05-04-2010, 09:26 AM
and the law is still being taken to court as an illegal one.
firstly immigration deals with any law relating to illegal immigrants.
secondly all they did was dress it up a little
the fact they dressed it up shows for me that they never intended to make the law as alaw per say but rather as a device to shed light on their state in the hope of making the dems look bad. i think it's back firing exponentially on them. more court cases are being filed than you can shake a stick at.
in truth the morons gave every liberal, come saint a soapbox to shout off.
secondly, you said (and i agree) that they already had a law that covers the same thing. if thats so, why oh why did they have to make a new law to cover the same thing. it can only be to give publicity to the state and party that run it.
i still see the law getting overturned, i still see the intent as profiling under a frilly skirt.
the law itself doesn't count. what the court has to decide when people go there is the intent of the law and whether or not the particular law is jurisdiction of a federal dept, in this case it is, the immigration bureau.
it also has to determine the intent. from it inception it has been based on profiling. to change a word will not make it any the less a profiling based law. the intent is still the same.
the the court will ask " do the police already have the poewer to ask for proof of identity when a crime has been commited". the answer to this has to be yes. if that be the case then the new law would be redundant anyway and stricken off the books
firstly immigration deals with any law relating to illegal immigrants.
secondly all they did was dress it up a little
the fact they dressed it up shows for me that they never intended to make the law as alaw per say but rather as a device to shed light on their state in the hope of making the dems look bad. i think it's back firing exponentially on them. more court cases are being filed than you can shake a stick at.
in truth the morons gave every liberal, come saint a soapbox to shout off.
secondly, you said (and i agree) that they already had a law that covers the same thing. if thats so, why oh why did they have to make a new law to cover the same thing. it can only be to give publicity to the state and party that run it.
i still see the law getting overturned, i still see the intent as profiling under a frilly skirt.
the law itself doesn't count. what the court has to decide when people go there is the intent of the law and whether or not the particular law is jurisdiction of a federal dept, in this case it is, the immigration bureau.
it also has to determine the intent. from it inception it has been based on profiling. to change a word will not make it any the less a profiling based law. the intent is still the same.
the the court will ask " do the police already have the poewer to ask for proof of identity when a crime has been commited". the answer to this has to be yes. if that be the case then the new law would be redundant anyway and stricken off the books