AAA Challenges New Arizona Immigration Law *UPDATED*

10 thoughts on “AAA Challenges New Arizona Immigration Law *UPDATED*”

  1. The law in Arizona and a recently-passed amendment to SB 1070, House Bill 2162, clarifies that a person’s immigration status can only be investigated during a legal stop, detention or arrest.

    This is no different from pulling someone over for speeding and running a check of any outstanding warrants he might have.

    If you break the law, you should be arrested.
    Illegal immigration is breaking the law.
    The “Liberal” AAA is taking the position that it is OK to break the law.

    They are WRONG, whether they have Ph.Ds or not.

  2. “…would allow law enforcement to investigate an individual’s immigration status even if the person in question is not suspected of committing a crime.”

    The law actually REQUIRES a legal stop or arrest BEFORE any question about the immigration status takes place. This means that the person IS, in fact, “suspected of committing a crime.”

    Not only that, the immigration offense is also a crime.

    Anthropologists are dumber than I thought. They can’t even be bothered to read the law they oppose. Such fools.

    1. Anthropologists have read the revision to the law and choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit their Liberal agenda.

      They’re not dumb, just “Liberals.”

  3. “The AAA resolution pledges that the association as a whole will refuse to hold a scholarly conference in Arizona until SB 1070 is either repealed or struck down as constitutionally invalid.” What will the AAA do if the bill is upheld as being constitutional? Will the AAA hold its conferences outside of the country?

    Debra Martin said in a statement issued today. “Recent actions by the Arizona officials and law enforcement are not only discriminatory; they are also predatory and unconstitutional.” First, how are the actions discriminatory? What people do this law discriminate against? What do you use to back up this assumption? How is enforcing the law predatory? The constitutionality of the law has not been tested in a court of law yet, so what basis are you using that the law is unconstitutional?

    I would like to see an opinion based on facts, and not emotional political-correctness or bias.

Comments are closed.