Two new polls: Support for Arizona’s immigration law over 60%

posted at 7:20 pm on May 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

CBS, spinning like a gyroscope, describes the number who support the new law as a “slim majority.” Let’s see:

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed say the law, which critics say essentially mandates racial profiling, takes the right approach, and nine percent say it should go even further.

Thirty-six percent say the law goes too far.

There are plenty of concerns about the law — half say it’s “very likely” to lead to racial profiling (32 percent say “somewhat likely”) and 78 percent think it’ll burden cops — and yet, six in 10 say they’re either in favor of it as is or that it should even go further. Translation: People are tired enough of porous borders that they’re willing to try even those laws about which they have misgivings. Which, actually, is the point of Ross Douthat’s op-ed in the Times today. If you’re pro-immigrant, the best thing you can do is to lobby the feds to get a handle on the border. The more voters are reassured that they can control the number of people admitted, the more likely they’ll be to increase the limit on admissions and to expand it to far-flung countries.

Another new poll, from Bellwether Research, shows 62 percent support for Arizona’s law even though the question overstates how far the statute goes (it doesn’t let cops detain “anyone suspected of being in the country illegally,” only those who have already been detained on suspicion of committing a crime). Given the breadth and depth of media demagoguery on this subject, I can only wonder how high support would be if ill-informed critics weren’t on cable 24/7 screeching about nascent Nazism. 70 percent, maybe? Better yet, how high would support be if the media was covering amnesty-shill violence with the same degree of interest as they do the crank element at tea-party rallies? Mary Katharine Ham has a round-up of incidents over the past week, but if you’re not in the mood for following links, I recommended checking out KFI’s photo gallery of the choicest signs from the rallies instead. My favorite: “We will shoot more police in Arizona until we get free!”

Update: An e-mailer tells me the “we will shoot more police” sign could be fake. Fair enough, and duly noted. Follow the link anyway.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Si, se puede!

Emperor Norton on May 3, 2010 at 7:23 PM

70 percent, maybe?

indeed…i keep yelling at the tv when they continue to misquote the law…absolutely frustrating!

cmsinaz on May 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM

At least the journalist at Pravda risked getting shot if they didn’t follow the partyline.

the_nile on May 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM

That shoot sign is crazy. They never reported that on the local news in Arizona. Even the Phoenix/Tucson local media distorts the news though. They openly call the bill racist, etc. LSM reaches to the local levels.

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I personally like the sign above the shoot cops sign

Give us FREE
Health Care
Jobs- NO TAXES
House
Food

You owe us America

Doctor Zhivago on May 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Wow, people think crimes are bad!

tetriskid on May 3, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Doctor Zhivago on May 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I know, makes me so mad that they demand this of ME! I was born here too, I didn`t found the country, I was born here. I owe nobody anything!

Then a humorous thought came to me: We can tell them sure, they can have free health care, food, jobs and housing. But, you have to pay higher taxes and they`d say DEAL!

ThePrez on May 3, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Testing.

Emperor Norton on May 3, 2010 at 7:30 PM

People are mad as hell and they’re not going to take it any more.

amerpundit on May 3, 2010 at 7:30 PM

I owe nobody anything!

Or rather, I don`t owe anybody anything. (if grammar matters:))

ThePrez on May 3, 2010 at 7:31 PM

So many racists /

CWforFreedom on May 3, 2010 at 7:31 PM

A new C-BS “poll”? Wonder what the polling sample demographics are?

Del Dolemonte on May 3, 2010 at 7:32 PM

half say it’s “very likely” to lead to racial profiling

Affirmative action is 100% racial profiling.

Emperor Norton on May 3, 2010 at 7:32 PM

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM

you got that right…shows lots of opponents but not very many proponents

cmsinaz on May 3, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Well obviously 60% of Arizona is racist and hates brown people.

/ernesto

Good Solid B-Plus on May 3, 2010 at 7:33 PM

When our government starts treating it’s middle class peasants as generously as it does illegals I will begin to listen. Until then I consider DC to be waging war on US citizens.

Cody1991 on May 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM

tu pais, es pais para mi y mi amigos, comprende bendejo?

ted c on May 3, 2010 at 7:35 PM

The law is already having an effect. The numbers of men loitering outside of the Home Depot on Thomas in Phoenix is almost zero.

I observed something very strange yesterday afternoon when I was leaving Home depot. I saw three men wall sitting at the edge of the parking lot. The guys were Hispanic, but they looked oddly different than most of the guys who hang out there. They were wearing jeans which had never seen a days work, ironed polo shirts tucked in and one of them was sipping a Starbucks. It was a pretty poor impersonation.

azkenreid on May 3, 2010 at 7:36 PM

OT: Major Earthquake hits Chile. 6.4 magnitude.

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM

NEWSFLASH: Law-abiding folks like for laws to be enforced — film at eleven

…Details still sketchy but it appears that most people think that illegal behavior should be considered criminal.

Oh the humanity….

NOSHIT NEWS CHANNEL at 7:36 PM

hillbillyjim on May 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM

nascent Nazism

Good writing.

davidk on May 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Countdown until Obama takes away voting rights…. 5 4 3 2…

tetriskid on May 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM

What if a cop said “we’ll keep killing them untill they stop coming”? Nobody wants them dead just respect the law, get in line for visas and learn how to be a citizen. Put down the foreign flags and respect the police.

tim c on May 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM

OT: Major Earthquake hits Chile. 6.4 magnitude.

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM

…….Oh boy.

ThePrez on May 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM

My political science professor said this in class today:

“The new law in Arizona actually allows police officers to pull people over if they look Hispanic.”

To which I promptly raised my hand and corrected him. Respectfully, of course.

nickj116 on May 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM

The idiots over reacted to the law and virtually called the whole state a bunch of nazis. I might have some problems with certain parts of the bill, maybe, but I was so disgusted by the attacks against that state that I found myself defending the bill.

Besides, the people of Arizona have certain rights when it comes to what happens in their state. The states are sovereign after all.

Terrye on May 3, 2010 at 7:42 PM

And weren’t our congressional clunkers supposed to build a fence before anything else? Are they all liars now?

tarpon on May 3, 2010 at 7:42 PM

What I find interesting about these polls is that assuming a good portion of the respondents are misinformed about the law thanks to the drive-bys and ignorant politicians, that means a huge majority of Americans SUPPORT racial profiling as a means of fighting illegal immigration. In other words, the public at large has had enough with the so-called “happy invasion”.

Doughboy on May 3, 2010 at 7:43 PM

To which I promptly raised my hand and corrected him. Respectfully, of course.

nickj116 on May 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Good for you. How did he take it?

Terrye on May 3, 2010 at 7:44 PM

nickj116 on May 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM

way to go

cmsinaz on May 3, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Doughboy on May 3, 2010 at 7:43 PM

I think people see through a lot of that stuff.

Terrye on May 3, 2010 at 7:46 PM

To which I promptly raised my hand and corrected him. Respectfully, of course.

nickj116 on May 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM

“Term paper?….No, I never got your term paper.”

portlandon on May 3, 2010 at 7:46 PM

William Amos on May 3, 2010 at 7:45 PM

:)

cmsinaz on May 3, 2010 at 7:47 PM

““The new law in Arizona actually allows police officers to pull people over if they look Hispanic.”

To which I promptly raised my hand and corrected him. Respectfully, of course.

nickj116 on May 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Nick was like, “Wrong prof. The law actually encourages police officers to pull over people if they look Hispanic.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 7:47 PM

crr6 must be mentally deficient. I’d urge him to point to the text of the law that encourages police officers to pull over Hispanic-looking individuals.

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:52 PM

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Commerce Clause.

