Your 'default position' appears to be: 'anyone who disagrees with me is fucking stoopid' (as I glanced at previous posts of yours). If you haven't been called on your bad attitude problem yet, here's hoping it gets addressed
tout de suite!
Here's a position paper from the Arizona ACLU concerning this law, which you adore so much:
Section 2
Would create a new section A.R.S. § 11-1051 that:
(A) Prohibits cities, towns, and counties from having any policy in place limiting the investigation of violations of federal enforcement laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
This appears to prohibit localities from having policies aimed at increasing trust within immigrant
communities, such as not questioning victims and witnesses of crime about their immigration status.
It also severely ties the hands of local governments by not permitting them to exercise their own
judgment about the allocation of law enforcement resources because it requires police agencies to
treat administrative violations of the immigration law on the same level as serious felonies. We are
aware of no other law—except funding incentives—that attempt to dictate law enforcement priorities
in this way.
(B) Requires police officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person whenever there is reasonable suspicion that the person is person is unlawfully present and verify that status with the federal government, except to the extent that it would hinder an ongoing investigation.
Requires all local law enforcement to investigate a person’s immigration status when certain
indicators exist that give rise to reasonable suspicion that they are in the country unlawfully,
regardless of whether that person is suspected of a crime. Some examples of reasonable suspicion of
undocumented status that have been upheld by the courts include not having proper identification and
evasive behavior. Under the law, a person would be presumed to be in the country lawfully if they
could show valid government ID or tribal identification. Contrary to the claims of some proponents,
the bill does not prohibit officers from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to investigate
Because most police officers have not been trained to enforce immigration law, many U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents will be wrongfully detained and would likely have a claim against their
local police agencies for damages resulting from their detention.
http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20By%20Section%20Analysis%20of%20SB1070updated%204-14-10.pdfHow in hell do you insist that the law merely reiterates federal law? Have YOU read the fucking law, or are you listening to one of those RW fuckheads? Your opinion is certainly closer to aforementioned RW fuckheads than the Arizona ACLU, that's for fuckin' sure!
As for your daughter, I meant no disrespect for her, although she has my sympathy. I'm not going to cease my criticism of either bad police officers or police departments who place a greater value on corporate interests than on protecting the people.