Thread: Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema

Very well said NoBueno !

I received a speeding ticket recently and when the officer came to my truck window he already knew who owned the truck & where I lived. I was amazed.

I had to produce my drivers license and proof of insurance and pay a huge fine plus take a driving course.I gulped hard but I thanked the officer for protecting us even from my own mistake ( speeding).

Does IA supporters only expect Citizens to respect and abide by our laws ? I think so and citizens are tired of IA's being given special privileges while demanding either certain laws they think will help them be upheld or changed so they can continue their lawlessnss in OUR country.

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???

I am not a lawyer or anything, but I would like to engage in an intellectual conversation over this subject.

Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?

I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?

Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.

Looking forward to your responses.

Correct! Of course US immigration law is constitutional, so is the AZ law that allows local and state police officers to enforce it. No one's rights are being violated by enforcing US immigration law, whether the laws are enforced by Border Patrol Agents, ICE officers, Sheriffs, State Police or Municipal Police Officers.

Racial profiling is illegal in the United States and is specifically prohibited by the AZ immigration law.

The terms "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" mean exactly what they mean when state and local police officers enforce any law of our country.

What rights under the 14th Amendment are violated by enforcing US immigration law?!!!

14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

sorry about the ticket USPatriot but you did what most ( not all)Americans are raised to do and that is take 'personal responsibilty' for our actions...something that seems to be disapearing in this country.

But ahhhh, they had the nerve to ask you for ID

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

sorry about the ticket USPatriot but you did what most ( not all)Americans are raised to do and that is take 'personal responsibilty' for our actions...something that seems to be disapearing in this country.

But ahhhh, they had the nerve to ask you for ID

Yes it was not easy but the Officer was right and if we stop and think how unsafe our streets would be if we were not held accountable and obey speeding laws everyone would agree we need our laws enforced.

I am furious with the IA's and their enablers who call checking ID's "Racial Profiling" when infact we all have to prove who we are on a regular bases.

Citizens are catching on to their game though and are turning against the pro-IA's once citizens realize they have been duped into believing the racial profiling lie.

It is a real slap in the face to our Police Force to accuse them ALL of racial profiling while walking a tightrope to protect us and enforce our laws without being sued for doing the job we have asked them to do.

Ditto USpatriot...well said!

But if a LEO is patrolling a neighborhood as one of his duties and sees a group of kids smoking cigarettes, or adults loitering, it would also be lawful contact for him to approach them.

Of course it would. Police already had the legal authority to approach individuals under such facts prior to 1070. Why does this bother you? If people are breaking the law, then what's the problem? You use the term kids, so I will assume you mean a minor under the age of 18, which as far as I know, is against the law to be consuming tobacco.

You do understand that police are sworn to uphold the law. Right?

Adults loitering? Yes...loitering is against the law. Why are you opposed to police doing their job? Are you afraid that an illegal invader might be identified and deported?

The definition is washy.

No, the definition is quite clear, Those who are breaking the law will be the targeted. If they happen to be illegal, then too bad for them.

Okay lets take a different approach. The intent of the bill is to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity.

How are those problems going to be addressed with this bill?

Why do we need to take a different approach? This intent of this law is to arrest and deport those who have no legal right to be in this country and who are caught violating the law of Arizona. Your attempts to muddy the waters will not change this.

I urge you to really consider the reality and implications of such a bill and its effect on the communities and people.

I have considered the reality, as well as the implications of this bill and it's effect on the community and people. This is why I support it, as do the majority of Americans!

Have you considered the implications of not passing this bill? When is enough enough ?

I have no concern in respect to the impact this bill might have on those who have entered this country in violation of our immigration laws.

Do you?

What do I need to consider? Let me know when the first American citizen is deported under 1070. Then we can have this discussion.

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

So am I to understand that you feel that the law is constitutional and therefore no rights are being violated???
I am not a lawyer or anything, but I would like to engage in an intellectual conversation over this subject.
Do you not feel that this will encourage racial profiling?
I mean, what do the terms "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" really mean? And how will they be applied?
Pretty sure the 14th amendment is going to be violated amongst many other rights of citizens and noncitizens.
Looking forward to your responses.

the law is constitutional since its been a federal law since 1940 that everyone is supposed to have ID. and legal immigrants can be asked for their green cards and other ID.

the law strictly forbids racial profiling and can find said peace officers if they are found guilty of profiling.

The law says that a peace officer in the line of duty can question citizenship if they have "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" means when stopped for a moving violation or arrested for committing a crime.

if i didnt know better, i would say not only are yoiu against the law, but you probably have not read the bill

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

No Bueno and Judy

Thank you for your responses but I must ask, really?

Lawful contact- essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties.

