Bloomberg: Guns, Immigration: "'We are committing national suicide"

imported post

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg clearly hates gun owners; we all know that.

But, it seems he loves illegal aliens. See his hypocrisy here:

Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona's anti-immigrant law: 'We are committing national suicide'

"This is not good for the country. I don't agree with it," he said. "We love immigrants here."

"This country is committing national suicide," Bloomberg said.

The Arizona law allows cops to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can't prove their immigration status or citizenship.

Bloomberg deemed it an invitation to harassment.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

The Arizona law allows cops to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can't prove their immigration status or citizenship.

Click to expand...

Let's change the wording a little here, and see how y'all feel about this law if it were to be applied more broadly:

The Arizona law allows cops to stop anyone they think is carrying a firearm illegally and arrest folks who can't prove they are not a prohibited person.

Click to expand...

Now how do you feel about this sort of vague, overarching law that broadens police authority based on the subjective perceptions of officers in the field?...

Don't get me wrong--I'm all for clamping down on illegal immigration. But giving the police the authority to detain, question, and potentially arrest people based on the condition that a cop "doesn't like the way you look" is a VERY dangerous precedent to set, and WILL lead to abuses and civil rights violations with regards to ALL sorts of otherwise legal activities.

This is what the whole "color of law" thing is about. When an LEO can use his own interpretation of some vague, broadly-defined law to impose his personal ideas and opinions on the Citizenry, it ceases to be "law enforcement" and steps into the realm of "color of law harassment"...

Will Massachusetts pass a similar law if this AZ law stands? There are more illegal Irish imigrants in MA now that there were in the 1800's. Where will that put people like me? I'm of Irish decent. I occasionally wear t-shirts with celtic-themed designs. If I visit MA, does wearing a shamrock pin on my hat now qualify me to be a "suspected illegal"?

I legally OC all the time in NC, VA, PA and WV. If this AZ law stands, will other states use this precedent to bully OCers, under color of law, to stop OCing, through increased stops, detentions, and requiring IDs and paperwork? After all, criminals carry guns, so what's to say that ANYONE with a gun might not be a criminal? See where this might go?

This AZ law sets a VERY dangerous precedent, and is practically custom-designed for abuse under color of law.

Anyone who values liberty and a "rule of law" should oppose this law.

There are PLENTy of other laws ALREADY on the books that deal with illegal immigration. The problem will NOT be solved with more laws. It will ONLY be solved by enforcing the laws already in existance--which the Federal government (and many states) seem hesitant to do.

If they were as strict and diligent with immigration law as they are with firearms law or tax law, illegal immigration wouldn't be much of an issue at all...

I would NEVER stand on the same side of ANY legal argument with Bloomberg, but on this one, he may actually be right. The fact that he is right for all the wrong reasons doesn't matter--this law WILL lead to abuse, and it will end up costing AZ a LOT of money when they detain, harass, and arrest a legal US citizen because some LEO didn't like the way he looked. This AZ law is a big fat Federal Civil Rights Violation lawsuit waiting to happen, and eventually, they are going to arrest some professional baseball player of El Salvadoran descent, or some Hispanic investment banker, or some well-connected activist from La Raza or MEChA--someone with the time, pride, attitude, and money to sue their sorry asses--and AZ will end up writing a HUMONGOUS check.

Mark my words...

imported post

That's exactly how you illustrate Blomberg's hypocrisy: swap words.

Replace immigrant with gun owner, for example:

"This is not good for the country. I don't agree with it," he said. "We love gun owners here."

Now, he would never say that, so he is a hypocrite.

Besides, he's all for harassment of gun dealers and gun owners.

imported post

Once again, I have to repeat this:

The new law in Arizona does not allow LEOs "to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can't prove their immigration status or citizenship."

1. They can only stop and detain someone if they have RAS that the person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. The "R" in RAS is reasonable.

2. They can only ask for documents proving that the person stopped is here legally if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

No court in the land would define as reasonable suspicion the fact that the detainee had brown skin and spoke with an accent.

It is just plain deception to indicate that the law says anything other than it does.

Please, folks read the law. Don't just take the word of others for what it says. Not even me.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Once again, I have to repeat this:

The new law in Arizona does not allow LEOs "to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can't prove their immigration status or citizenship."

1. They can only stop and detain someone if they have RAS that the person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. The "R" in RAS is reasonable.

2. They can only ask for documents proving that the person stopped is here legally if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

No court in the land would define as reasonable suspicion the fact that the detainee had brown skin and spoke with an accent.

It is just plain deception to indicate that the law says anything other than it does.

Please, folks read the law. Don't just take the word of others for what it says. Not even me.

Click to expand...

Correct. I have read the version signed into law by the Governor.

The key phrase is Legal Contact. It will be interesting to see how the law -- and the lawsuits -- play out.

Other states, like Texas, may follow suit.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Once again, I have to repeat this:

The new law in Arizona does not allow LEOs "to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can't prove their immigration status or citizenship."

1. They can only stop and detain someone if they have RAS that the person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. The "R" in RAS is reasonable.

2. They can only ask for documents proving that the person stopped is here legally if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

No court in the land would define as reasonable suspicion the fact that the detainee had brown skin and spoke with an accent.

It is just plain deception to indicate that the law says anything other than it does.

Please, folks read the law. Don't just take the word of others for what it says. Not even me.

Click to expand...

+1, I can't stand people that don't read the dam laws.

imported post

Most states (if not all) require thatUS citizenspresent a birth certificate to get our drivers licenses, right? And I believe that immigrants must provide documentation (passport/visa/greencard) that they are here legally in order to acquire a state drivers license, right? No BC/documentation - no DL

What is the first thing that a LEO ask for when ever they pull anyone over in a traffic stop? "I need to see your drivers license and registration, please." If the driver doesn't have a DL he/she is in violation of driving a motor vehicle without a DL. If the driver happens to have an accent the LEO has RAS to investigate the drivers legal citizenship/immigration status.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Most states (if not all) require thatUS citizenspresent a birth certificate to get our drivers licenses, right? And I believe that immigrants must provide documentation (passport/visa/greencard) that they are here legally in order to acquire a state drivers license, right? No BC/documentation - no DL

What is the first thing that a LEO ask for when ever they pull anyone over in a traffic stop? "I need to see your drivers license and registration, please." If the driver doesn't have a DL he/she is in violation of driving a motor vehicle without a DL. If the driver happens to have an accent the LEO has RAS to investigate the drivers legal citizenship/immigration status.

Click to expand...

Do you have any court rulings saying that no DL + accent = RAS?

If there is such a ruling (and I cannot imagine there is), then the ability of LEOs to do this pre-existed the AZ law.

The AZ law in no way changed the ability of a LEO to say "Papers, please."

RAS was needed before. RAS is now needed. RAS for the stop and RAS to ask for proof of the right or privilege to be in the US.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Most states (if not all) require thatUS citizenspresent a birth certificate to get our drivers licenses, right? And I believe that immigrants must provide documentation (passport/visa/greencard) that they are here legally in order to acquire a state drivers license, right? No BC/documentation - no DL

What is the first thing that a LEO ask for when ever they pull anyone over in a traffic stop? "I need to see your drivers license and registration, please." If the driver doesn't have a DL he/she is in violation of driving a motor vehicle without a DL. If the driver happens to have an accent the LEO has RAS to investigate the drivers legal citizenship/immigration status.

Click to expand...

Do you have any court rulings saying that no DL + accent = RAS?

If there is such a ruling (and I cannot imagine there is), then the ability of LEOs to do this pre-existed the AZ law.

The AZ law in no way changed the ability of a LEO to say "Papers, please."

RAS was needed before. RAS is now needed. RAS for the stop and RAS to ask for proof of the right or privilege to be in the US.

Click to expand...

I was going on reasonable common sense. If a LEO pulls over someone that has a heavy foreign accent or appears to not speek any english at all, it should be a safe bet that the driver might not be a US citizen. If the driver also doesn't have a DL, it's quite possible that they are not in this country legally. RAS (REASONABLE Articulable Suspicion) seems to come into play in this example.

Now I think we've all jumped into our cars and made a quick trip to the market, and forgot our wallets (w/DL ) before. A foreign visiter or legal alien could do the same thing. I beleive that the cops will allow reasonable oppertunity for someone to produce documentation to prove that they are here legally. It's not like they're going to take someone straight to an airport and send them back to their home country just because they don't have a DL or their docs on them.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona's anti-immigrant law: 'We are committing national suicide'

"This is not good for the country. I don't agree with it," he said. "We love immigrants here."

Click to expand...

AZ legislature should charter buses and begin dumping the illegals in NYC and San Fransisco. Then see how they feel in a few years or so.....

imported post

ecocks wrote:

Repeater wrote:

Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona's anti-immigrant law: 'We are committing national suicide'

"This is not good for the country. I don't agree with it," he said. "We love immigrants here."

Click to expand...

AZ legislature should charter buses and begin dumping the illegals in NYC and San Fransisco. Then see how they feel in a few years or so.....

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Bloomberg should be at the top of the list of gun rights enemies.

Actually, he should be in federal prison for violating federal law for his little undercover gun buy program that was so clearly illegal.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

Repeater wrote:

Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona's anti-immigrant law: 'We are committing national suicide'

"This is not good for the country. I don't agree with it," he said. "We love immigrants here."

Click to expand...

