Posted: 4/30/2010 6:22:16 AM EDT
| They took out the two provisions that the anti-groups were protesting. |
|
By taking out the two provisions that the antis were focusing on.
1. Race, ethnicity, nor National Origin can be used as a factor in questioning immigration status. 2. The word contact by police is stricken and stop, detention, or arrest replaces it. The second provision is important because the huge number of victims of the Cartels are hispanic, legal and illegal and by reporting a crime they wold be arrested and sent back. This gave thugs a free hand in much of the Hispanic community. In speaking to a police freind who generally supports the idea of the bill, his sources in investigating crime were going to flat dry up. The Legislature looked at this and did a good play by quickly taking the wind out of the sales of the Libs while at the same time clarifying to police how the law can be made to work. |
|
I for one approve of checking the legal status of anyone "arrested" for a legitimate reason. We have enough home grown thugs and don't need to import them.
But I applaud the legislature if they changed the wording to prevent widespread "where are your papers" drives by Shurf Joe. As for what other states think I don't care. I only want my state to do crime prevention AND remain free of sanctioned racism. |
| Nothing unusual aout this. Most legislation gets "tweeked" after passage as there is usually something overlooked or misinterpreted. You want to see the Mother of All Tweeking, wait till the Dems get done "tweaking" ObamaCare to get it back to what they originally wnated all along. |
|
Quoted:
2. The word contact by police is stricken and stop, detention, or arrest replaces it. . Actually the original language was "legal contact where there is reasonable suspicion". This is legally the definition of a detention or Terry Stop. Thus the change in wording actually makes no legal difference. But if it makes people feel better, I'm perfectly all right with it. |
|
I honestly fail to understand the uproar. Legal immigrants are required by law to have a green card (their papers) on their person at all times and to show it whenever law enforcement asks for it. If a legal immigrant has to provide their papers, why shouldn't an illegal immigrant? If, as a legal US citizen I'm walking down the street (and this has happened to me more than once) and a police officer stops me, maybe I happen to match the description of a criminal they're looking for, and asks me for ID, how far does anyone think I'm going to get if I say "Sorry officer, but I'm not required to show you ID, I'll just be on my way now". Does anyone think he's going to just let me walk? I got news for you, I'm not going anywhere till I prove to him I'm not the guy he's looking for. Why should illegals be treated any differently than legal immigrants or natural born citizens? And I don't give a rat's ass about his contacts. We're going to treat illegal aliens different because we don't want them to stop talking to cops? Has anyone bothered to realize that if we didn't have a large illegal community the drug thugs from across the border would have no place to hide? |
| i too can't figure out what the uproar is - mirrors federal law that has been around for a bit. just bullshit publicity/free press for those that need it to continue their lies. you would think a bill that is written in "average" language that is less than 20pages in length would be read, but no, the sheeple just get their marching orders and go. |