Holger on May 3, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Nick was like, “Wrong prof. The law actually encourages police officers to pull over people if they look Hispanic.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 7:47 PM

And then he was like, “I should also mention that the law specifically bans racial profiling. And it can only be used if the individual is suspected in another crime.”

amerpundit on May 3, 2010 at 7:54 PM

crr6 must be mentally deficient. I’d urge him to point to the text of the law that encourages police officers to pull over Hispanic-looking individuals.

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:52 PM

I can quote the section of the law that specifically states that reasonable suspicion has to exist beyond simply someone’s race.

And that lawful contact has to be made first, so you don’t actually get pulled over for being suspected of being here illegally.

amerpundit on May 3, 2010 at 7:55 PM

It’s amazing how many people haven’t read the bill and shoot off their mouths before they know the facts.

Like crr6 for example.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Where is Tom Daschle when you need some real concern?

Inanemergencydial on May 3, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Nick was like, “Wrong prof. The law actually encourages police officers to pull over people if they look Hispanic.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Wrong, but consistently wrong, which is…noble?

Good Solid B-Plus on May 3, 2010 at 7:57 PM

azkenreid on May 3, 2010 at 7:36 PM

So, are you saying that you think the illegals looking for work had disguised themselves to look American?

FloatingRock on May 3, 2010 at 7:57 PM

OT: Major Earthquake hits Chile. 6.4 magnitude.

andy85719 on May 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Cursed boob-thirsty infidels. This is what happens when you don’t rape marry nine-year old girls (or eunuchs, or whatever) according to the glorious illustration that is the life of the bloodthirsty pedophile Mohammad.

Boobquake — how can you infidels deny it now?

hillbillyjim on May 3, 2010 at 8:01 PM

60%,so then,Consensus has been reached,er,settled I mean!!

canopfor on May 3, 2010 at 8:01 PM

“… the crank element at tea-party rallies?”

Uh, allah, what are you talking about? No links? How long have you been blogging, anyway?

I am unaware of ANY ‘crank element’ at any tea parties. Cops routinely leave the tea parties I am involved with setting up because THEY ARE BORED STIFF DUE TO NO PROBLEMS!

I don’t mind if you don’t share all my viewpoints but I sure don’t appreciate you insulting the nicest sweetest association of Americans ever to unite in public.

1.5 million in D.C. on 9/12/2009.
Zero arrests.
Zero cleanup costs (that’s no tax dollars spent)

No more falsehoods, okay?

platypus on May 3, 2010 at 8:02 PM

crr6 must be mentally deficient. I’d urge him to point to the text of the law that

him?

bernzright777 on May 3, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Nick was like, “Wrong prof. The law actually encourages police officers to pull over people if they look Hispanic.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Hey , you leftists encourages violence.

the_nile on May 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM

him?

bernzright777 on May 3, 2010 at 8:02 PM

It?

amerpundit on May 3, 2010 at 8:04 PM

The original bill was fine. The bill, after the “fix” is tepid water, at best, but still (a little bit better than nothing.

Still, no one in their right mind need expect the instigators on the left to react to this honestly or sensibly.

If those in power succumb to these public tantrums, then we need to rid ourselves of those in power and elect some folks who have a modicum of common sense.

hillbillyjim on May 3, 2010 at 8:05 PM

) that goes in there somewhere….damnasty hell.

hillbillyjim on May 3, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Support for Arizona’s immigration law over 60%

However, among Barack Obama, Erik Holder, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Lindsey Graham, Keith Olbermann, Bill Mahr, Felipe Calderon, Gavin Newsom, Rick Perry and Marco Rubio it was 0%.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 8:07 PM

SF City Attorney, Supes Call For Arizona Boycott

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23267630/detail.html
============================

Arizona immigration law: California leads call for boycotts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100428/ts_csm/297622

===============================
===============================

So like,instead of up holding America`s law of the land
its Patriotic to boycott,or shore up Dem Democrats voter
base!!!

canopfor on May 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM

If those in power succumb to these public tantrums, then we need to rid ourselves of those in power and elect some folks who have a modicum of common sense pair of testicles.

hillbillyjim on May 3, 2010 at 8:05 PM

FIFY.

platypus on May 3, 2010 at 8:12 PM

¡Arriba! ¡Arriba Ándale! ¡Ándale!

William Amos on May 3, 2010 at 7:45 PM

William Amos:Priceless,fastest mouse in all he Mex e co!:)

canopfor on May 3, 2010 at 8:14 PM

An e-mailer tells me the “we will shoot more police” sign could be fake. Fair enough, and duly noted. Follow the link anyway.

The very kind Senor Rahm say if I put up that sign and blame it on Allahpundit or Ed Morrissey he give me and Maria both 10 dollars each. Please will one of you take the blame so we can get our money. If neither of you want to take the blame you can always blame it on your former boss Michelle Malkin and maybe Senor Rahm will still give us the money.

NoBordersJose on May 3, 2010 at 8:15 PM

SF City Attorney, Supes Call For Arizona Boycott

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23267630/detail.html
============================

Arizona immigration law: California leads call for boycotts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100428/ts_csm/297622

===============================
===============================

So like,instead of up holding America`s law of the land
its Patriotic to boycott,or shore up Dem Democrats voter
base!!!

canopfor on May 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM

I hate to break it to these idiots but Arizona wants them to boycott. Who in their right mind would want a bunch of loony leftards around with their disgusting behaviors and horrid values.

platypus on May 3, 2010 at 8:16 PM

I recommended checking out KFI’s photo gallery of the choicest signs from the rallies instead. My favorite: “We will shoot more police in Arizona until we get free!”

John and Ken – awesome. Sometimes over the line, but they NEVER back down to anyone, and almost always have all the facts on their side. I love hearing John call a politician a liar or a whore to his face.

peski on May 3, 2010 at 8:17 PM

I love hearing John call a politician a liar or a whore to his face.

peski on May 3, 2010 at 8:17 PM

And I would love having the contract to clean up the piddle puddles under said politicians. Talk about job security!

platypus on May 3, 2010 at 8:20 PM

SF City Attorney, Supes Call For Arizona Boycott

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23267630/detail.html
============================

canopfor on May 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM

So what does this mean, canopfor? Do you think that San Francisco won’t be holding any more Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Pride conventions and parades in Phoenix? And what about the Man-Boy-Love association? Will they be canceling all their meetings in Tucson?

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM

The Left Fuels a Backlash on Illegals

American and European leftists share the conviction that the immigrant, legal or illegal, is always right — and the native-born citizen’s always wrong.

This bigotry toward the law-abiding American, Brit, Frenchman or Italian doesn’t help the immigrant in the end. Instead, it’s a powerful engine driving divisiveness.

There are deep differences between Europe’s experience with legal immigrants intent on importing intolerant lifestyles and our problem with illegals responsible for social friction and violent criminality.

But the left’s blame-game is identical: Anyone who doesn’t elevate the “rights” of the immigrant over the rights, safety and desires of the citizen is a bigot. No exceptions. Could there be a formula better designed to excite anti-immigrant sentiment?

In Europe, right-wing movements once consigned to the fringe have gained electoral traction from the Netherlands to Hungary as desperate citizens, ignored by political elites, struggle to preserve their way of life.

Here in America, where our political aristocracy’s equally disdainful of the average citizen, Arizona found itself overwhelmed by illegals and abandoned by a federal government unwilling to enforce its own laws. The state felt compelled to act — and has been damned for its self-preservation effort by the left and its media acolytes.

The left’s fighting harder than ever to enforce its group-think on both sides of the Atlantic: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown trashes a voter with sober concerns as a “bigoted woman,” while American activists condemn citizens in ravaged communities as “racists” because they don’t like gunfights in their yards.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 8:32 PM

You owe us America

Doctor Zhivago on May 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM

The same ignorants said on another sign “America is a continent”. They can’t make up their ‘minds’.

——-
I don’t think the sign with “shoot cops” is photoshopped. It looks rather like two sign, either held by two separate people, or pinned at the bottom of another sign.

Schadenfreude on May 3, 2010 at 8:32 PM

And then he was like, “I should also mention that the law specifically bans racial profiling. And it can only be used if the individual is suspected in another crime.”

amerpundit on May 3, 2010 at 7:54 PM

And then he was like “The law allows for citizens to sue if they feel the law isn’t enforced, and so law enforcement officials will be under pressure to catch as many illegal immigrants as possible. And the lawful contact requirement won’t prevent profiling, because police officers will just disproportionately pull over Hispanics for minor traffic violations”.

Oh, and then he was like “the law is obviously preempted by federal law anyway”.

And then the professor said “wow, A+”!

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:32 PM

two signs, rather

Schadenfreude on May 3, 2010 at 8:32 PM

will be under pressure to catch as many illegal immigrants as possible.

Argue against this, whish is having broken the federal law you so adore.

Schadenfreude on May 3, 2010 at 8:34 PM

wish = which

Schadenfreude on May 3, 2010 at 8:34 PM

It’s amazing how many people haven’t read the bill and shoot off their mouths before they know the facts.

Like crr6 for example.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 7:55 PM

haha. That’s rich I’m probably the only person in this thread that actually has read the bill.

And you guys need to learn the difference between a law that is discriminatory on its face, and a law that will be discriminatory in its administration.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:35 PM

haha. That’s rich I’m probably the only person in this thread that actually has read the bill.

And you guys need to learn the difference between a law that is discriminatory on its face, and a law that will be discriminatory in its administration.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Isn’t that cute? crr6 is actually trying to defend her opinion without the passage that proves racism.

(yawn)

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Isn’t that cute? crr6 is actually trying to defend her opinion without the passage that proves racism.

(fart)

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 8:39 PM

And you guys need to learn the difference between a law that is discriminatory on its face, and a law that will be discriminatory in its administration.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:35 PM

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:41 PM

While thumbing through some old newspapers, I was struck by this Ralph Peters’ column about the narco-wars on the Mexican border with the US. According to the columnist, the terrorism threat to our country is right next door.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/border_disorder_rfy8ccTuYvAzNeDzP7qmsM

onlineanalyst on May 3, 2010 at 8:45 PM

meanwhile, our new AZ law which discontinues the practice of allowing schools to foster racial resentment via racialy focused studies courses is also set to become law soon.

it is aimed at the radical tucson school distict that has established ‘hispanic studies’ courses that promote hispanic solidarity and resentment of ‘white’ culture. the leaders are all proud comminists and ‘counter culture’ figures.

la raza is figting mad about this new law.

la raza means ‘the race’.

proud to be a ‘zonie!

DrW on May 3, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Isn’t that cute? crr6 is actually trying to defend her opinion without the passage that proves racism.

(fart)

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 8:39 PM
And you guys need to learn the difference between a law that is discriminatory on its face, and a law that will be discriminatory in its administration.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Wow, that was hilarious. Jon Stewart must be your hero.
Despite that well-crafted response, you forgot your proof.
Next.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM

An oft-cited 2002 Zogby poll found nearly 60% of Mexicans believe both that the American Southwest is rightfully Mexico’s and that Mexicans are entitled to live in the US. If these numbers are remotely representative and reflect the biases of Mexicans resident here as well, any kind of amnesty is impossible without the kind of commitment to cultural unity not sanctioned in this country in more than half a century. And back then the challenge of assimilating immigrants paled in comparison, since few if any disputed US sovereignty. Even legal immigration from Mexico becomes problematic. I hate to use a term like “cold war” to describe US-Mexican relations (especially since Mexico needs our help to maintain its own sovereign coherence) but it doesn’t seem as outlandish as it might have once.

