[quote]Arizona lawmakers have tweaked the state's tough immigration law in a move officials said was intended to rebut claims the bill will lead to racia..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Amendment to Arizona law

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Saturday, May 1, 2010 08:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 281
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, May 1, 2010 8:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Arizona lawmakers have tweaked the state's tough immigration law in a move officials said was intended to rebut claims the bill will lead to racial profiling.

The controversial immigration law approved by Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer last week has drawn a storm of protest from civil rights activists who claim it will open the door to racial profiling in the southwestern border state.

Supporters of the law have repeatedly insisted that the measure expressly forbids racial profiling but said Friday that amendments made by lawmakers late Thursday had clarified the issue.

The initial law signed by Brewer last week said police were required to determine someone's immigration status if they formed a "reasonable suspicion" during any "lawful contact" with an individual.

That passage has now been changed from "lawful contact" to "stop, detain or arrest."

Another passage that read that law enforcement officers were prevented from "solely" using race as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country illegally has been changed to remove the word "solely."

"Just because the legislation says that racial profiling is not allowed, it does not make it so," American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona legal director Dan Pochoda told AFP.

"The fact that there is some prohibition on paper does not guarantee a change in results. We already know that some law enforcement in Arizona are already using racial profiling as their tactic of choice."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100501/ts_alt_afp/usimmigrationarizonala
w_20100501011124
Quote:


Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The change from the "contact" wording doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/28/national/a
150736D30.DTL


Ergo, any questioning can be done after violation of local civil ordinances. "Civil ordinances" covers a lot of things, including violations of City parking ordinances, zoning, neighborhood preservation ordinances, use of and discharge of
firearms, keeping of dogs, possession of open containers of alcoholic beverages, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, noise, disturbances, nuisances, trespasses, other nuisance behaviors, storm water detention and retention, grass swales,
buffer strips, and tons more.

They "allow the City to have the ability to access private property for the purpose of enforcement procedures to promote compliance".

Many excuses can be found for civil ordinances...essentially any city or county can create a civil ordinance, and those become part of the reasons police and/or city officials can come on a person's property or accost a person, thereby allowing for the requirement of showing citizenship papers.

My question is: Why, if it has nothing to do with race, do the Tea Partiers, SO inflamed by government incursion on their civil rights and freedoms, remain silent? The point has been proposed (and refuted) that illegal immigrants from the South are treated differently than others. If the Tea Partiers have no problem with accosting citizens on the chance they might be illegal, give me VALID reasons why they are not up in arms about this law as much as they are about "government interference"?


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL