Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

wrong. the fact that the law specifically states illegal aliens, indicates who they're intending to go after. nowhere in the bill does it state anything about race. DS is inferring race. i'm not inferring illegal aliens.

i'm not worried about the feeling of illegal aliens.

So, you don't know what their intent was, you're just assuming that it was nothing more than what was written down.

And that's yet another form of dehumanization.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So, you don't know what their intent was, you're just assuming that it was nothing more than what was written down.

And that's yet another form of dehumanization.

that's all you can go off of. unless you have that magic page that didnt make it to the final bill. or someone told you differently.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

that's all you can go off of. unless you have a magic page that didnt make it to the fnal bill.

No, it's not. You're confusing actions and words with intent.

You also haven't even begun to examine the effects.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, it's not. You're confusing actions and words with intent.

You also haven't even begun to examine the effects.

well, do you have any additional information as to their intent? or is all we can work with is the bill they wrote?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by starang21

well, do you have any additional information as to their intent? or is all we can work with is the bill they wrote?

Do you have any information that disproves the intent that we presently see?

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Do you have any information that disproves the intent that we presently see?

yea, i do. HB2162

do you have any proof that what you "see" if their intent?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by starang21

yea, i do. HB2162

do you have any proof that what you "see" if their intent?

How is HB2162 definative proof?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

well, do you have any additional information as to their intent? or is all we can work with is the bill they wrote?

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...-kobach-email/

Wonk Room recently obtained an email written by Kris Kobach, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute — the group which credits itself with writing the bill — to Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), urging him to include language that will allow police to use city ordinance violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate queries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion:

To begin with, Kobach’s correspondence affirms that though the bill was proposed and passed in Arizona, the shots are being called by a small group of lawyers whose office is based in Washington, DC. It also indicates that after vigorously defending his bill and its “lawful contact provision” in the New York Times, Kobach may have had second thoughts about the constitutionality of the bill he prides himself with writing.

In an email to Wonk Room, David Leopold -- president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association -- wrote:

Kobach’s email to Pearce is chilling. Knowing full well that the phrase “lawful contact” must go (a flip flop from the position he took yesterday in the New York Times) he recommends tweaking the law in a manner that would appear to allow profiling. Why else would he be interested in using property or rental codes to ferret out undocumented people? Is he aware of some credible study that shows unauthorized aliens from say Ireland or Canada, or some other country tend to put their cars on blocks and/or overcrowd apartments? Kris Kobach and Senator Pearce owe Arizonans and the nation an immediate explanation. Note: it appears the email was written by Kobach on Wednesday evening before his op-ed ran in the New York Times the next morning. The op-ed argued that the Arizona law as written was legal. If he was working on changing it why then did he let the New York Times piece run?

This bill was also followed up by a bill banning ethnic studies and the push for a law that would challenge the 14th amendment.

ETA: As well as a "birther" sponsored bill that would require all candidates to prove citizenship.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...-kobach-email/




This bill was also followed up by a bill banning ethnic studies and the push for a law that would challenge the 14th amendment.

ETA: As well as a "birther" sponsored bill that would require all candidates to prove citizenship.

sooo....cars on blocks = hispanic?

or too many people in a house = hispanic?


btw, i vehemently disagree with the subsequent bills proposed.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

sooo....cars on blocks = hispanic?

or too many people in a house = hispanic?


btw, i vehemently disagree with the subsequent bills proposed.

All those subsequent bills also speak to the intent of these lawmakers as well.

Those items target poor, hispanic, stereotypes and show no indication of being related to illegal immigration as a whole or with a racial-neutral perspective.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

ETA: As well as a "birther" sponsored bill that would require all candidates to prove citizenship.

Say what you want about the origins of the bill but I don't see any problem with a bill proposing that elected officials prove that they are eligible for public office.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Say what you want about the origins of the bill but I don't see any problem with a bill proposing that elected officials prove that they are eligible for public office.

Pika...ask this...how long and under what circumstances did it take for legislators to all of a sudden decide that this was needed?

So what if we go back about 200 years and find out that a senator was born in say....Cuba.

(just off the cuff someone can investigate that if they want)

Does that invalidate their service?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Say what you want about the origins of the bill but I don't see any problem with a bill proposing that elected officials prove that they are eligible for public office.

As we were discussing intent, the intent is pertinent.

Can you describe a situation where an official has not done so? Why the pressing need to write this law now, for a federal office in one state? What if Joe Secretary of State won't accept what 49 other states and the federal government have?