Seth Halpern on May 3, 2010 at 8:50 PM

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM

You….have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Ohhhhhh HotAirheads. Gotta love em.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:50 PM

The murder rate has gone up an order of magnitude since declaring it a sanctuary city.

jukin on May 3, 2010 at 8:53 PM

SF City Attorney, Supes Call For Arizona Boycott

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23267630/detail.html
============================

Arizona immigration law: California leads call for boycotts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100428/ts_csm/297622

===============================
===============================

So like,instead of up holding America`s law of the land
its Patriotic to boycott,or shore up Dem Democrats voter
base!!!

canopfor on May 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM

As an AZ resident I invite the City of SF & State of Klifornia to invite all of our ILLEGAL ALIENS to stay with them. That way Kalifornians can proudly walk around with their noses in the air until the wall of debt comes crashing down on them. Or are they just as two faced as the preacher in High Plains Drifter?

“Are these people – are they your sisters and brothers?”
“They MOST certainly are.”
“Then you won’t mind if they come over and stay at your place. Will yah?”

To all my fellow Conservatives in Kali……I pray for ya. How about a swap? Illegals for you?

VikingGoneWild on May 3, 2010 at 8:55 PM

You….have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Ohhhhhh HotAirheads. Gotta love em.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:50 PM

And that’s strike three.

Thanks, you are so talented when it comes to debate. I’ve learned so much from you I can’t stand it.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a talking head program featured people actually knowledgeable about the AZ law to discuss its provisions? The program could discuss the misconceptions and set the facts out front to refute them. There would be no “debate” by the media wh*res allowed to dominate the discussion. The inflammatory, unfounded attacks might be put to rest.

(I can dream can’t I?)

onlineanalyst on May 3, 2010 at 8:56 PM

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Explain the difference between a law which is discriminatory on its face, and a law which is discriminatory in its application. Or look it up. When you do, you can come back and I’ll accept your apology.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a talking head program featured people actually knowledgeable about the AZ law to discuss its provisions?
onlineanalyst on May 3, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Agreed. I wish they would talk more about that awful, awful provision authorizing citizens to sue when the think LEO’s aren’t complying. Everyone’s so focused on all the other horrible problems with this bill (profiling, preemption) that we all forget about that one.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Explain the difference between a law which is discriminatory on its face, and a law which is discriminatory in its application. Or look it up. When you do, you can come back and I’ll accept your apology.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Just as soon as you can provide me proof of racism (here’s a clue: you can’t). Looks like you’ll be waiting a loooong time for that apology.

But keep trying, it’s kind of cute.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Just as soon as you can provide me proof of racism (here’s a clue: you can’t). Looks like you’ll be waiting a loooong time for that apology.

Well the law hasn’t taken effect yet. So how could I “prove” definitively that it will result in discriminatory administration if it hasn’t taken effect yet?

Now of course you just need common sense to know that it will result in discrimination. But as you’ve made abundantly clear, common sense isn’t your strong point.

But keep trying, it’s kind of cute.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Ok, that’s getting pretty weird.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:07 PM

What’s with all the uproar from around the country? It’s Arizona’s law, and they should tell anyone not living in Arizona to mind their own damn business!

GFW on May 3, 2010 at 9:08 PM

“We will shoot more police in Arizona until we get free!”

That sign should be re-posted EVERYWHERE!!

GarandFan on May 3, 2010 at 9:10 PM

LEOs do work for the citizens who pay their salaries via taxes, right? Don’t the citizen-employers have the right to expect service from their LEO employees? This is how the social contract works in a civilized society, where the law, not men, determines justice.

onlineanalyst on May 3, 2010 at 9:11 PM

And you guys need to learn the difference between a law that is discriminatory on its face, and a law that will be discriminatory in its administration.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Lame. Very lame.

You seem to be basically saying that the law is not discriminatory on it’s face but it will be discriminatory, you hope, in it’s administration.

