i am not the creator of the "card" in my original post .... and i give a rats butt if they are true or false but it sure did stimulate my thinking about not only AZ but about our country in general.
I do not like big brother but at somepoint get rid of the ACLU and the cry baby leftist liberal shiteheads and get my country back where it was. If the illegals HAD TO PROVE they belonged here by "showing ZE Papers" that is fine by me. I have nothing to hide and if LEO or an agent wanted to see my birth certificate DL or whatever i would be more than happy to do that long as they do not put a tattoo on my forehead or arm. like germany did yes....
The arguments supporting the AZ law actually hurt that cause for two reasons. (1) They incorrectly buy into the "show me your papers" argument against the law, and (2) the lack of civility reflects poorly on those who support the law and the rational arguments they put forth.
Let me remind everyone that the law does not permit LEOs to demand papers. In order to check the immigration status of a person, first the LEO must have RAS to stop him. Then, only after such a lawful stop, and only if further RAS is developed that the person is an illegal alien may the LEO ask for proof of status. Furthermore, ethnicity or country of origin do not constitute RAS.
The law was very explicit on these items.
The only thing that has really changed is how LEOs react once they know that they have an illegal alien on their hands. Before 1070, unless they had another charge to hold the illegal, they had to just turn him loose. Now, once they have lawfully established that the person they have is illegal, they can hold him and turn him over to ICE.
Once more, I must encourage folks to read 1070 before arguing about it. It's only about 12 pages and is a fairly easy read for a law.
This means that laws may not be simply evaluated on their facial wording, but must be considered in their totality, to see if the historical context and ultimate effect amounts to a violation of equal protection. You cannot say with any honesty that the historical and legislative discussion related to SB1070 was anything less than an attack on Mexican illegal immigration. Additionally, it's rational to look at the situation there and see the ultimate effect of SB1070 would be a disproportionate checking of papers for those of Hispanic descent. If it can be reasoned that the ultimate effect of the law, supported historically and within the basis of surrounding discussion, amounts to the state engaging in discriminatory action, the law must be found invalid to uphold equal protection.We first turn to the opinion of that court in Reitman, which quite properly undertook to examine the constitutionality of 26 in terms of its "immediate objective," its "ultimate effect" and its "historical context and the conditions existing prior to its enactment."
Let me translate that for you:
The law says what the court says it does, not what a plain reading of the law passed by legitimate republican means says it does.
Such judicial activism is putting us on the fast-track to an oligarchy of the wise men in black. I would prefer that we had our Republic back.
Tawnos said: And was largely turned over already in a fairly easy to read opinion. I already tackled the issue of why I thought it was unconstitutional, but I'll quote a specific part of Reitman v. Mulkey:
I'll agree with all of that.
Reitman v. Mulkey or not, If 1070 is unconstitutional, then so is the federal law. 1070 is practically a carbon copy. The only differences I find is the fact that 1070 clearly prohibits racial profiling and the fed doesn't, also 1070 REQUIRES state law enforcement to check immigration status when immigration status is supect and the feds doesn't. Another thing is that the "Hon." Judge Bolton said she was afraid that the law would lead to racial profiling even though it expressly forbids it. WT? If that ain't judicial activism, it don't exist on the planet.