Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > Priority Topics Section > Immigration

Immigration Topics relating to the subject of US Immigration

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-29-2010, 05:32 PM
PochoPatriot PochoPatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 336
Default I Was Wrong

I ran across this on my Facebook feed. It's from the San Francisco Chronicle. Based on this my opposition to SB1070 was misguided. I now support Arizona's law fully.

I did note that Campbell did say that racial profiling is unconstitutional. Though I am sure that some here would write him off as a RINO.

Quote:
onst. law prof Tom Campbell on AZ immigration law: "It's Constitutional" and ends sanctuary cities

As we told you about earlier, GOP US Sen. candidate Tom Campbell stopped by Wednesday to ask for The Chronicle editorial board's endorsement. The ivory tower posses let Comrade Marinucci and yours truly hang out... but we had to bring the potato salad.

We asked Campbell -- a longtime Constitutional law professor -- what he thought about Arizona's controversial new immigration law. Other scholars have said that AZ is out of bounds in trying to tackle the issue this way.

But Campbell never has been one to follow the pack. He's a pro-choice, OK with gay marriage Republican, remember. As for the AZ law...

"It's constitutional," Campbell told The Chronicle.

Plus, Campbell said. "It puts an end to sanctuary cities in the state of Arizona."

Naturally, The Professor took us to the law school library. Cited Terry v. Ohio, 1968, an 8-1 opinion written by chief Justice Earl Warren -- "so I'm not citing somebody from the far right" Campbell noted -- which he said justified the right of law enforcement, upon reasonable suspicion, to stop and make an inquiry, short of probable cause.

But doesn't he have any concerns about the law encouraging racial profiling:

"If there is racial profiling, that would be an unconstitutional application of a constitutional law," he said.

"I, as a Californian, have no basis to criticize Arizona's choice if this is how they wish to go about it. Now we have to watch to see how it's implemented and what effect it has," Campbell said.

You can listen to Campbell's full chat here.

As for Tom's GOP primary opponents? Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore told the Sac Bee earlier Wednesdaythat he was game to see a similar law in California.

"I think California would benefit from passing a similar law, but it won't happen given the current state of affairs," DeVore said. "Our state, by comparison, is constantly looking for ways to provide more tax dollars for people who are here illegally. So the battle in this state is considerably different."

Carly Fiorina spokesperson Amy Thoma told us:

"Carly believes that when the federal government fails to up hold its most basic function-ensuring the safety and security of its citizens-then the inevitable result is that states will take matters into their own hands. The Arizona law is a reflection of the outrage felt by the state's residents and it underscores the need for the federal government to make border security a top priority. Instead of vilifying the people of Arizona, we should be demanding that the federal government do its job and secure the border."

None of California's guv candidates -- the people who'd have to sign such a law -- are racing to endorse it. Democrat Jerry Brown told KGO-AM Thursday that the root of the problem was the need for federal immigration reform -- but that was the federal government's job to secure the border and conduct diplomatic relations with Mexico.

Meanwhile, California's Democrats are stumbling over each other to find new ways to boycott Arizona.
__________________
I think, therefore I love the Dodgers!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-29-2010, 08:08 PM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

I have always supported 1070. We must start some place because no D or R in the Fed Government are going to do anything. They are too afraid of losing a vote from someone who is not supposed to vote any way. I have heard so many sob stories today. I must say not many are talking about what we should do. I do believe they are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing.
Duncan Hunter is speaking out for AZ and of course Tom Tancredo. Not a peep from anyone in CA. Did hear old Mahoney, Newsome and Ed Rayes blast AZ and call for a boycott of AZ.
I could not take a chance on going to AZ now because I do think things are going to get much worse.
We can't forget AZ already has a dead rancher.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-30-2010, 02:58 AM
usa today usa today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 438
Default

These idiots need to get off this profiling BS

As an American citizen I'm "profiled" every day , I have to produce ID to buy a beer or smokes, To cash a check , for any number of reasons

The laws against racial profiling must be DEFINED , like the 14th I believe these lib morons are reading the wrong meaning into the laws.

I still say there is a huge difference between racial profiling and criminal profiling.

If a crime is committed in an area and the purp was discribed as a 20ish white male, Who do you think the cops are going to be looking for?

Is that profiling?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-30-2010, 04:32 AM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

Quote:
As an American citizen I'm "profiled" every day , I have to produce ID to buy a beer or smokes, To cash a check , for any number of reasons

The laws against racial profiling must be DEFINED , like the 14th I believe these lib morons are reading the wrong meaning into the laws.

I still say there is a huge difference between racial profiling and criminal profiling.
Since all the banks are now under new management, I need to produce ID at banks where I have had accounts for 30 years. Why is it such a problem to carry ID. At any time I am away from home I probably have at least 5 forms of ID but I do not need to carry my birth certificate. There is a difference between me and an INVADER.

They are not reading anything wrong into the law, it is just a nother distraction. They tell the masses that their imaginary civil rights are violated so they must fight and fight is all they know. Just look at the killing in Mexico right now. They kill their own the same way. How many times have we been told how they are going to take our country?

I keep using the word Mexico but I know it is all from our south, I just cannot type everyone each time I name an invader.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-30-2010, 05:47 AM
Don Don is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 649
Default

The only thing for which one is not required to produce identification is to vote for the Democrat Party at five or six different polling places on the same election day.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-30-2010, 06:37 AM
Patriotic Army Mom Patriotic Army Mom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 829
Default

Love you Pocho! You're a great American.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved