Posted on 05/17/2010 4:48:41 PM PDT by epithermal
The Seattle City Council approved the Arizona-boycott resolution 7-0 Monday afternoon. It calls for comprehensive immigration reform, and denounces the Arizona law.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Snow White had the Seven Little Dwarfs.
Seattle has the Seven Little Sh*ts.
I think I’ll go so the movie and boycott Seattle. Popcorn versus heroin. Fantasy versus insanity.
Nuff said!
and South Carolina
Seattle is pretty far left. Have you ever been there?
Say WA? Evergreen State ping Ping!
Hey Seattle Read this the shut up!
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
If you know where illegal aliens work, live or hang out, the Feds have a TIP LINE—866-347-2423. Pass this on.
Yah. Well, Red Hook isn't really a microbrewery anymore and though I like some of their products... forget it.
Seattle's coffees are lousy, IMHO.
And I live here (a few miles east)...
Believe me, the residents of Seattle are extremely well represented by their city council.
AZ - Send your illegals to Seattle.
Here's the latest poll results:
Seattle and Tacoma leaders are consider a boycott of Arizona because of its immigration law. Do you support a boycott of Arizona?
Yes, I support a boycott: 7%
No, I don't: 92%
Not sure: 1%
http://www.kirotv.com/surveyresults/23578405/detail.html?section=news&coid=23578405
Yes, I know that Seattle is pretty far left, but so is Los Angeles. The residents there are overwhelmingly in favor of the Arizona law.
In fact residents across the state of California passed a state ballot initiative some years ago that would have banned illegals from receiving any forms of public assistance. It was later shot down by some lefty in a black robe.
I’d still like to see the people of Seattle polled on what they think of the Arizona law.
Is this stuff constitutional? I’ll be checking with Attorney General Rob McKenna Thursday.
Thank you for your support of AZ. We have no malice, but just want to stop the 2.7 billion dollar cost and the danger of the porous border. Between the drug lords, the human traffickers, and the potential bombers coming into the country via the border, we need help. It is unbelievable that anyone would disagree with this legislation.
I enjoye Phil M’s. remarks about what the NBA would do if they had a large number of gate jumpers break into a game without paying? And what would they do knowing that they now had to buy them dinner, provide health care and free housing? And, finally, when the game was over, they wanted the team ownership. Something tells me, they would feel a little more sympathy for AZ.
People across the country have the same impression of Los Angeles residents, but in a recent poll conducted by the L.A. Times, 93% of Los Angeles residents agreed with the Arizona law.
That being said, the majority of Angelenos do tend to hew left on many other issues.
You're welcome. As Sarah said, "We're all Arizonans now."
Polls show that the vast majority of Americans support what your state is doing. Stay strong, and don't let the enemy get you down.
I wish Seattle would boycott Missouri.
All these places boycotting Arizona are setting themselves up as targets for people to avoid. I suspect that conservatives will begin fleeing these leftist havens for other pastures soon enough.
The SMC makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person or group based on "policital ideology," which is defined as "any idea or belief, or coordinated body of ideas or beliefs, relating to the purpose, conduct, organization, function or basis of government and related institutions and activities, whether or not characteristic of any political party or group."
So there you have it. Lawbreaking council members boycotting a law abiding state in order to show support for lawbreakers invading our country. Liberal hypocrisy at its worst.
Excellent point. And it tickles me to wave the “Øbozo’s Fault” flag ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.