You would never meet any reasonable standard for being on a jury. As a lawyer you would be judged totally incompetent.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:19 PM

You have to wonder why the illegal invasion supporters chose Mayday, the favorite holiday of Communists and Socialists.

Chip on May 3, 2010 at 9:21 PM

The offensive sign is written in red and held by the fellow wearing a white shirt over a navy blue tee shirt. He is standing in front of the person holding the sign with black printing. They are two different signs.

Why are protesters holding signs that insist that illegals be made legal? Do those opposing states of being not have meaning?

onlineanalyst on May 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM

When you do, you can come back and I’ll accept your apology.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:57 PM

With your legal skills you should accept a job at a Taco stand.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Ok, that’s getting pretty weird.

That’s what I was going to say!

Well the law hasn’t taken effect yet. So how could I “prove” definitively that it will result in discriminatory administration if it hasn’t taken effect yet?

OK, let me rephrase: show me in the bill where it targets brown skinned people. After all, isn’t that what you’re trying to be all Jesse-Jackson about?

Now of course you just need common sense to know that it will result in discrimination. But as you’ve made abundantly clear, common sense isn’t your strong point.

It will result in discrimination of people who break the law. Any other argument is a distraction. Is that common sense enough for you?

Keep on singin’ that racism song if it works for you.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Well the law hasn’t taken effect yet. So how could I “prove” definitively that it will result in discriminatory administration if it hasn’t taken effect yet?

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:07 PM

You fracken moron. You already said -

And you guys need to learn the difference between a law that is discriminatory on its face, and a law that will be discriminatory in its administration.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Don’t you even read what you yourself write?

You are so stupid you are beginning to make my teeth hurt.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Lame. Very lame.

You seem to be basically saying that the law is not discriminatory on it’s face but it will be discriminatory, you hope, in it’s administration.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Well obviously the people who drafted it think so too, which is why
1) the drafters had to include specific language barring LEO’s from basing “reasonable suspicion” solely off of race
2) the drafters proceeded to amend that language after the bill was passed to make it clearer that race couldn’t be considered
3) The governor issued an EO ordering police departments to create race-blind, specific standards for “reasonable suspicion” and
4) From the poll above 82% think it is at least “somewhat likely” that the law will lead to racial profiling.

But yeah the argument that it will be discriminatory in its administration is pretty weak, I guess.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:27 PM

With your legal skills you should accept a job at a Taco stand.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:24 PM

No thanks. I already have one with a federal judge.

So what do you do?

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM

onlineanalyst on May 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM

http://www.bermanpost.com/2010/05/immigration-rally-nyc-union-square.html

One of the signs at the NYC protest:

“Full Citizenship rights For All Immigrants!”

Why should we be giving extra rights to Criminals – illegal invaders?

Chip on May 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM

If crr6 is a fruitbar you must disbar.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:31 PM

No thanks. I already have one with a federal judge.
So what do you do?
crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Which “federal judge?”

Chip on May 3, 2010 at 9:31 PM

It will result in discrimination of people who break the law. Any other argument is a distraction. Is that common sense enough for you?

Keep on singin’ that racism song if it works for you.

badtemper on May 3, 2010 at 9:25 PM

It’s not even “racism”, really. It’s not even the LEO’s fault. They’re virtually forced to profile. It’s the only way they don’t get sued for failing to enforce the law.

And of course as several police officers have pointed out, they’ll also get sued if they do enforce the law….for profiling. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. What a great law.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Which “federal judge?”

Chip on May 3, 2010 at 9:31 PM

If I told you it would be an “ethics violation”.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM

No thanks. I already have one with a federal judge.

As what? His masseuse?

So what do you do?

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Pretty much whatever I want, including doing lawyer work a lot better than you.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Which “federal judge?”

Chip on May 3, 2010 at 9:31 PM

If I told you it would be an “ethics violation”.

crr6 on May 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM

If a complete incompetent like you works for a federal judge in any kind of legal capacity it would be a felony.

MB4 on May 3, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3