[quote]A federal judge has blocked one of the most controversial sections of a tough Arizona immigration law, granting a preliminary injunction Wednesday that prevents police from questioning people about their immigration status.
That provision required police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling, in response to a motion filed by the federal government, came with scant hours to go before the law goes into effect.
She also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or "for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work," and a provision "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person" if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation.
Seven lawsuits are seeking to block implementation of the law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April. It is to go into effect Thursday.
The law also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.
Continued...[/quote]
:smug:
[b]Source:[/b] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/arizona.immigration.law/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1[/url]
So only part of it is blocked, and the rest is free to be enacted?
Are CNN's blogs allowed as a source?
[QUOTE=Glaber;23686833]Are CNN's blogs allowed as a source?[/QUOTE]
it was just posted
that's why it's on the blog still. it's still credible.
it's not an opinion piece like the stupid shit you post
[QUOTE=Glaber;23686833]Are CNN's blogs allowed as a source?[/QUOTE]
Seeing as how this :[url]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/28/azruling.pdf[/url] is included in the article, yes, yes they are.
So? If I see a just breaking article and it's still on blog, I don't post it because of the rules.
Now if this really is allowed, then you ninja'd me in posting the article.
Edit: So, for a blog post to be used, it has to have a source.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23686985]So? If I see a just breaking article and it's still on blog, I don't post it because of the rules.
[B]Now if this really is allowed, then you ninja'd me in posting the article.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's not a race to spam the news section with every constant new event in the world.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23686985]Edit: So, for a blog post to be used, it has to have a source.[/QUOTE]
it does
click the link, and you'll see that they posted the court ruling
[QUOTE=Glaber;23686985]So? If I see a just breaking article and it's still on blog, I don't post it because of the rules.
Now if this really is allowed, then you ninja'd me in posting the article.
Edit: So, for a blog post to be used, it has to have a source.[/QUOTE]
If you actually read the article, you would realize it's not the type of blog that's not allowed as a source. It's not an opinion piece in any way, it's just a summary of the ruling and a link to the release.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23686985]So? If I see a just breaking article and it's still on blog, I don't post it because of the rules.
Now if this really is allowed, then you ninja'd me in posting the article.
Edit: So, for a blog post to be used, it has to have a source.[/QUOTE]
No, it's hard to understand. This is only formatted as a blog. It's just recent news, so CNN updates it as a blog before adding it to their website proper. Regular blogs aren't allowed, this is just a newsfeed blog.
You should still stop posting news from Fox anyway. Just yesterday I explained to you in detail why that article about the student who was rejected for opposing homosexuality was biased and misleading and you completely ignored everything I posted. [B]I proved you wrong and showed you, in a clear and obvious example, why fox is terrible and you just ignored it.[/B]
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23687200]No, it's hard to understand. This is only formatted as a blog. It's just recent news, so CNN updates it as a blog before adding it to their website proper. Regular blogs aren't allowed, this is just a newsfeed blog.
You should still stop posting news from Fox anyway. Just yesterday I explained to you in detail why that article about the student who was rejected for opposing homosexuality was biased and misleading and you completely ignored everything I posted. [B]I proved you wrong and showed you, in a clear and obvious example, why fox is terrible and you just ignored it.[/B][/QUOTE]
He ignores anything that contradicts him in any meaningful way, i've learned, so your case isn't special.
On topic, good for blocking part of the act, it was certainly too far reaching. Wish there was a summary in the blog though, don't really have the patience to read through the whole ruling.
I'm still on the [b]fence[/b] on this.
[b]How[/b] is it to far reaching? If this is that far reaching then so is Federal Law!
Ok, here's your challenge, ITN. See if you can resist responding to that and creating an argument that's been made a couple dozen times.
You can do it!
The entire bill was fine as it was, if people actually read it they would know.
It is the law enforcement that is abusing the law.
[QUOTE=Steak;23687475]The entire bill was fine as it was, if people actually read it they would know.
It is the law enforcement that is abusing the law.[/QUOTE]
no it's not
it basically gives the police the legal authority to do racial profiling
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;23687364]I'm still on the [b]fence[/b] on this.[/QUOTE]
:downsrim:
[QUOTE=JDK721;23687528]no it's not
it basically gives the police the legal authority to do racial profiling[/QUOTE]
Try actually reading what the law does before posting here again.
