• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Another epic fail for Janet Come Lately

pipelineaudio

Philosopher
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
5,092
http://www.azcentral.com/news/Blog/azdc/83598

After weeks of SB 1070 bashing, Janet admits that as of May 17th she still hasn't read the bill.

Maybe all these knee jerks and boycotts will go away once people finally read it for themselves, but I doubt theyll be big enough to admit their mistakes and will just keep plowing
 
It's amateur hour over at the Whitehouse. Holder hadn't read the law either.
 
"in detail"

You know, you could stop creating these threads without actually reading the posts. As someone pointed out Holder only commented on it cursory, and thirdly..

You think both *might* have more important things to do than to read the entire bill and instead rely on a summary prepared by their aides, who are there *for that kind of purpose*?
 
There are plenty of people who have actually read the bill and don't like it... people like me. It's available online.
 
You think both *might* have more important things to do than to read the entire bill and instead rely on a summary prepared by their aides, who are there *for that kind of purpose*?

Maybe for Holder, but Napolitano has been spending a great deal of time attacking it, don't try and pass the buck to her aides...its ten pages
 
"in detail"

You know, you could stop creating these threads without actually reading the posts.

Who are you saying this to?

As someone pointed out Holder only commented on it cursory, and thirdly..

You think both *might* have more important things to do than to read the entire bill and instead rely on a summary prepared by their aides, who are there *for that kind of purpose*?

And yet, Holder was commenting on the law not only without having read it, he was commenting on it without having been briefed. Seriously, why didn't he shut up about it until after he was briefed?
 
I have read it and I have huge issues with it because it is going to further bankrupt our state pursuant, partially, to the following language,

G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.

2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

Also note that they will be required to research and verify the status of resident aliens which will be an additional burden especially for pima and pinal county where we have large groups of ex-pats. Would someone with a british accent be enough for reasonable suspicion? An Australian accent? If not then why not?

The mount of money it is going to costs us to verify the status of everyone who falls under reasonable suspicion is going to kill us and if that doesn't the lawsuits will.

Further more this is whack-a-mole legislation that does not approach the actual causes of illegal immigration. This bill will prove to be a waste of money and resources and will have no effect on the number of illegals in the U.S.

But on the other hand it sure does make us sound tough!
 
I have read it and I have huge issues with it because it is going to further bankrupt our state pursuant, partially, to the following language

What kinds of suits do you envision being filed? What would trigger them, and do you think such suits would actually succeed?

Also note that they will be required to research and verify the status of resident aliens which will be an additional burden especially for pima and pinal county where we have large groups of ex-pats.

How big a burden do you expect this to be?

Would someone with a british accent be enough for reasonable suspicion? An Australian accent? If not then why not?

No, it would not. That falls clearly under profiling, which the law specifically prohibits.
 
What kinds of suits do you envision being filed? What would trigger them, and do you think such suits would actually succeed?

Well there are going to be two types of suits filed

1. Suits against this bill. These are already being filed by everyone from the ACLU to Arizona police officers. Officer Martin Escobar filed his lawsuit in part because,

"in [Escobar's] experience as a Law Enforcement Officer, skin color and/or physical features does not provide any race neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States." Thus, the provision of the bill requiring police to request identification from anybody they happen to come across who they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is illegally in the country is nonsensical; it simply pushes law enforcement to use racial profiling as the only means they can think of to guess at undocumented status of any given person.

Further more other AZ law enforcement further dislike the law

In Sahuarita, Arizona, Chief John Harris, the president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, opposes SB 1070 according to an article in Time magazine. He fears that the provisions in the new law will drain resources, create budgetary problems, and open up vulnerability for costly lawsuits. Not only can those targeted by law enforcement sue for infringements on their constitutional rights, SB 1070 gives everyday nativist Arizonans the ability to sue their local police department if they feel they aren't hunting down enough undocumented immigrants. Chief Harris also worries that the legislation will provoke mass fear amongst the Hispanic community, making them less likely to report crime.

Both quotes from

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/police_join_fight_against_arizona_sb_1070

You will also have legal U.S. citizens suing for the infringement of their rights if they are unlawfully detained due to this bill. I can tell you I don't carry anything on me that could prove my citizenship. Now these could go one of two ways. First they could succeed and further bankrupt my state. Second they could fail and set a standard that allows AZ law enforcement the right to illegally detain U.S. citizens. I don't like either out come.

2. The second type will be citizens suing counties, cities, police forces, and even the state for not enforcing these laws. As most law enforcement does not believe they have the resources to enforce this law these lawsuits are pretty much guaranteed to win.


How big a burden do you expect this to be?

BIG. I can't even begin to think of a number but any amount is to much. In case you are not aware Arizona isn't doing so well these days when it comes to budgets. Arizona ranks either dead last or close to it when it comes to education and any amount wasted on these lawsuits should be spent on improving our state not paying lawyers.

No, it would not. That falls clearly under profiling, which the law specifically prohibits.

So the bill requires that police enforce all federal immigration laws including verifying the status of a resident alien yet the main give away of a resident alien is a foreign accent and you can't use that as a reason to ask for papers? How do you enforce this law?

I will repeat this point. Forget the lawsuits, forget reasonable suspicion, forget the damage this will do to community relations, forget that law enforcement doesn't have the resources to enforce this law and focus on one thing...

This law will not effect the illegal immigration problems of the U.S. in any positive way. It is meant to make us look tough but in reality it will make us look like fools.
 
http://www.azcentral.com/news/Blog/azdc/83598

After weeks of SB 1070 bashing, Janet admits that as of May 17th she still hasn't read the bill.

Maybe all these knee jerks and boycotts will go away once people finally read it for themselves, but I doubt theyll be big enough to admit their mistakes and will just keep plowing

Being clueless is Napolitano's forte. Why would she read SB-1070 when she hasn't even read her own job description?

Secretary of Homeland Security Insecurity Janet Napolitano said it is "unfair" of Senator Lindsey Graham to ask her if Arizona's border with Mexico is secure.

1:55 into video.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...der_it_is_secure_now_as_it_has_ever_been.html
 
I, personally, have never seen the John Travolta/Barry Pepper film "Battlefield Earth".

Nevertheless, I feel quite comfortable in calling it a really, really bad movie, because lots of people who have seen it have described, in detail, just how bad it is.
 
"in detail"

You know, you could stop creating these threads without actually reading the posts. As someone pointed out Holder only commented on it cursory, and thirdly..

You think both *might* have more important things to do than to read the entire bill and instead rely on a summary prepared by their aides, who are there *for that kind of purpose*?

The bill isn't that long. If they have more important things to do than read the bill, then they have more important things to do than criticize the bill, no?
 
I, personally, have never seen the John Travolta/Barry Pepper film "Battlefield Earth".

Nevertheless, I feel quite comfortable in calling it a really, really bad movie, because lots of people who have seen it have described, in detail, just how bad it is.

An opinion based upon what "lots of people" think instead of personal experience or research is still an opinion based upon ignorance. Napolitano is the personification of ignorance is bliss.
 
An opinion based upon what "lots of people" think instead of personal experience or research is still an opinion based upon ignorance. Napolitano is the personification of ignorance is bliss.

I'll remember that the next time you quote a news article, blog entry, or opinion piece.
 
I'll remember that the next time you quote a news article, blog entry, or opinion piece.

I was unaware that Cicero was a cabinet level official of our government, specifically the cabinet level official tasked with securing our borders.

Jesus Popsicle Christ on stilts, it is really that hard to recognize that there are different standards for what Int3rn3tTr0ll007 says and what our cabinet level officials say in their official capacity?
 
Well there are going to be two types of suits filed

1. Suits against this bill. These are already being filed by everyone from the ACLU to Arizona police officers. Officer Martin Escobar filed his lawsuit in part because,

Because he thinks it will inevitably lead to profiling, even though the bill prohibits profiling. So the argument is that this law will lead police officers to violate the law. I suppose that's possible, but it does seem a peculiar argument.

You will also have legal U.S. citizens suing for the infringement of their rights if they are unlawfully detained due to this bill.

Which, again, presumes that this law will lead officers to act unlawfully. Again, possible, but I don't take that as a given, and I'm not sure why anyone else should.

Now these could go one of two ways. First they could succeed and further bankrupt my state. Second they could fail and set a standard that allows AZ law enforcement the right to illegally detain U.S. citizens. I don't like either out come.

Or... officers could obey the law.

2. The second type will be citizens suing counties, cities, police forces, and even the state for not enforcing these laws. As most law enforcement does not believe they have the resources to enforce this law these lawsuits are pretty much guaranteed to win.

Well, no. The law permits lawsuits for policies of non-enforcement. It does not permit lawsuits for insufficient enforcement.

So the bill requires that police enforce all federal immigration laws including verifying the status of a resident alien yet the main give away of a resident alien is a foreign accent and you can't use that as a reason to ask for papers? How do you enforce this law?

The main reason to ask for identification from anybody is because of an arrest or because of a stop for a traffic violation. In both cases, police are supposed to establish identity anyways, regardless of immigration issues. The primary reason to verify immigration status is if attempts to establish identity are not easily met (they don't have a driver's license when driving, etc), or establishing that identity reveals that they are an immigrant. Accent doesn't have to have anything to do with it.
 
I, personally, have never seen the John Travolta/Barry Pepper film "Battlefield Earth".

Nevertheless, I feel quite comfortable in calling it a really, really bad movie, because lots of people who have seen it have described, in detail, just how bad it is.

An opinion based upon what "lots of people" think instead of personal experience or research is still an opinion based upon ignorance. Napolitano is the personification of ignorance is bliss.

Come on. You don't need to read an entire legislative act to understand it, and having someone boil it down to its essentials saves a lot of time and effort. I would agree that it's best to read something before criticizing what it says, but the fact that you haven't read the entire text does not necessarily mean you are "ignorant" as to what it says.

I've seen Battlefield Earth, and to this day I wish I was speaking about it from a position of ignorance.

OT: Does anyone else weep for the English language every time they see "epic fail" used in what is intended to be semi-serious discourse?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom