Stolen truck and trailer crash in Steamboat

Police cooperating with investigation in Wyoming

Advertisement

— Steamboat Springs police are cooperating with law enforcement agencies in Wyoming after a stolen truck and trailer, loaded with stolen construction equipment, wrecked on the east side of town.

The truck and the trailer were found Saturday near U.S. Highway 40 and Weiss Drive. The truck had driven off the side of the road and the trailer had tipped on its side. There was no driver present when officers arrived. The truck and trailer were towed to an impound lot but were not listed in the national police database as stolen at the time.

Steamboat Springs Police Department Detective Nick Bosick said it appears that on Sunday night, somebody sneaked into the impound lot and tried to set fire to the truck, the trailer and its contents using gasoline. The fire damaged the truck and some items in the bed of the truck but caused only cosmetic damage to the trailer, Bosick said. Nothing else was damaged in the fire.

Since that time, the truck, trailer and construction equipment, including air compressors and expensive power tools, have been reported stolen from oil-well sites in Wyoming. The truck was listed as stolen from Wamsutter, Wyo., about 145 miles from Steamboat. Two county sheriff’s offices in Wyoming are working on the case.

“We’ll do an investigation on our end, but for the most part, we’re going to be assisting those guys with the investigation,” Bosick said. Steamboat detectives will investigate the arson and theft by receiving, but there are no suspects in the case, Bosick said.

Comments

Sara Gleason 4 years, 4 months ago

Too bad they didn't get them on candid camera...

0

greenwash 4 years, 4 months ago

Ill bet they are as white as the snow outside.

0

zozobee 4 years, 4 months ago

Maybe you should move to Arizona, yampavalleyboy - then you could have anyone who looks suspicious or "illegal" pulled over for investigation.

0

TWill 4 years, 4 months ago

If it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, then it's probably a rat!

Why shouldn't border patrol officers (and TSA) use profiling to do their job? Look at the percentages of circumstances and demographics of the violators.

I'm not speaking in reference to the truck and trailer crash in the article, but more to zozo's comment. Why not investigate someone that looks suspicious, if that's your job?

0

zozobee 4 years, 4 months ago

Investigating someone who looks suspicious is very different than investigating someone in a coordinated fashion because of their ethnicity or the way they dress, or the way they wear their hair. The Oklahoma City terrorists were young white rural type males - maybe we should be targeting this particular group of individuals. Do you really want to be in a position of law enforcement having the capability to stop and investigate you or your children because of what you look like?

0

TWill 4 years, 4 months ago

A few ways to stay out of trouble and avoid issues with the authorities:

a) don't do or possess anything that would get you in trouble

b) if you are up to no good- don't look and present yourself like others that are

c) even if you have nothing to hide- don't look and present like someone that does

Like it or not, personal appearance and the way one conducts themself is the difference between "step out of the car" vs. "here is your warning, have a nice day"

0

zozobee 4 years, 4 months ago

Interesting thoughts TWiII but you acknowledge the problem - if one is black or hispanic or middle eastern one gets "step out of the car" for that reason and that reason alone - that is not just! These persons do not have the option (or desire, I am quite sure) to change their inherent "personal appearance" - it is who they are.

0

TWill 4 years, 4 months ago

Sure, if you want to reverse generations worth of societal bias and discrimination, then have at it and good luck.

In the meantime, I would suggest options a, b, or c from my post above.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 4 months ago

TWII, So would things like disagreeing with your government count as a thing that will get you in trouble?

The trouble with your list is that it also works as a guide to be a compliant citizen in a totalitarian society that has no individual or civil rights. Laws need to apply to governments as well as citizens.

"Look at the percentages of circumstances and demographics of the violators." So what does that have to do with the individual that is being pulled over? Does that person lose their rights? And if you think it is no big deal then you'd have no problems with the police pulling you over a few times a week because you fit the profile for thief, rapist, child molester or some other crime?

0

TWill 4 years, 4 months ago

You're confusing being randomly pulled over with passing through airport or border security.

I'm not condoning that anyone be harassed, discriminated or anything else associated with a totaliarian society (i.e.- I'm not going to vote for Wiggins). However, I do believe that security departments and checkpoints along our borders and airports should practice social profiling (supported by patterned, historical data) because it is both the effective and efficient approach to maintaining public safety. Which, like the police, is their primary job.

I still say that practicing options a, b, or c will lead to a much easier way of passing the time.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

I grew up in Tacoma, WA – Ted Bundy’s old stomping grounds. Once it had been determined the prime suspect was a 30ish white guy who identified himself as “Ted”, the authorities profiled aggressively. They didn’t question black guys named Jerome; Asians called Satoru; or Hispanics named Jose, in an effort to be fair. They used (racial – the horror!) profiling in an effort to be effective.

In the 80’s, while I was still in WA, a neo-nazi group called the Order committed a series violent & deadly armed robberies across the Pacific Northwest. Its members were all white guys. Had law enforcement rousted Jews & blacks & Latinos in order to conduct a fair & pc investigation, they would have been rightly accused of incompetence, and possibly even criminal negligence.

Of the millions (or billions?) of post 9/11 searches conducted in American airports, I can’t seem to recall a single weapon or bomb being intercepted (although, we have confiscated plenty of nail clippers and coffee cups and shampoo bottles and breast milk. Victory!).

I do recall that Richard Reid & the xmas day Muslim were able to smuggle explosives on board commercial airliners. In the wake of the xmas day attempt, Big Bro has implemented some stunningly useless – but Politically Correct! – new directives. Wanna blow up an airplane? Easy – just do it 90 minutes before landing or anytime after takeoff. International travelers are now banned from having anything in their laps during the last 90 minutes of the flight. That’ll show the Richard Reids of the world! I bet it brings the Islamofreaks to their knees!

Profiling may or may not have stopped Reid or the xmas day dipstick, but one thing is sure: we are wasting time & energy stretching our limited resources equally over the hundreds of millions who fly every year, just so we can pat ourselves on the back for being equitable. I WANT the authorities to profile & discriminate between terrorists & non terrorists; to focus their finite manpower & resources where it is likely to do the most good.

By the same token, there is no question that the vast majority of people crossing our southern border illegally are Hispanic. We would be foolish not to profile & discriminate between likely offenders and the law abiding. Tacoma authorities would have been equally foolish not discriminate between their suspect profile and those that didn’t fit the bill. If some get their feeling hurt in the process (and there were plenty of innocent white guys hauled in for questioning during both the Bundy & Order investigations), too bad.

0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

Sep & TWill...so if your Native American and live in Az, you should have to carry your passport with you or face deportation?

0

TWill 4 years, 4 months ago

I don't think it's too much to ask for citizens to carry identification, thalgard. Do you?

If I'm asked to identify myself, I show my ID. It's a lot harder to do (without incident) if you're trying to get away with something you shouldn't or have something to hide.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

thalgard:

How do you propose we

  1. Secure our borders, and
  2. Identify & deal with those who are here illegally?
0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

Everyone should be required to prove citizenship, like in other countries....if we think that profiling is going to prevent terrorism, than, mark my words, next time the terrorists will find someone who looks like us . In Israel, every public place has metal detectors. There are bomb sniffing dogs everywhere. There are soldiers everywhere. Mossad is everywhere. Despite this, the arabs still manage to strike. How do we deal with those that are here illegally? Levy fines on those employers who hire undocumented workers. Give a clear path to citizenship to those that want it, work visas to those that don't. The problem, as you well know, has been going on for decades. If I lived in Northern Mexico I'de probably come here also, as would many people. In my opinion, until the economic situation in Mexico and Central America improves drastically, human nature will force people north.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

thalgard:

You write - "Everyone should be required to prove citizenship..."

The AZ law is an effort to impose that requirement. Or at least, to have everyone disclose their status, and face the consequences if they are in violation. Unless I misunderstand, you object to the AZ law. How then, should everyone "be required to prove citizenship"?

0

Cooke 4 years, 4 months ago

@ yampavalley "They DO NOT respect the U.S., they in fact want "THEIR" country back. It's true. I have many Mexican friends, and they all joke about this. "Do what you will Uncle Sam, we will overpopulate you"!! We will enjoy ourselves doing it. (get the hidden meaning?)"

What a stunningly shallow stereotype and generalization. It's a good thing you have so many mexican friends.

0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

If one person is required to carry proof of citizenship, than all people should be required to carry either a drivers license or a passport, just like in other countries.Singling out a group based on looks, clothing, funny hats, or being a complete jerk-off like see-you-pee is inherently un-american, and will not pass the court test.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

thalgard:

I'm still unclear how you plan to enforce the proof of citizenship mandate you say we require. Should there be ethnic quotas assigned to authorities who ask people for their IDs? If Arturo is questioned, then Gerhard and Shaniqua should be too, just to be fair?

As far as the inherent un-Americanism of singling out people based on their looks, I suspect the families of Bundy's victims had no problems with the task force singling out young white guys around college campuses. Ditto the family of Alan Berg. I'll wager a year's pay that the Bergs didn't bat an eye when the FBI paid no attention to the Black Panthers, and infiltrated The Order instead.

Then again, maybe they're just un-American and racist.

0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

Sep...the law should read as this...all persons shall have in their possession a form of ID that identifies them as citizens of the US, be it a passport, drivers license, student ID, green card... etc...and must present such when stopped by a police officer. That is how it is in every country that I have visited, that is the only way that such a law can be fairly executed. That means that you, yes even you, may have to prove that the barnyard in OK that you were raised in was actually part of the US.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

It's too bad you feel it necessary to default to sophomoric insults; the last refuge of the juvenile. I generally enjoy discussions & arguments with those who disagree with me.

Have a nice night.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

For anyone who's interested, here's the complete text of AZ Senate Bill 1070: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

My prediction: it will easily stand up to any judicial scrutiny. Essentially, it categorizes as a state misdemeanor that which is already a federal crime: being here in violation of federal law. Arizona lawmakers were no dunces when they put the bill together - the state language defining the infraction is identical to the federal statute. It'll be interesting to see how opponents will argue the unconstitutionality of legislation that has already passed muster at the federal level. The bill further directs state law enforcement to - wait for it - enforce the law! Imagine that!

Arizona is virtually under siege, & the Feds aren't lifting a finger to address the problem. Arizona has duplicated the federal guidelines in their own law, and is making an effort to solve a problem the Feds have refused to touch.

For libs & most Dems, that's racist. For the rest of us, it's common sense.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 4 months ago

Sep, I wouldn't be so sure that the AZ law will hold up. Immigration is national, not state policy. Just because a state copies federal law does not mean the state can enforce federal law.

There have been previous Supreme Court decisions on when a person needs to provide ID to law enforcement and this law would appear to go beyond those limits.

It is no accident that we have a broken immigration policy. Corporations and business enjoy the cheap labor and by increasing the supply of cheap labor, how it depresses the wages of lower skill US workers. The US govt enjoys collecting taxes on fake SSNs because it will never have to pay benefits to those workers. And it affects enough people, their families and friends that it is a key issue for a sizable number of voters. Unfortunately, it is a lot easier to keep it broken than come up with a workable solution.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

Scott:

The state legislature has passed it; the Gov has signed it - it is, by definition, state law. Whether or not its similarities to the federal statute amounts to state enforcement of federal guidelines is nothing more than semantic intrigue. If it becomes an issue, its resolution will have more to with politics than anything else.

There are presently dozens of "sanctuary cities" - http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp - in the U.S. Municipalities that are in blatant violation of the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The Feds (starting with Clinton and continuing thru W & Obama - this isn't a Repub v Dem issue, except to the extent that the left is playing the race card & the both sides are coddling their coptributors who like the cheap labor) have turned a blind eye for nearly 15 years, which has helped us get where we are. If the Feds actively oppose Arizona, pop some corn and watch the show. If you think people are pissed off now, just wait and see what happens if the Feds say "not only are WE not going to enforce the law; we're not going to let YOU do it either!"

0

kathy foos 4 years, 4 months ago

Most newspapers have a story about Arizonas law and people are blogging on it,this is sad that the pilot makes everyone take over a crime story to express their opinions on the subject.

