Tancredo: Arizona went too far

[Timshel]

You were right, only I didn't need the Valium! I just needed to do some research. Turns out, the only place I can find this alleged "quote" from Tancredo, is on Huffington Post and plastered all over the left-wing blogs. From everything I can find on credible and reputable news sites, it appears Tancredo likes the bill and wishes Colorado would pass something similar. Apparently he agrees with "going too far" to deal with this particular problem!

In other words, this was a LIE just like the rest of the LIES you've been telling all week about this. You people don't know how to be honest any more than you know how to peacefully protest! For MONTHS we've listened to this bullshit about how "violent" the Tea Party protesters had the potential to be, with all these massive protests, but turn on the news today and you'll see the AZ law protesters vandalizing and hurling rocks at police in Phoenix! So not only are you blatant LIARS, but two-faced hypocrites as well.

But then, I knew this already.

Jon Stewart ran video of it last night.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

if the law only seeks to enforce federal law (and everything i've seen indicates it is just that, nothing more)....why is it you're calling the AZ law racist and not the federal law? how do federal agents enforce the law?

i didn't realize this was such a difficult question to answer

 

[Timshel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/stewart-hammers-arizona-f_n_553157.html

 

[Topspin]

Daily is awesome!!!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

i didn't realize this was such a difficult question to answer

They weren't expecting it and now they have to wait for the replies from the anti-immigration lobby, in their E-Mails.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/stewart-hammers-arizona-f_n_553157.html

Very funny, but the only one I see making the comment that Arizona "went to far" is Jon Stewart. Tancredo says he doesn't want people being stopped for just looking like they need to be stopped, and neither do I, and neither did the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution which prevents that! The Arizona law doesn't allow that, because that would violate the Constitution, and be like... Unconstitutional!

Now.... You got a video of Tancredo actually SAYING what you all claim he said, or not?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, and while we are at it... can you tell Jon and Huffington... it is ILLEGAL immigration law, they keep leaving out a pretty fundamental word there! No one is opposed to immigration, we love immigrants, our nation was built by immigrants! It is ILLEGAL immigrants we are opposed to... you do know what that word "illegal" means, right? It's like, when the law says one thing, and you do something else! In the case of aliens, it's when they come across the border without following the proper laws and procedures we have established for immigration.

 

[Timshel]

if the law only seeks to enforce federal law (and everything i've seen indicates it is just that, nothing more)....why is it you're calling the AZ law racist and not the federal law? how do federal agents enforce the law?

Federal agents are not allowed to conduct warrantless arrests based on lack of documentation or even an admission of illegal presence. See, Gonzales v City of Peoria.

It creates a separate state crime for violations of the federal law in an attempt to create state arrest authority, without training or supervision of the feds. That violates the Supremacy Clause.

It also criminalizes speech (solicitation of work).

The bill is racist because there is no protection against racial profiling and even encourages it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Federal agents are not allowed to conduct warrantless arrests based on lack of documentation or even an admission of illegal presence. See, Gonzales v City of Peoria.

It creates a separate state crime for violations of the federal law in an attempt to create state arrest authority, without training or supervision of the feds. That violates the Supremacy Clause.

It also criminalizes speech (solicitation of work).

The bill is racist because there is no protection against racial profiling and even encourages it.

 

[Timshel]

Very funny, but the only one I see making the comment that Arizona "went to far" is Jon Stewart. Tancredo says he doesn't want people being stopped for just looking like they need to be stopped, and neither do I, and neither did the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution which prevents that! The Arizona law doesn't allow that, because that would violate the Constitution, and be like... Unconstitutional!

Tell it to Tancredo.

Now.... You got a video of Tancredo actually SAYING what you all claim he said, or not?

You watched it. Where was "Arizona law goes too far" put in quotes or did anyone imply that he stated those exact words. Clearly, it is an accurate synopsis of what he said. Whether you agree with what he said, is not relevant to the fact that in essence, he said the law goes too far.

 

[Damocles]

Tell it to Tancredo.



