. It's not, and even after we do get comprehensive reform, we are still going to be deporting illegal residents. Getting hysterical about deportation obscures focus on other needed aspects of reform.
13
Ha ha! Nothing makes me laff harder than retardedly earnest white fat college lesbian "activists" getting arrested! Please get arrested more! Move to a Latino or black-majority city or country while you are at it you embarrasingly naive whiteys. You are in for a terrible wake-up call in the fast-approaching future.
14
@8 It's okay. We all know everyone makes mistakes!
15
Cienna has consistently misrepresented the law in Arizona. I fully believe she thinks the AZ police have the right to walk up to anyone and ask them for proof of citizenship. I also imagine she thinks an AZDL won't provide sufficient evidence. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Police have to come into legal contact with all individuals before asking about immigration status, the law specifically forbids racial profiling, and an AZDL ends all immigration conversation. None of that is very sensational so I understand why she has to fabricate.

When it comes down to it: just bad reporting.
16
Good thing they don't know it's Opening Night at SIFF and there will be media coverage at Benaroya Hall ...

Wake me up when the cops arrest some employers.
17
@5 - I agree, but don't you think deporting 1000 CEOs and COOs a day might shut down American businesses that hire illegal workers?
18
I think the link Baconcat gave was incorrect as it was only the Senate Bill, not the final law. I believe the proper link for the law is this: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?…

It appears that JF is right on the facts. The law specifically states that,

"A law enforcement official or agency of this state …. may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."

It is a bit disingenuous to say it is a "racial profiling" law since it incorporates the US Constitution, as interpreted by the US supreme Court prohibition of racial profiling.

Not to say an officer can't push the envelope or that there are other concerning aspects of the law (what is "contact" or the presumption of citizenship for those that possess a drivers license), but technically, this law comports with current racial profiling prohibitions.

19
#15: Are you insane? Everyone understands the law. It is very sensational. I'm quite sure you'd feel the same way if you were in the situation where if you had any contact with the police, you would be charged with a crime, torn away from your job, friends, family, and property, and deported.
20
Those fat chicks look tough to even lift let alone arrest.

LMAO, it's tough being a spoiled white kid these days, you can't get arrested at a Critical Masshole ride and now you can't get arrested at a protest!

What's a kid gonna do with their Evergreen State degree? It's not like it's good for anything else. Post on Slog all day like Will?

BTW I love illegals, they do a great job cutting my grass, work hard and work cheap. Fuck our AMerican bums, let's send THEM back to Mexico. Of course, like these protestors, I live in lilly white Seattle so there's no worries illegals can afford to live in my neighborhood.
21
@19 All that may be true but what you are saying differs from what Cienna is saying. I said Cienna is misreporting the law. If she wanted to take the angle you describe, she'd at least have some kind of point but it would be a very dull one. You're trying to make me feel sympathy for criminals/law breakers/illegals/people who took the easy way (whatever you want to describe individuals who are breaking our countries laws) and I just won't do it. I do not care about people who do not respect how we do things.

And Will @17 is dead on. We need to start punishing employers for creating this incentive. It shocks me that we allow people to employ illegals on a daily basis. I hate the fact that we have a country full of greedy consumers who aren't willing to pay the fair market value for our countries products. There is a lot of blame to go around for this mess but I'm not going to sit here and worry about the emotions of individuals who are contributing to the problem.
22
@18, it's been revised since then. Here's the most recent version I found: http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB…

"Lawful contact" was so broad and open to overzealous interpretation that it was changed to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." However, wording was added making it acceptable to check the status of people in violation of town ordinances, so in some places having tall grass would be sufficient reason to demand someone's proof of citizenship.

Also, "solely" has been removed. It now reads "may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
23
@18: Given the clause I posted that existed in the original Senate version, I think it's disingenuous to say they weren't fishing for an easy way around "lawful contact" and federal law. More than that, just because a prohibition against racial profiling exists, there's no way to enforce it, period.

But I'm sure the AZ legislature appreciates your faith in their intent.
24
@23 You're 100% correct, there is no way to enforce it. As with all laws the people will have to trust that those who enforce the law will do so legally. One of the pillars of our judicial system is legal enforcement of our laws. AZ police already carry guns, administer first aide, respond to dangerous situations and perform a host of other duties. If the citizens of AZ trust them to perform those tasks lawfully, which are of VERY high responsibility, they should be able to trust them in this area as well.

(and yes, I am completely aware that there are bad cops - it doesn't make what I'm saying any less true).
25
@2

"Gonzalez explains that with Arizona's new racial profiling law—which gives law enforcement the authority to stop anyone and request to see their immigration papers and other states considering similar legislation—creates a pressing need for federal immigration reform."

This is still not a grammatically correct sentence.

And it is still factually incorrect.

YOU FUCKING STUPID LYING CUNT.