AZ legislature should charter buses and begin dumping the illegals in NYC and San Fransisco. Then see how they feel in a few years or so.....

Click to expand...

+1 Totally agree!

Just wish Texas politicians had the guts and the morals to pass the same law here.

imported post

Even fox news won't report the fact that the AZ law provides clearer protections against officer abuse than most laws I can think of.

They say its racist, they say its mean, and yet, the way the law is written so clearly, those Illegal Aliens now have more protection under the law than the average citizen.

I cannot think of another law where RAS is not enough. The AZ law is the first to saw RAS is not enough. It adds the stipulation that they must already be under Legal Contact before they may act on RAS.

Ladies and Gentlemen, they are bitching because they have more protection than any citizen, permanent resident, green card or visa holder.

Yes, the only law ever directed at illegal aliens provides more civil liberties protection than those of us here legally.

I'm typically against how America treats non-citizens. Some people say they aren't citizens so they aren't covered under the bill of rights / constitution. Remember those documents were written to ACKNOWLEDGE PRE-EXISTING BIRTH-RIGHTS. Every human has those rights.

So I was very happy to see how the AZ law was handled and written. I'm just not sure the 'legal contact' is necessary. (Although I understand why it's there.)

It's Kinda like OC. Officers get RAS wrong on that occasionally and the Judge puts the smack-down on the cop, then we sue for 300,000 dollars and they retrain all the cops, repeat as necessary.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Most states (if not all) require thatUS citizenspresent a birth certificate to get our drivers licenses, right? And I believe that immigrants must provide documentation (passport/visa/greencard) that they are here legally in order to acquire a state drivers license, right? No BC/documentation - no DL

What is the first thing that a LEO ask for when ever they pull anyone over in a traffic stop? "I need to see your drivers license and registration, please." If the driver doesn't have a DL he/she is in violation of driving a motor vehicle without a DL. If the driver happens to have an accent the LEO has RAS to investigate the drivers legal citizenship/immigration status.

Click to expand...

There is a reason AZ has the highest rate of Identity Theft in the country. Just because someone has a DL doesn't mean they are legal.
If you're a cop and you just stopped a van where 15 people jumped out and ran, and the driver, who is obviously of Latin American decent, gives you a drivers license with his picture and the name "Frank Giordano" are you not going to investigate further?

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

Even fox news won't report the fact that the AZ law provides clearer protections against officer abuse than most laws I can think of.

They say its racist, they say its mean, and yet, the way the law is written so clearly, those Illegal Aliens now have more protection under the law than the average citizen.

I cannot think of another law where RAS is not enough. The AZ law is the first to saw RAS is not enough. It adds the stipulation that they must already be under Legal Contact before they may act on RAS.

Ladies and Gentlemen, they are bitching because they have more protection than any citizen, permanent resident, green card or visa holder.

Yes, the only law ever directed at illegal aliens provides more civil liberties protection than those of us here legally.

I'm typically against how America treats non-citizens. Some people say they aren't citizens so they aren't covered under the bill of rights / constitution. Remember those documents were written to ACKNOWLEDGE PRE-EXISTING BIRTH-RIGHTS. Every human has those rights.

So I was very happy to see how the AZ law was handled and written. I'm just not sure the 'legal contact' is necessary. (Although I understand why it's there.)

It's Kinda like OC. Officers get RAS wrong on that occasionally and the Judge puts the smack-down on the cop, then we sue for 300,000 dollars and they retrain all the cops, repeat as necessary.

Click to expand...

Well said.

imported post

From what I understand is that the immigrants here on a work permit , must simply carry that paper work with them all the time, atleast while they are in the country.

Kinda like I need to have my driver's license with me IF I'm operating a motor vehicle. If them being here requires a permit or license, then they should have that permit with them while in the USA.

imported post

I too have read the law, and it's still the R in RAS that has to be followed.

As far as the politicians go, Colorado's own Jared Polis has likened the bill to the Jews in WWII that had to carry their paperwork with them at all times....what an idiot.

What I can tell you is that before I became a US Citizen a few years back, I was a permanent resident from Canada....I had to carry my 'Green Card' with me AT ALL TIMES....it was the rules.

imported post

Do you mean the illegally-elected Lord High Mayor?

The one who bribed/coerced the government of Bermuda to allow his bodyguards to carry guns, while Bermuda's law-abiding (unlike Bloomers) citizens cannot?

Who cares what he says?

imported post

I find it interesting that in some States, e.g. TEXAS, one must show CHL ID when approached by LE even if they are not requested to do so, but the folks who oppose immigrants having to showing ID couldn't care less about my rights as a free citizen... I am tempted to get a shirt that has a "Do I look Armed?" slogan to protest the "Do I look illegal?" shirts....