You watched it. Where was "Arizona law goes too far" put in quotes or did anyone imply that he stated those exact words. Clearly, it is an accurate synopsis of what he said. Whether you agree with what he said, is not relevant to the fact that in essence, he said the law goes too far.

Last night he had 100 people walk out of one of his speeches because he said he would like to see a similar law in CO. That he "absolutely would empower our law enforcement agents to arrest those they find to be here illegally".

The protesters shouted, "No person is illegal!" as they left and continued their protest outside the university hall.

Amazingly, this was the speech they are getting this quote from that they say means what this thread says.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Federal agents are not allowed to conduct warrantless arrests based on lack of documentation or even an admission of illegal presence. See, Gonzales v City of Peoria.

It creates a separate state crime for violations of the federal law in an attempt to create state arrest authority, without training or supervision of the feds. That violates the Supremacy Clause.

It also criminalizes speech (solicitation of work).

The bill is racist because there is no protection against racial profiling and even encourages it.

you should see United States v. Di Re; Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301

and gonzales doesn't really help you:

Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F. 2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Gonzalez case examined the city’s policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324). The defendants argued that federal law prohibited state and local police officers from making such arrests. The court held that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that they have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Where was "Arizona law goes too far" put in quotes or did anyone imply that he stated those exact words.

Uhm.... "Tancredo: Arizona went too far" ...title of the thread! Excuse me, but when you put someone's name, followed by a ":" and then something else, that is usually an indication that person made the statement, or at least implies that statement was made. WTF? Are you on the crack pipe today or something???

 

[Timshel]

Last night he had 100 people walk out of one of his speeches because he said he would like to see a similar law in CO. That he "absolutely would empower our law enforcement agents to arrest those they find to be here illegally".

The protesters shouted, "No person is illegal!" as they left and continued their protest outside the university hall.

The OP states that Tancredo supported the law. It does appear that Tancredo may have been taken out of context, though. If so that was done by KDVR not HuffPo or the Daily Show. HuffPo has added an update to the story.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/04/tom_tancredo_huffpo_is_wrong_a.php

 

[Damocles]

The OP states that Tancredo supported the law. It does appear that Tancredo may have been taken out of context, though. If so that was done by KDVR not HuffPo or the Daily Show. HuffPo has added an update to the story.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/04/tom_tancredo_huffpo_is_wrong_a.php

I never kill the messenger. We are partisan in our beliefs, it is no surprise that news sometimes comes from sources that others think are "partisan".

It doesn't mean it is wrong.

He also said that he doesn't want anybody pulled over because of their skin color. It is possible that he thinks the law could be written better and that it has indeed gone too far. I haven't spoken to him in a while so I can't tell you what he is saying.

 

[Timshel]

Uhm.... "Tancredo: Arizona went too far" ...title of the thread! Excuse me, but when you put someone's name, followed by a ":" and then something else, that is usually an indication that person made the statement, or at least implies that statement was made. WTF? Are you on the crack pipe today or something???

Nope. If the title were, Tancredo: "Arizona law goes too far" then that would indicate a quote. Quotation marks indicate a quote.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Uses-of-the-Colon.topicArticleId-29011,articleId-28989.html

 

[Timshel]

you should see United States v. Di Re; Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301

and gonzales doesn't really help you:

Yes, it does. You are dropping context.

State leo's can arrest people for violation with probable cause or a warrant. The court's opinion stated that lack of documentation or even an admission of illegal entry is not sufficient to establish probable cause. From the ruling...

Furthermore, an arresting officer cannot assume that an alien who admits he lacks proper documentation has violated section 1325. Although the lack of documentation or other admission of illegal presence may be some indication of illegal entry, it does not, without more, provide probable cause of the criminal violation of illegal entry. The arrest must therefore be supported by additional evidence that the arrestee entered without inspection. In implementing the arrest authority granted by state law, local police must be able to distinguish between criminal and civil violations and the evidence pertinent to each. In the future, this may require refinements of both the written policies and officer training programs.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stringy, you are totally full of shit. I think it is relatively safe to say most people here understood the title of the thread to mean, Tancredo thinks Arizona went to far. It is articulated several places in the thread by pinheads who certainly seem to think these were Tancredo's sentiment, and to now try and hide behind some 'technicality' of grammar, is laughable.

The bottom line is: Tancredo didn't say this, didn't imply this, and in fact, supports the Arizona law and wishes Colorado would pass a similar measure. Jon Stewart, a left-wing pinhead who thinks he is a comedian said it, and attributed it falsely to Tancredo, and the Huffington post repeated it as if Tancredo had said it. This is all a trumped up LIE to make it seem a prominent right-winger agrees with your idiocy and insanity. A typical dishonest and unethical tactic from the liberal socialist machine, as we have come to expect.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yes, it does. You are dropping context.

State leo's can arrest people for violation with probable cause or a warrant. The court's opinion stated that lack of documentation or even an admission of illegal entry is not sufficient to establish probable cause. From the ruling...

Furthermore, an arresting officer cannot assume that an alien who admits he lacks proper documentation has violated section 1325. Although the lack of documentation or other admission of illegal presence may be some indication of illegal entry, it does not, without more, provide probable cause of the criminal violation of illegal entry. The arrest must therefore be supported by additional evidence that the arrestee entered without inspection. In implementing the arrest authority granted by state law, local police must be able to distinguish between criminal and civil violations and the evidence pertinent to each. In the future, this may require refinements of both the written policies and officer training programs.

the AZ law does not violate that and as i showed, the case actually supports the law unless you can show me where the AZ law seeks to create probable cause solely due to the lack of documentation. you have also provided nothing to substantiate that the AZ law lacks protection from racial profiling....the law seeks to enforce existing federal law. AZ is in the 9the circuit, thus they are bound by that ruling with regards to federal law.

you also appear to not have looked up the cases i provided that show your statement here is incorrect:

It creates a separate state crime for violations of the federal law in an attempt to create state arrest authority, without training or supervision of the feds. That violates the Supremacy Clause.

in fact, gonzales clearly says you're wrong...did you actually read the case or get a squib off some blog?

The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized. Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). Therefore, federal regulation of a particular field should not be presumed to preempt state enforcement activity "in the absence of persuasive reasons--either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933, 936, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976) (quoting Florida Avocado Growers, 373 U.S. at 142, 83 S.Ct. at 1217).

14
Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion."

The City's claim of authority is limited. It asserts only the power to enforce the criminal provisions of the federal immigration laws. There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes--the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted.

as i said, gonzales doesn't really help you and actually bolsters the AZ law, unless you can show me specifically from the AZ where it seeks to circumvent existing federal law and the above 9th circuit ruling.

 

[Timshel]

Stringy, you are totally full of shit. I think it is relatively safe to say most people here understood the title of the thread to mean, Tancredo thinks Arizona went to far. It is articulated several places in the thread by pinheads who certainly seem to think these were Tancredo's sentiment, and to now try and hide behind some 'technicality' of grammar, is laughable.

Yeah, that's what I said. It seemed a reasonable synopsis of his statements. It is not a technicality when you demand to see an exact quote, which no one claimed was made.

With further information, it appears the interview by KDVR did not contain the full context and that he might have been meaning to say he would not support such measures but does not believe the law calls for them.

The bottom line is: Tancredo didn't say this, didn't imply this, and in fact, supports the Arizona law and wishes Colorado would pass a similar measure. Jon Stewart, a left-wing pinhead who thinks he is a comedian said it, and attributed it falsely to Tancredo, and the Huffington post repeated it as if Tancredo had said it. This is all a trumped up LIE to make it seem a prominent right-winger agrees with your idiocy and insanity. A typical dishonest and unethical tactic from the liberal socialist machine, as we have come to expect.

Prominent, lol. The joke is that Tancredo is extreme on the issue and even he thought it went too far.

As I have stated, it does not now appear that he meant to imply the law went too far. HuffPo added a correction to indicate this. But it was reasonable to assume that he meant that from the video.