timmyfitz 0 #151 May 17, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote $10B? That is it? when we are spending $3,500B+ in the 2009 federal budget? 0.28% of the federal budget? Ok then you are right, they cost us $10B/year. But I rest my case. Given what we go through in this country every year on everything else, this money is not even worth chasing down. So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws". Gottcha. You assume those numbers are correct. Incorrect. I made no assumption about the numbers. My comment was only direct at this statement. Of course you did, or you woudn't have needed your qualifier. Pathetic. Nothing new. Lame weaseling. If his (disputed) numbers had been 100x higher, or showed a profit for the US, you wouldn't have written the same thing at all. Yes I would have written the same thing. The cost should not be a factor in the decision as to whether a law is enforced or not. I'm sorry your over inflated ego can't see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #152 May 17, 2010 It is being reported today that CA is feeling the pinch for thier own stupidity From the Fox articel Quote "I've been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancelations from Arizona guests," Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association, told the newspaper. Roughly 2 million Arizonans visit San Diego each year but the recession has taken a toll on the hotel industry that was hoping for a comeback this year. Hotels are offering deep discounts to fill up their undersold rooms while the tourism board spends $7 million this spring and summer season to promote travel to the area. Several councils in large cities like Los Angeles, Austin, Boston and San Francisco have approved boycotts on employee travel or future contracts with Arizona businesses as a result of the law that goes into effect on July 1. The state tourism bureau has said the losses so far have reached nearly $10 million as a result of 23 canceled meetings. These CA libs are looking more stupid by the dayGotta admit though I am not sure which state is loosing the money as this seems written kind of ambiguous to me. How do some of you all read it?? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/17/san-diego-faces-medicine-arizona-residents-cancel-travel-following-boycott/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,142 #153 May 17, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote $10B? That is it? when we are spending $3,500B+ in the 2009 federal budget? 0.28% of the federal budget? Ok then you are right, they cost us $10B/year. But I rest my case. Given what we go through in this country every year on everything else, this money is not even worth chasing down. So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws". Gottcha. You assume those numbers are correct. Incorrect. I made no assumption about the numbers. My comment was only direct at this statement. Of course you did, or you woudn't have needed your qualifier. Pathetic. Nothing new. Lame weaseling. If his (disputed) numbers had been 100x higher, or showed a profit for the US, you wouldn't have written the same thing at all. Yes I would have written the same thing. The cost should not be a factor in the decision as to whether a law is enforced or not. I'm sorry your over inflated ego can't see that. Nonsense. If the cost had been $1 TRILLION per year instead of $3.5B, you certainly wouldn't have written "So this is 'it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws'" unless you were totally clueless about the size of the budget (of course, you may well be totally clueless). Likewise if illegals contributed $500B to the economy. So your statement only makes sense if you assume that the numbers are accurate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #154 May 17, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote $10B? That is it? when we are spending $3,500B+ in the 2009 federal budget? 0.28% of the federal budget? Ok then you are right, they cost us $10B/year. But I rest my case. Given what we go through in this country every year on everything else, this money is not even worth chasing down. So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws". Gottcha. You assume those numbers are correct. Incorrect. I made no assumption about the numbers. My comment was only direct at this statement. Of course you did, or you woudn't have needed your qualifier. Pathetic. Nothing new. Lame weaseling. If his (disputed) numbers had been 100x higher, or showed a profit for the US, you wouldn't have written the same thing at all. Yes I would have written the same thing. The cost should not be a factor in the decision as to whether a law is enforced or not. I'm sorry your over inflated ego can't see that. Nonsense. If the cost had been $1 TRILLION per year instead of $3.5B, you certainly wouldn't have written "So this is 'it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws'" unless you were totally clueless about the size of the budget (of course, you may well be totally clueless). Likewise if illegals contributed $500B to the economy. So your statement only makes sense if you assume that the numbers are accurate. Wrong again but nice try. Your overinflated ego is getting in the way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #155 May 17, 2010 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #156 May 17, 2010 So the law states multiple times it different ways that Quote MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN As it should be. Additional criteria have to be met as well. Should a legal citizen match the additional criteria (whatever they may be, most likely based on crime profile statistics) there is a possibility their citizenship may be questioned. Seems fair enough. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #157 May 17, 2010 Quote3. The course training established by the Board shall provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual's race, color or national origin alone cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion to believe any law has been violated. Emphasis mine. Awesome. Anyone standing outside a Home Depot can therefore be considered a male prostitute and hassled at will.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #158 May 18, 2010 QuoteQuote3. The course training established by the Board shall provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual's race, color or national origin alone cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion to believe any law has been violated. Emphasis mine. Awesome. Anyone standing outside a Home Depot can therefore be considered a male prostitute and hassled at will. I understand what you're talking about, but do not understand...in the context of the rest of the sentence which you ignored.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #159 May 18, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote3. The course training established by the Board shall provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual's race, color or national origin alone cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion to believe any law has been violated. Emphasis mine. Awesome. Anyone standing outside a Home Depot can therefore be considered a male prostitute and hassled at will. I understand what you're talking about, but do not understand...in the context of the rest of the sentence which you ignored. Psst...it's called fear mongering. I guess you didn't get the memo that say it's OK when they do it.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #160 May 18, 2010 Quote So the law states multiple times it different ways that Quote MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN As it should be. Additional criteria have to be met as well. Should a legal citizen match the additional criteria (whatever they may be, most likely based on crime profile statistics) there is a possibility their citizenship may be questioned. Seems fair enough. How many times does it have to be clearly explained to you guys who keep repeating this mindless talking point? OK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. I should really have a computer macro for this; I'm tired of having to type it at least twice a day. ETA: In fact, Bolas, on May 2, 2010, I said it to you in Post #124 in this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3853902;search_string=bolas%20;#3853875 Quote >>BOLAS: I don't understand what the opposition to this is. If they are pulled over or stopped for breaking another law, other than "suspected illegal immigrant", where is the profiling? Crazy ANDY: Sighh. OK, for the fifteenth time now. The racial profiling is not where they're stopped for actually doing something wrong, it's where the real reason they're stopped is because they have a certain "look" (i.e., poor Hispanic), and the cops invent an after-the-fact pretext for having stopped them in order to keep it "legal". It's a tried-and-true police technique that has existed as long as there have been police. Read all my posts in this and the other "AZ immigrant law" thread, in which I explain this in detail. I can only keep typing the same explanation so many times. At some point people either get it or they don't. It's been 15 days since I wrote that to you. You either get it or you don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #161 May 18, 2010 Quote Quote So the law states multiple times it different ways that Quote MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN As it should be. Additional criteria have to be met as well. Should a legal citizen match the additional criteria (whatever they may be, most likely based on crime profile statistics) there is a possibility their citizenship may be questioned. Seems fair enough. How many times does it have to be clearly explained to you guys who keep repeating this mindless talking point? OK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. I should really have a computer macro for this; I'm tired of having to type it at least twice a day. ETA: In fact, Bolas, on May 2, 2010, I said it to you in Post #124 in this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3853902;search_string=bolas%20;#3853875 Quote >>BOLAS: I don't understand what the opposition to this is. If they are pulled over or stopped for breaking another law, other than "suspected illegal immigrant", where is the profiling? Crazy ANDY: Sighh. OK, for the fifteenth time now. The racial profiling is not where they're stopped for actually doing something wrong, it's where the real reason they're stopped is because they have a certain "look" (i.e., poor Hispanic), and the cops invent an after-the-fact pretext for having stopped them in order to keep it "legal". It's a tried-and-true police technique that has existed as long as there have been police. Read all my posts in this and the other "AZ immigrant law" thread, in which I explain this in detail. I can only keep typing the same explanation so many times. At some point people either get it or they don't. It's been 15 days since I wrote that to you. You either get it or you don't. The problem is that just because you believe it to be true, doesn't make it so. Fear mongering will not make it any truer either. There are always problems with any system. This is the best one out there though. Where is your righteous indignation where health care that was "shoved down our throats" is concerned? Why are you arguing so hard against laws that are already in place, and at the same time overlooking the ones that are not being enforced?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #162 May 18, 2010 It ain't about me, dude. I've been working in and around criminal justice and government for 30 years, and have been making a living doing analyses of statutes and predictions of their real-world effect in the field for almost as long. I stand by all of my posts on this subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #163 May 18, 2010 QuoteIt ain't about me, dude. I've been working in and around criminal justice and government for 30 years, and have been making a living doing analyses of statutes and predictions of their real-world effect in the field for almost as long. I stand by all of my posts on this subject. Regardless of all that - The AZ law is still the best option we have out there right now. Someone may come up with a better one that is more PC or "illegal friendly", but for now - it is what we have, lets make the most of it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #164 May 18, 2010 QuoteOK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. If they're fabricating "legitimate" reason they'd best do that before stopping them or they are in direct violation of this law. Thanks for posting the link as we both agreed that that it was strictly implied intent that could neither be proven or disproven. And as I said before, profiling by race alone is not only wrong, it's ineffective just as profiling by any one single criteria is. This doesn't mean that it should or should not be used as a criteria set to create a profile based on past data trends. Ex: If there are criminal operations that've been reported/observed as using a certain type of vehicle, generally in a certain condition, appearance, in a certain area, with a certain ethnicity driving, it may be prudent to also investigate those that don't match that ethnicity as well.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #165 May 18, 2010 QuoteIt ain't about me, dude. I've been working in and around criminal justice and government for 30 years, and have been making a living doing analyses of statutes and predictions of their real-world effect in the field for almost as long. I stand by all of my posts on this subject. What is your expert opinion about it's possibilities to be effective and perhaps cut down on the number of illegals in the state both by its publicity and its enforcement?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #166 May 18, 2010 Quote Quote So the law states multiple times it different ways that Quote MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN As it should be. Additional criteria have to be met as well. Should a legal citizen match the additional criteria (whatever they may be, most likely based on crime profile statistics) there is a possibility their citizenship may be questioned. Seems fair enough. How many times does it have to be clearly explained to you guys who keep repeating this mindless talking point? OK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. I should really have a computer macro for this; I'm tired of having to type it at least twice a day. ETA: In fact, Bolas, on May 2, 2010, I said it to you in Post #124 in this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3853902;search_string=bolas%20;#3853875 Quote >>BOLAS: I don't understand what the opposition to this is. If they are pulled over or stopped for breaking another law, other than "suspected illegal immigrant", where is the profiling? Crazy ANDY: Sighh. OK, for the fifteenth time now. The racial profiling is not where they're stopped for actually doing something wrong, it's where the real reason they're stopped is because they have a certain "look" (i.e., poor Hispanic), and the cops invent an after-the-fact pretext for having stopped them in order to keep it "legal". It's a tried-and-true police technique that has existed as long as there have been police. Read all my posts in this and the other "AZ immigrant law" thread, in which I explain this in detail. I can only keep typing the same explanation so many times. At some point people either get it or they don't. It's been 15 days since I wrote that to you. You either get it or you don't. Winking is one thing. Three distinct mandates in the law, plus two more in an executive order is a bit more than a wink...it's more like a whack on the head. Pretty hard to ignore.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,142 #167 May 18, 2010 Quote Quote OK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. If they're fabricating "legitimate" reason they'd best do that before stopping them or they are in direct violation of this law. . Oh dear, I wonder who will arrest the cops for that.Bolas, Turtle, you are NOT that naive so stop pretending that you are.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #168 May 18, 2010 Quote Quote Quote OK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. If they're fabricating "legitimate" reason they'd best do that before stopping them or they are in direct violation of this law. . Oh dear, I wonder who will arrest the cops for that.Bolas, Turtle, you are NOT that naive so stop pretending that you are. Naive enough to think that an improper stop could be argued by the defense and should that cause the prosecution to have to lose the case, dismiss all charges, or plea bargain way down they wouldn't go after the arresting officer to save their own ass? Then yes, I'm naive enough to think the system of checks and balances we have would do in most cases what they were designed to do. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #169 May 18, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote OK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. If they're fabricating "legitimate" reason they'd best do that before stopping them or they are in direct violation of this law. . Oh dear, I wonder who will arrest the cops for that.Bolas, Turtle, you are NOT that naive so stop pretending that you are. Naive enough to think that an improper stop could be argued by the defense and should that cause the prosecution to have to lose the case, dismiss all charges, or plea bargain way down they wouldn't go after the arresting officer to save their own ass? Then yes, I'm naive enough to think the system of checks and balances we have would do in most cases what they were designed to do. I say the following as someone who has personally litigated, or been in the courtroom watching others litigate, several hundred, possibly over 1,000, defense motions (to dismiss a case and/or suppress evidence), in numerous jurisdictions over the past 25 years, on exactly that basis - i.e., unlawful stop (or seizure) by the officer in the field: 98% of those defense motions fail, because they are based on challenging the officers' credibility, and 98% of judges do not have the guts to make a ruling that hinges on rejecting a cop's testimony as untruthful. Now that's simply the way it is, in real life. This kind of "check and balance" on paper is but an illusion in the courtroom. So yes, I'm sorry to have to say that to think otherwise is simply naive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #170 May 18, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote OK, once more: The fact that the statute's language "winks" at not ethnic profiling does not alter the fact that ethnic profiling is precisely what will happen: people will be stopped and ID'd SOLELY because they are Hispanic-looking, and the cops, if necessary, will fabricate a "legitimate" reason, after-the-fact, for stopping them. You're naive if you think otherwise. If they're fabricating "legitimate" reason they'd best do that before stopping them or they are in direct violation of this law. . Oh dear, I wonder who will arrest the cops for that.Bolas, Turtle, you are NOT that naive so stop pretending that you are. Naive enough to think that an improper stop could be argued by the defense and should that cause the prosecution to have to lose the case, dismiss all charges, or plea bargain way down they wouldn't go after the arresting officer to save their own ass? Then yes, I'm naive enough to think the system of checks and balances we have would do in most cases what they were designed to do. I say the following as someone who has personally litigated, or been in the courtroom watching others litigate, several hundred, possibly over 1,000, defense motions (to dismiss a case and/or suppress evidence) on exactly that basis - i.e., unlawful stop (or seizure) by the officer in the field: 98% of those defense motions fail, because they are based on challenging the officers' credibility, and 98% of judges do not have the guts to make a ruling that hinges on rejecting a cop's testimony as untruthful. Now that's simply the way it is, in real life. This kind of "check and balance" on paper is but an illusion in the courtroom. So yes, I'm sorry to have to say that to think otherwise is simply naive. Well, you got your opinion A vast majorty do not agree with you In any event the SC will eventually decide Care to make a bet which way it will go?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #171 May 18, 2010 I've seen far more of the inside of courtrooms then I would care to in both work and personal situations. I agree w/ Andy, the cop is going to make up a justification after the fact adn the judge is going to accept whatever justification the officer makes up the vast majority of the time. Most defendants are not going to have the resources to appeal even if they want to and are right."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,577 #172 May 18, 2010 QuoteWell, you got your opinion A vast majorty do not agree with youWhat is their opinion based on? And does opinion define fact? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #173 May 18, 2010 QuoteWell, you got your opinion A vast majorty do not agree with you Sigh. OK, next time you're in the doctor's office and, based upon her training and experience, she gives you a diagnosis of illness and prognosis for its future course, you just tell her that. Drill, baby, drill! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #174 May 18, 2010 QuoteQuoteWell, you got your opinion A vast majorty do not agree with youWhat is their opinion based on? And does opinion define fact? Wendy P. Explain? I am talking about the majority of those in the country that agree with what AZ did. And what facts are you talking about? Those who bitch about this law based on what might happen!! Florida and Texas were supposed to have gun fights on the streets when they passed thier shall issue conceal weapons laws too. The libs really nailed that one I posted the law. I asked where in the law does is allow profiling (the primary bitch about this law) and not one response. Liberal predictions are about as accurate as the weather man in cases like this. And I have a higher view of the majority of our law enforcement people FACT is they are here illegally. They broke the law, they made choices and now it is time to pay the piper. Tough shit if some dont like it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #175 May 18, 2010 QuoteQuoteWell, you got your opinion A vast majorty do not agree with you Sigh. OK, next time you're in the doctor's office and, based upon her training and experience, she gives you a diagnosis of illness and prognosis for its future course, you just tell her that. Drill, baby, drill! No point to make so you avoid it So you use a kallend tactic But I guess since you are a lawyer you can better predict the actions of the police. Now, care to make a prediction on any upcoming ruling the SC might make on this law?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
