naomiglover

More on Boycotting Israel http://www.bdsmovement.net/

Elvis Costello cancels concerts in Israel in protest at treatment of Palestinians In a statement on his website, Costello explained: "I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlement and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security. "I am also keenly aware of the sensitivity of these themes in the wake of so many despicable acts of violence perpetrated in the name of liberation." http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/may/18/elvis-costello-cancels-israel-concerts Recently, Santana and Gil Scott-Heron who were part of the movement to boycott Apartheid South Africa had also canceled their shows in Israel. This is how it started with apartheid South Africa with cultural and academic boycotts by artists and schools.

Story of M.Dancer's forum life.

So you are right once again and the following people are wrong? Peter Spiro, law professor at Temple University Kevin Johnson, dean of the law school at the University of California-Davis Laura A. Hernandez, law professor at Baylor University Judith Gans, program manager for immigration policy at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, adjunct law professor at Cornell University Gabriel (Jack) Chin, University of Arizona law professor Jennifer Chacon, law professor at the University of California (Irvine) In discussing these questions with legal experts, we found that everyone agreed that there's some gray area that will need to be sorted out in future court decisions. That said, the general consensus was that police could indeed stop someone even in the absence of suspicion that a crime was being committed. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

American Woman, you're wrong and you need to admit that you're wrong. The ambiguity of the law allows the police officer to use the excuse of reasonable suspicion to ask anyone for papers. This will go on until there are court rulings to give a more concrete definition of this vague law. So a key question is whether there be "reasonable suspicion" about someone's legal status in the absence of a crime -- major or minor -- being committed or suspected. If the answer is yes, it would undercut Huppenthal's argument. In discussing these questions with legal experts, we found that everyone agreed that there's some gray area that will need to be sorted out in future court decisions. That said, the general consensus was that police could indeed stop someone even in the absence of suspicion that a crime was being committed. Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said that law enforcement officers can use profiling rather than suspicions of a specific crime being committed. "Police departments come up with profiles that can establish a reasonable suspicion," Spiro said. Such profiles "entitle an officer to stop someone and say, 'I'd like to ask you some questions?' The officer can then investigate, which could lead to probable cause." And at that point, Spiro said, an immigration status check would be acceptable under the Arizona law -- even if no specific crime was witnessed or suspected. "If you came up with a profile for undocumented immigrants, that would establish reasonable suspicion, and you could stop that person even if no other crime was suspected," he said. Furthermore, this sums up the misinformation DogOnPorch and American Woman are either unknowingly or knowingly spreading: Huppenthal's position -- that the police must suspect that something illegal is being committed before asking someone for proof of legal status -- is not correct. The law says the police officer just needs "reasonable suspicion'' that the person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States. The police are prohibited from using a profile based solely on racial or ethnic factors, but that standard can be sidestepped. In addition, some seemingly innocuous behaviors like getting in a car or making a gesture or nodding could be seen by a law officer as "reasonable suspicion" of the newly enacted prohibition against seeking work while in the United States illegally. The passage in the law citing racial profiling does provide some protection, as does the difficulty of defining a profile for illegal immigrants that could pass legal muster, but the law leaves open several possibilities for police questioning individuals without seeing or suspecting a specific crime. So we rate Huppenthal's statement False.

American Woman agrees with DogOnPorch's following comment: Here is what PolitiFact has to say about this issue. Arizona immigration law requires police to see a crime before checking legal status http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/

I doubt American Woman will take the stance and advocate never building a Catholic church near any schools to show sensitivity towards thousands of people who have been raped and abused by Catholic priests.

No. You're wrong again. This vague term, "reasonable suspicion" can be used against anyone in any circumstance. It's not only during a traffic stop. A police officer can stop someone walking down street and ask for documents, if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal.

There is no 'furthermore'. The comment Dogsonporch has made, as already indicated by me, is wrong. How do you determine if a person is illegal? How many Mexican looking people do they have to wrongfully request papers for before you think it's not really a good program? Are illegal Mexicans always running across the border for them to look suspicious or can the police pick out a Mexican looking person walking down the street and determine that he is an illegal?

Anyone who cannot admit that this law is about racial profiling is kidding themselves. Racial profiling is illegal both federally and in the state of Arizona.

Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime. Now, they can ask for immigration status and papers if the person looks like they are illegal. How exactly do you profile an illegal person? This law is severely flawed.

What? The law on the borders has nothing to do with security. You're not making sense.

I was in Arizona when this law was passed. I really don't see how Arizona can function without the paperless Mexicans. I haven't looked into the validity of a comment I heard on TV, but it was said that 35% of Mexicans who are doing low-skilled jobs are illegal. How can you get rid of these 35% of workers and not see a huge negative effect on the state economy? I doubt most whites will do the jobs that the Mexicans are doing. I just don't see this racist and xenophobic law lasting long. There is going to be too much national resistance. Many cities have already boycotted Arizona and many more will follow.

Racist laws are not going to get rid of gangs and drugs.

You didn't give a response to Israel's continuous breaking of international law. You regurgitated and mentioned names that have nothing to do with Israel's responsibility to follow international law. What kind of a so-called lawyer are you when you can't stand on the side of law?

You posted: I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere. Instead of fighting the ignorance that Islam/Muslim are at fault for 9/11, you want to feed it.

All you did was try to avoid responding to clarification on a comment you made. You want to discuss a comment I've made, bring it up. Stop trying to deflect criticism. How else should your comment be interpreted besides that you support not building the mosque where it is proposed, because it might offend those who have an ignorant view of Islam and Terrorism? Here is your comment: I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere.

I don't think Rand Paul is a racist. One of the cornerstone of his political ideology is for the government to stay out of people's private lives. He is against racism, yet he believes the government should not have a say in who a private business owner can allow into their business.

Thank you DogOnPorch.

Why don't you just stop with your silly comparisons. You're embarrassing yourself and starting to look like DogsOnPorch.

Both Jack Weber, who seems to be ignorant on the basic information on groups in this conflict and their relationships, and also M.Dancer, who doesn't miss an opportunity to try to cover mistakes made by those who cheer for the same team, seem to be okay with a group breaking international law because another group has. Thank you for giving your positions.

What? Hamas is a proxy for Islamic Jihad? You're not making sense.