28 July 2010, 10:18 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66R45C20100728?type=politicsNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Politics+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher Provision one "The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton included one requiring a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally." All this did was require officers to check the status of detained or arrested offenders, it would of required officers to check everyone status, yet this is what she pulled out as being wrong? This only targets violent or trafficking illegals, not post-entery law abiding ones. So I'm not sure why she pulled this part out. Provision 2 "Bolton also halted provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for people without proper documents to tout for work in public places." When you travel to another country you are required to have passports and to display them when necessary, this law was applicable to the US as well until just now. When looking for jobs you need work visas available. This one seems very neutral to me and not even controversial, yet it was pulled out. Both pieces were comprehensive to all groups, yet these were the ill pieces of bigotry? Or new or unheard of territory? I must be missing something, so perhaps you can inform me what is wrong with these two provisions, they dont' seem radical, I personally feel that this is an attempt to make the bill fall by denying neutral and simple measures, but perhaps I am in need of corection, I know some people may not like them or it doesn't fit within their ideological realm, but a challange such as this surely must be more than just ideological preference, what am I missing? Why were these pulled out? @Billy Democrats are the frequent defenders here @law Quite simple, if you break the law and are a citizen, you have a record and can find you by name, officers check status all the time for records. @kman Read the provion removed, there was nothing about random searches. The provision pulled was about those arrested or detained. Please read. the bill targets those who have committed a crime / got caught in the act. If the law was detaining random citizens, then the judge would of only referenced/highlighted that. @kman This is like pulling teeth, I don’t like to throw insults out but reading comprehension is important. “requiring a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested" It means those in custody must be checked of status, not place those in custody who you believe need to be checked for status. What words are you inventing? If you need any more break down I can go one word at a time.... Read More »
Share on del.icio.us
Share on digg
Share on Technorati
Share on reddit
Share on Yahoo!
Share on Furl
