Teabagger favorite Marco Rubio: Arizona immigration law could "unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including American citizens"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From Marco Rubio:

“Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.

“States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2010/04/marco-rubio-arizona-immigration-law-goes-too-far.html

Edited April 28, 2010 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Understandably, any constitutionalists or libertarian should stand against this law.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Understandably, any constitutionalists or libertarian person of sound mind should stand against this law.

fixed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

fixed.

Understandably, any constitutionalists or libertarian person of sound mind should stand against this law.

Well, that rules out most conservatives.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, that rules out most conservatives.

That's your broad brush not mine.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's your broad brush not mine.

Yeah, because you're a paragon of judiciousness and never ever indulge in hyperbole

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, because you're a paragon of judiciousness and never ever indulge in hyperbole

Is it AJ's broad brush day? Did I miss the announcement?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Is it AJ's broad brush day? Did I miss the announcement?

Broad brushes do not announce, they just brush.

[ScottThuy 140]

I am so not clear on what the big deal is with this law... It adds punishment for those here illegally.. It worksmuch like the seatbelt law in Fla worked... An officer can't stop or pull over a citizen based on this law alone, they must have some other probable cause... then once they are being interviewed for the original infraction, the officer can request proof of citizenship/immigration status.... if they can't show they are here legally, they are detained...

The reason they pushed for the law is so they could get a legal cause to detain illegals and once detained, the state will be paid Fed $ for every day the illegal is in state custody. Its not all about immigration, its also a cash grab...

Why would anyone have an issue with showing identification? Proof of satus and who they are? How is this singling anyone out? Are they affraid to end up like Cheech in Born in East LA?

If we were in any other country we would be expected to be able to show the same proof... or end upin jail

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Broad brushes do not announce, they just brush.

Good point.

An officer can't stop or pull over a citizen based on this law alone, they must have some other probable cause...

Nope. Any lawful contact with law enforcement can trigger the "suspicion". No probable cause needed at all.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

An officer can't stop or pull over a citizen based on this law alone, they must have some other probable cause... then once they are being interviewed for the original infraction, the officer can request proof of citizenship/immigration status.... if they can't show they are here legally, they are detained...

So you agree a citizen can be detained for not being able to prove citizenship. My DL has nothing on it about citizenship.

Nope. Any lawful contact with law enforcement can trigger the "suspicion". No probable cause needed at all.

Correct. "Lawful contact" can include a Latino USC reporting a rape to a cop.

[ScottThuy 140]

Do illegals have DL's?

Whenever I have any legal contact with law enforcement here They run me to see if I am dangerous or wanted... any problem with that?

Edited April 28, 2010 by ScottThuy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Whenever I have any legal contact with law enforcement here They run me to see if I am dangerous or wanted... any problem with that?

So, if you go to the police to report a crime or if you are a witness to an accident giving a statement, they run your record to make sure you ain't a bad guy? I've done both and they've never checked on me in either circumstance. You must live in an odd area...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So, if you go to the police to report a crime or if you are a witness to an accident giving a statement, they run your record to make sure you ain't a bad guy? I've done both and they've never checked on me in either circumstance. You must live in an odd area...

Or he "looks" like a wise guy

[ScottThuy 140]

am I being "sngled out"?