0

Kevin Nerney 4 years, 4 months ago

Has anyone given any thought to why so much protesting is going on in the streets, such as Teaparty rallies and Arizona immigration laws? Do you think it has anything to do with the economy? Some folks have too much time on their hands. In the "old days" people were either too busy working to make their fortune or they were busy working 2 or 3 jobs to try and stay afloat nobody had time to get involved. All politics aside you would think the boys in DC would want to get people working again so we could get back to our own litttle lives and they could go about doing what they have always done (which is nothing) but no one would bother them.

0

oldskoolstmbt 4 years, 4 months ago

and the only people who really should have a legitimate complaint/concern are those who have lived in AZ for a good period of time...

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 4 months ago

Sep, But the feds don't recognize that sanctuary cities change immigration law or such. All that sanctuary city status does is say that city is not going to use their resources to help the feds.

I'd be surprised if the feds openly move against the AZ laws. They'll wait until someone's lawsuit proceeds towards trial and then file a friend of the court brief. So it'll take months and it'll be subtle when it happens. It'll probably take a while to get a case with good facts where a nonwhite US citizen gets pulled over without ID and gets treated differently than a white US citizen without ID.

For the AZ law to have a chance then they will have to be treating whites without ID the same as foreign language speaking people of color. And if they do that then they will have a public outcry from white people that had issues due to not having ID one day. That "reasonably suspicious" of immigration status is real hard to argue is not discriminatory. How many police officers can interpret that without including some comment that is discriminatory? And not say something discriminatory if questioned by lawyers?

0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

yvb...OH no, the brown people are coming...what are we gunna do? Maybe we ought to round up everyone who's skin is darker than yours and put them in big camps. How we gunna feed em, you might ask, well we'll just bake em at 500 and bury them in big pits.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 4 months ago

And so what happens when/if the targets of this law turn to violence? What then do we do to avoid all out civil unrest? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlutO0KK7g&feature=player_embedded

0

Cooke 4 years, 4 months ago

YVB -- Could you explain further your comment on non-white babies?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

mmjPatient22:

Looks like a straw man, to me. I think most illegals are simply trying to make better lives for themselves & their families. The fact that so many try so hard to do it under the radar precludes the kind of extremism documented in your youtube link. Every large scale movement/polity/special interest has its fringe elements. Ascribing the fringe as central to the core is less than useful.

But to answer your question: we avail ourselves of the rights guaranteed us under the 2nd Amendment. If anyone wants to come after me with a shovel, they're welcome to try.

0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

He can't respond. He is too busy burning his cross.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 4 months ago

Sep- I don't see where I've given you any reason to believe that I was looping all the apples in with one of the bad ones. I don't doubt that most, if not all, of the illegal immigrants in this country are seeking to better their life and the lives of their family. However, that doesn't mean that I support them trying to do it for free, in my country. I am fully aware of our 2nd amendment rights. I am also fully aware of the fact that there are over 10 million illegal immigrants in this country. And believe me when I tell you that I'd be standing right there with you and every other American, in defense of our lives and our freedoms. But that's not what I was going with it. What concerns me the most is the violence that is already present at our Southern boarder. It will be plenty interesting to see how this affects that whole situation. Hopefully we can maintain our boarder a little better than we have in the past.

And shame on all of you that are trying to turn this into a race thing. How is making false claims about someone being a racist, any better than being a racist yourself?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

Scott:

Sanctuary cities flagrantly violate the statute’s requirement to cooperate with DHS & ICE re: notifying those agencies of illegals in their jurisdictions; or even bothering to make the distinction between legals & illegals, as required by law. So while the feds “don't recognize that sanctuary cities change immigration law”, their refusal to enforce it, and their willingness to allow sanctuary cities to ignore it has the practical effect of rendering the statute meaningless. That lack of enforcement is what got us here.

Illegals and their apologists on the left will shriek “discrimination!” regardless of how careful law enforcement is. Feelings will get hurt, and race hustlers like Sharpton will piss & moan, and you’re most likely correct: it’ll wind up in the courts. So be it.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

Cornell Law Prof William Jacobson references ( http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-not-read-this-supreme-court-decision.html ) a pair of Supreme Court precedents that will no doubt be cited if & when this wind up before the judiciary: U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) http://supreme.justia.com/us/422/873/ , and U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html

In Brignoni, the court delineated some the the factors law enforcement is entitled to consider when stopping a suspected illegal; including (but not limited to):

The the characteristics of the area in which they encounter a vehicle. The usual patterns of traffic on the particular road. Previous experience with alien traffic. Information about recent illegal border crossings in the area. The driver's behavior. Aspects of the vehicle. The characteristic appearance of persons who live in Mexico. The officer's experience experience in detecting illegal entry and smuggling.

