then please provide the source for the questions asked in the poll to prove it was about the Federal Law and not the AZ Law

as well as this
QUOTE:

When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/55_favor_immigration_law_like_arizona_s_for_their_stat

Is this not what you stated came from rasmussen?

The question asked is the federal law, not the Arizona law.

The federal law already required this of all police. So of course that is part of the Arizona law. They needed to include the rest of the law that makes it the Arizona law and not the just the federal law.

that is in the AZ law, as well. That is the part you are calling racist.

And that isn't "what I stated came from Rasmussen" That IS from Rasmussen. I provided a link to show that.

Just because the AZ law is similar (if not the same) as the federal Law....it is asking about the AZ law.

Even if the AZ law to to the letter like the Federal law....it's still the AZ law that AZ is enforcing. That is just semantics. Please provide the source where they asked about the FEDERAL LAW and not the ARIZONA LAW. It specially states polling the AZ law. That is what people commented on.

I take the media with a grain of salt.....so I'm not going by what a news source says. I am, also, not going by a post without sources for me to read.

With that said...I proved my point (sources and all) and outta here

Except all you proved was that rasmussen used the federal law statutes as their question and not the full Arizona statutes which are a bit different.

Not your fault Rasmussen was deceptive.

Not your fault Fox is a joke either.

Before you make such statements perhaps you should go read the law. It says nothing of the sort, and in fact it says they CANNOT do that, it would be a violation of the law as it is written.

I have read it and I suggest you read it before you call me out.

No that is not the part I am calling racist.

It is racist to identify an illegal on sight.

I agree, so why wouldn't you want to stop that kind of thing? This law STOPS officers from doing just that. The decision has been taken out of their hands, at the most they can issue a ticket to someone who they think may be an illegal. After that it's up to the courts to decided. Again please read the law before you pretend to know what it says.

Show me where it says that.

I have read it and reread it and it doesn't say that anywhere in the thing.

I will agree with the fact that the changes made to the law improved it.

The problem is that they are still going to be profiling based on race because how can you suspect an alien on sight? Even with it written in the law that they aren't suppose to do it they are still going to be profiling based on race.

It is already law that we have to have ID but this law allows them to hold these people indefinitely if they do not have ID. That is a big concern. Hispanic citizens are going to be targeted and harrassed and detained if they forget their ID at home.

From the official final document via the AZ state government
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF

Page 2 line 32 - 35
32 A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE
33 OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY
34 NOT [s]SOLELY[/s]*1 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE
35 REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION

*1) (the word solely is deleted from the acted law not sure if that will show here)

I have and if you have then you have done so with a blinders on. I had no problem finding the place. There are other restrictions on the actions of police officers as well if you care to look.

That did not state what you stated.

My previous post still stands.

It most certainly does and I could provide more but Im sure you'll miss the significance of those too so I won't bother.

I said that they are no longer allowed to use race in their determination of whether or not someone is an illegal. Just how more plain does it have to be than to say "MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE..." I mean really how much clearer can it be?

Okay so how do you identify a possible alien on sight?

If a black person is driving in a white neighborhood and gets pulled over for nothing more than being black and assuming they are going to commit a crime is totally different than a person being pulled over for actually committing some violation and being asked to produce identification.

The first example is profiling, the second is not.

this is the section I found

B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.....


this wording does address racial profiling as it relates to previous laws, BUT it leaves open interpretation of what those PREVIOUS laws were,,,