[QUOTE=>VLN<;23687736]Try actually reading what the law does before posting here again.[/QUOTE]
lol
so you're telling me you've read it? you must be an idiot then if you haven't realized that it will lead to racial profiling. it does not have to SPECIFICALLY say that just so you know.
so you're saying that they're going to pull over a white person and ask him for his citizenship documents?
[editline]02:46PM[/editline]
oh look, another Republican from Texas who supports racial profiling
how surprising
So you're telling us you haven't read it?
Oh look, another Democrat who doesn't read. (if not from the US, replace Democrat with your political party in what ever country you're in.)
Damn good for the judge. Whole bloody legislation should be thrown out.
[editline]02:26PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JDK721;23687928]lol
so you're telling me you've read it? you must be an idiot then if you haven't realized that it will lead to racial profiling. it does not have to SPECIFICALLY say that just so you know.
so you're saying that they're going to pull over a white person and ask him for his citizenship documents?
[editline]02:46PM[/editline]
oh look, another Republican from Texas who supports racial profiling
how surprising[/QUOTE]
Something you'll probably find legitimately surprising is how much I agree with you about this. The whole immigration thing is just an extension of the racial bullshit in the first half of last century and the decade after. A lot of "Could be"s and "Probably"s.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;23688534]Whole bloody legislation should be thrown out.[/QUOTE]
Kind of like illegal immigrants :smug:
[sp]DON'T HIT ME I'M VERY LIBERAL[/sp]
I've heard some callers on Rush's show today say to just enforce it anyway.
[QUOTE=Billiam;23688833]Kind of like illegal immigrants :smug:
[sp]DON'T HIT ME I'M VERY LIBERAL[/sp][/QUOTE]
Well, when it comes to immigrants who are here illegally, its a little different. If they have applied for citizenship, then fine, they can stay until the whole thing is done and should be allotted the full extent of constitutional protection for citizens during that time. But if they aren't, well, establish a certain time frame for them to gain some form of legal documentation and provide them with the resources and such to actually do so. If within the allotted time they haven't applied for citizenship or some form of legal status, then sure, send them back to their country of origin. But these idiots who go, "Lol dem emeegrents is steallen my jobs, we shud killem all." Need to shut the hell up and learn a bit about immigrants.
[editline]02:44PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23688921]I've heard some callers on Rush's show today say to just enforce it anyway.[/QUOTE]
Hurray for violating court orders. That's not illegal or anything.
[editline]02:52PM[/editline]
And don't go on some damned witch hunt trying to find a "Mexican Menace" or something. Due process applies even to foreign citizens and you still have to have a court order for any form or search without reasonable suspicion that evidence is in danger of being destroyed. There are other exceptions, but that only extends to things like searching a suspect for weaponry and drugs. And there still has to be legitimate probable cause. And you can't use anything not specifically stated by the search and seizure laws against them.
Fourth Amendment: It's the law!
[QUOTE=>VLN<;23687736]Try actually reading what the law does before posting here again.[/QUOTE]
that's not even an argument
that's the equivalent of saying "NANANANNNANNANANAN I CAN'T HEAR YOU" while holding your hands over your ears.
Yay. Constitution wins.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23688921]I've heard some callers on Rush's show today say to just enforce it anyway.[/QUOTE]
Fuck off, Glaber, no one's listening to you.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23686985]So? If I see a just breaking article and it's still on blog, I don't post it because of the rules.
Now if this really is allowed, then you ninja'd me in posting the article.
Edit: So, for a blog post to be used, it has to have a source.[/QUOTE]
Just because you follow the rules doesn't make you not an asshole, glaber.
[QUOTE=JDK721;23687928]lol
so you're telling me you've read it? you must be an idiot then if you haven't realized that it will lead to racial profiling. it does not have to SPECIFICALLY say that just so you know.
so you're saying that they're going to pull over a white person and ask him for his citizenship documents?
[editline]02:46PM[/editline]
oh look, another Republican from Texas who supports racial profiling
how surprising[/QUOTE]
I'm curious where people get the whole racial profiling thing from. What about the "lawful contact" specified in the law? And since when has racial profiling been a huge problem anyway? We are supposed to allow people to illegally enter this country because people are afraid race might become an issue?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.