In Martinez, the court ruled that no reasonable suspicion was needed to engage in limited questioning of citizenship or immigration status at fixed checkpoints.

As Professor Jacobson puts it: "Just don't claim that the Arizona legislature has done something government was not already empowered to do, or invented some new standard called "reasonable suspicion," or by failing to exclude "characteristic appearance" from being taken into consideration engaged in a clear constitutional violation."

0

Taken4m 4 years, 4 months ago

As a passenger, I was issued a ticket at a fixed checkpoint for not having an ID on me. I completely ignored the ticket and nothing ever came of it.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 4 months ago

Sep, Both of those cases are for the Border Patrol which is a federal agency and do nothing to suggest the AZ laws will be upheld.

Find a case where the US Supreme Court allowed a state or city to enforce immigration laws.

0

Taken4m 4 years, 4 months ago

The vehicle was stalked and set afire. Unless the driver was registered with the CBI, why would they bother?

0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

YVB..should we start the ethnic cleansing now?

0

tcb 4 years, 4 months ago

Oh look! A Pinal County Deputy Sheriff was shot near the Mexican border while trying to protect the citizens of Arizona. Is anyone offended by this? Where are the protests now? I don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth over THIS incident. Read the story and tell me WHY he was shot...and then try and convince everyone that the Arizona law is wrong.

0

thalgard 4 years, 4 months ago

One well publicized criminal act, or a hundred such acts, does not necessitate racial profiling...catch the crooks and dispense justice. Plenty of white people engage in similar acts, it it not the ethnic background of the perp but the act itself. Like I said before, if one person is required to carry ID, than all people should be required to carry ID.

0

aichempty 4 years, 4 months ago

I've got a different take on this.

Statistically, I'm likely to be dead by 2050, and buried in a Veterans Cemetary. It will be nice to have people working there who are good gardeners, to keep the place up. It will also be nice to have people working there who fear God and have family values.

Becoming a minority will be a big boost to non-Hispanic caucasians. For one thing, we won't be "The Man" anymore. We won't be those who oppress the African American community.

Also, although I really don't care for cultural music of either the Hispanic or African American varieties, I won't care if I'm dead.

I think it will work out fine.

The non-Hispanic caucasian majority gets what it deserves for tolerating violence, greed and dishonesty in our society. Drug use is our fault too, for participating in it, and for tolerating it.

So, we're just reaping what we have sown. It's evolution in action!

0

Kevin Nerney 4 years, 4 months ago

Here's a thought--- There is talk of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state. Instead of that how about making Mexico the 51st or the 52nd state. Immigration problem solved, unemployment problem solved( plenty of work fixing Mexico's infrastructure) housing problem solved( all the uber rich can buy land in some vacation spot build houses and rent them out) and the lefties can accelerate the votes they have been courting recently. If it's true that the Mexicans want the southwest back if we give Mexico statehood and they play their cards right they could get the whole country(eventually).( they procreate faster then the whites?). Wouldn't be the first time we tried to be imperialistic.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

Scott:

I’ve been following Professor Jacobson for nearly two years, and have yet to see him proven wrong. If he asserts the rulings are relevant, that’s good enough for me.

You asked for case law which “allows” local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration statues. I am unaware of any. I am also unaware of case law prohibiting local law enforcement from doing so. I’ll let those who are more well-versed in that arena educate us both, if they’re so inclined.

Here’s what I DO know. Existing federal guidelines already empower state & local authorities to enforce federal immigration law: http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act

Here’s a fairly recent example: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0425/p02s01-ussc.html In 2007, a county sheriff in AZ announced that “The violence associated with the problem of migration and narcotics ... has reached epidemic proportions," Mr. Dupnik told reporters on March 30. "If we had the money for the kinds of resources that we need, we could make a huge impact on border violence and crime."

The sheriff & state officials laid out a framework within which ICE, Border Patrol, the Natl Guard, the Maricopa Sheriff’s Dept, Phoenix-area metro police, & the AZ Dept of Public Safety allow local law enforcement to arrest illegals, by entering into 287(g) agreements with the feds.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 4 months ago

Continued:

http://www.governor.state.nm.us/press/2005/august/081205_1.pdf In 2005, the NM Gov declared a state of emergency along portions of his border with Mexico, and allocated a boatload of $, to: “…support state and local law enforcement efforts, create and fund a field office for the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security to coordinate assistance to the area, and help build a fence to protect a livestock yard, along a favorite path for illegal immigration…”

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/newmexico/index.html In explaining the initiative, the Gov slammed the "total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress" in helping protect his state's residents along the border. "There's very little response from the Border Patrol," he said on CNN.

The CNN article includes no comment or response from the Feds. 287(g) has been in the arsenal since the mid 90s, and there’s no mention of that either. This appears to have been a unilateral initiative by the state. To the best of my knowledge & googling, the Feds stayed out of NM’s way.

There are plenty of other examples - principally from AZ, NM, TX, & CA. Your concerns about which authority enforces border policy doesn't make a lot of sense (to me) logically, and is demonstrably irrelevant in practice - at least in our border states.

I’m unclear what your reasons are for opposing the AZ law (if, indeed, you DO oppose it, and aren’t just playing devil’s advocate). You’ve characterized our immigration policy as “broken”, and identified the status quo as the path of least resistance. Do you believe fixing it just isn’t worth the effort? Is it unfixable in your view? Are you an amnesty supporter? A thallgard-esque “rednecks who want immigration enforcement are slack jawed knuckle dragging racists” preacher? One/All/None of the above? I’m curious.

0

seeuski 4 years, 4 months ago

Why is the SEIU organizing the protests around the Country this weekend? They need more members because they are financially starved and they want more voting power. Who in the Federal Government benefits most from Union support, the Dems. It's all about the money, follow the money. If our Federal Government served the citizens of the USA as they are Constitutionally mandated to do our borders would be secure and AZ would not need to mirror the Federal immigration laws and do the job themselves. This whole thing is a tragedy brought on by scumbag politicians, vote em out and get those that will preserve OUR Constitution.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 4 months ago

Here's an absolutely brilliant article on the whole AZ illegal immigration thing. Worth the read.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/why-arizona-got-it-exactly-right

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 4 months ago

I love how they're all uppity about the "race" thing! It's like they're bitching about being the only race involved in immigrating into this country illegally! Why isn't the illegal immigrant crowd a little more ethnically diverse? Boy...that's a tough one....

0

jk 4 years, 4 months ago

What happened to thalgard? Did he finally come to the realization that this situation stinks?? Or is he out protesting???

0

TWill 4 years, 4 months ago

His bleeding heart must have failed him whilst creating peace and harmony among all living creatures.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 4 months ago

Sep, I'm just telling you why you shouldn't be surprised if the law is overturned. The fact that the feds have a rule delegating some authority strongly suggests that the states and locals wouldn't have the authority otherwise. And the delegated authority is not to do what AZ did.

And sure the states and locals have the ability to pass on collected info on suspected illegal residents to the feds. AZ goes far further than that by saying that suspected violators of fed law are violating state law and can be jailed by the state.

That is far different than their earlier law regarding undocumented workers because the legal argument in that is not about immigration, but accurate record keeping by businesses so that state taxes can be paid accurately and audited.

It truly does not matter what lawyers say might be legal. Proof of that is the DOJ's John Yoo saying that torture including methods previously prosecuted does not violate international accords against torture. Lawyers can claim anything, doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 4 months ago

Here's another CLASSIC one from the pro-illegal bunch... Could you imagine what would happen if a Tea Party-er were to ever threaten the life of law enforcement official? http://www.infowars.com/pro-illegal-immigration-protester-threatens-to-murder-police/

0

oldskoolstmbt 4 years, 4 months ago

yvb~..my goodness, just got on here tonight and...i was simply referring to people getting their panties in a wrinkle (ie:how wrong this new law is in AZ)..when most of them have never lived there or understand the magnitude of this problem.....now, for the 'trickling' effect that you have mentioned...a whole other forum....

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.