I believe the intent for this means that yes, if you get pulled over going 55 in a 45mph, that is lawful contact.

But if a LEO is patrolling a neighborhood as one of his duties and sees a group of kids smoking cigarettes, or adults loitering, it would also be lawful contact for him to approach them.

The definition is washy.

Even if it weren't, imagine what's going on in Arizona right now.

How can you possibly think that this bill will not lead to racial profiling?

...Okay lets take a different approach. The intent of the bill is to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity.

How are those problems going to be addressed with this bill?

I urge you to really consider the reality and implications of such a bill and its effect on the communities and people.

How would you suggest we enforce our immigration laws? what actions would you approve of to solve the problem? How would you go about finding out who is here legally and who is here illegally?

With out laws we are not a sovereign nation, with out law and order we are a nation of chaos and anarchy, no better than any 3rd world country.

Open border lobbyist have no answers because they do not want any laws enforced they want free movement of goods and people...imagine 2 billion people trekking through our country at will, even China could not imagine it. Think it is hard to find a job now, ha! just wait, think 55 cents an hour like China could not happen with over population here.

Does anyone believe they are going to be willing to enforce the laws after another amnesty? I don't think so..it has to stop and it has to stop now.

Common sense tells us the Feds can not handle this on their own, they do not have the man power, it is impossible with out the help of state and local police, so if a few people are inconvienced, so be it.....I am more than willing to show my ID and anyone here on a visa or green card must carry it at all times, I'm sure another law OBL don't like, well too bad.

Originally Posted by Pagliacci

No Bueno and Judy

Thank you for your responses but I must ask, really?

Lawful contact- essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties.

I believe the intent for this means that yes, if you get pulled over going 55 in a 45mph, that is lawful contact.

But if a LEO is patrolling a neighborhood as one of his duties and sees a group of kids smoking cigarettes, or adults loitering, it would also be lawful contact for him to approach them.

The definition is washy.

Even if it weren't, imagine what's going on in Arizona right now.

How can you possibly think that this bill will not lead to racial profiling?

...Okay lets take a different approach. The intent of the bill is to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity.

How are those problems going to be addressed with this bill?

I urge you to really consider the reality and implications of such a bill and its effect on the communities and people.

If children are smoking under age, they're breaking the law, so any contact with them at that point would be lawful contact. As to "loitering", well, that would depend if the "loitering" were lawful. If they're "loitering" in the alley behind a bank and their buddy is trying to pick the lock, then that would be lawful police contact and reasonable suspiion as well.

There's nothing about this law that changes the definitions of lawful contact, reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and if something happens and "leads to racial profiling", until it exceeds the racial profiling in the War on Drugs, where blacks are targeted, profiled, arrested and incarcerated 7 times more than whites, when there are 7 times more whites than blacks and blacks and whites use drugs at the same rates, please spare me your concerns that enforcement of our laws might "lead to racial profiling".

Finally, the purpose of the AZ immigration law is not just to deal with human trafficking, drug trade and other criminal activity. The purpose of the AZ immigration law is to enforce US immigration law and rid Arizona of illegal aloens, the same purpose of US immigration law which is to rid the United States of illegal aliens, without bias, prejudice, or exception.

As to "imagine what is going on in Arizona now" ... I would hope illegal aliens are gathering, packing, gassing up their vehicles or buying plane or bus tickets and departing our country.

Well Well, did a google on Arpaio-Sinema debate.
Look at what is shown as the SECOND LINK


Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Arpaio debate the immigration bill
Apr 21, 2010 ... PHXATED'S MOST ACTIVE. The Arpaio Follies · Republic Watch ... Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Arpaio debate the immigration bill. Post a comment ...
phxated.com/.../kyrsten-sinema-and-joe-arpaio-debate-the-immigration-bill/ - Cached

ALIPAC Forums-viewtopic-Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio ...
5 posts - 4 authors - Last post: Apr 22
Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema CNN's American Morning with Kiran Chetry and John Roberts (April 21, 2010). ...
www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&f ... wtopic&t... - Cached
Get more discussion results

KTAR.com - Debate rages over Arizona immigration bill
Apr 21, 2010 ... Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a staunch supporter of the bill, and State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, a staunch opponent, debated ...
ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1285454 - Cached

News of Sheriff Joe Arpaio - Topix
20 posts - 4 authors - Last post: May 1
Arizona's SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio debates Kyrsten Sinema CNN's American Morning with Kiran Chetry and John Roberts (April 21, 2010). ...
www.topix.com/forum/news/immigration/.../p7 - Cached
Get more discussion results

CNN.com - Transcripts
Apr 21, 2010 ... It stirs a national debate over racial profiling. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and state lawmaker Krysten Sinema debate the issue coming up on the ...
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/21/ltm.03.html - Cached