This one is worth 2000 words

[sirs]

[sirs]

Power Play Over Immigration Law
LA's boycott resolution sparks a threat over power the city receives from Arizona
By JONATHAN LLOYD and ROBERT KOVACIK
Wed, May 19, 2010

An Arizona utility commissioner said he's willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.

In a letter to the city of LA, a member of Arizona's power commission said he would ask Arizona utility companies to cut off the power supply to Los Angeles. LA gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona.

"That is one commissioner who has that idea -- whether he can do that or not is another idea," said LA Councilman Dennis Zine. "They are the ones who have to make the move, not us."

The commissioner's power grid play is in response to the city's approval of a resolution directing city staff to consider which contracts with Arizona can be terminated.

Here's part Arizona Corporation Commission member Gary Pierce's letter to the mayor:

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.

I am confident that Arizona?s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona?s economy.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is in Washington D.C., meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, but his deputy chief of staff issued the following statement: "The mayor stands strongly behind the city council and he will not respond to threats from the state that has isolated itself from an America that values freedom, liberty and basic civil rights."

Councilmember Tom LaBonge said he'd like to talk with Pierce. LaBonge said the city needs to look into its long standing utility agreements with Arizona.

Other California cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, have passed similar measures.

On Tuesday, Berkeley became the latest California city to boycott Arizona. The City Council voted unanimously to restrict staff from traveling to the state on city business.

SB 1070 -- here's the text of the law -- empowers local law enforcement to check the immigration status  of suspects they have stopped for other reasons if there is a reasonable  suspicion they are in the country illegally. The law specifically bars police  from racial profiling.

The Arizona Republic newspaper recently asked a panel of experts to outline how the law would work in real-world situations. The experts' interpretations varied when it came to what happens at the point a law encforcement officer can or should ask about a person's status.


"Turn out the lights...the party's over"   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I can't imagine what the 2000 words might be.

<ha!> was the only one that occurred to me.

And that was the first time I saw it.

[sirs]

Apparently someone who can't grasp the concept that a picture is worth a thousand words.  Then again, must consider the source

[Universe Prince]

The law specifically bars police  from racial profiling.

People keep saying that like it's supposed to mean something. That's kinda like saying the law prohibits the government from abusing eminent domain powers by requiring public use or blight. That doesn't seem to interfere much with governments when they want to take property from people. Just ask the people in New London or the folks at the wrong end of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. Why does anyone think that the Arizona law prohibiting racial profiling means it won't be so used? It's just foolishness to say the law prohibits racial profiling as if that is actually going to make a difference.

[sirs]

The law specifically bars police  from racial profiling.

People keep saying that like it's supposed to mean something.

Because it does.  If any cop doesn't abide by the law, the problem isn't the law, the problem is the cop.  and there are far more laws that abusive/rogue cops can use to employ some perverse bigoted agenda.  The fact is this law EXPRESSLY BARS SUCH.  If one actually would take time to read the law, not only does it bar racial profiling, making it illegal, ....it mandates that the officer contact ICE or other federal agency immediately to both confirm their suspicion and if necessary, have Federal agents arranged to pick the suspect up, if indeed they are in the country illegally.

IF one were to take the time to actually read the law, that is

[Xavier_Onassis]

The picture, obviously photoshopped-saguaro cacti do not grow like that, suggests not two thousand, nor one thousand, not a hundred, not even ten words. but just three words:

"Mexicans, f*ck off".


Those are considerably more hostile words than Emma Lazarus' words on the Statue of Liberty, which I believe you claimed to agree with.

[Universe Prince]

Because it does.

Right. It means something because it does. In bold. Great argument.

and there are far more laws that abusive/rogue cops can use to employ some perverse bigoted agenda.  The fact is this law EXPRESSLY BARS SUCH.

Of course. Just like the law protected the folks in New London against eminent domain abuse. I'm sure this Arizona law will work just as well. Though I bet it would work even better if they printed it in all capital letters.

[Xavier_Onassis]

90% of all illegals in AZ are Mexicans. Most of the rest are Cenrtral and South Americans, who resemble Mexicans.
Many Mexicans look more Indian and dress in a manner uncommon to non-Mexican Arizonians.
They also tend to all speak Spanish and many speak very little English.

You are an Arizona cop. Your job is to identify the illegal aliens while disregarding the ethnicity, dress and language of all you see.

Sort of like telling Homeland Security that they are barred from picking on sweaty, shifty-eyed, nervous passengers.

[sirs]

Because it does.

Right. It means something because it does. In bold. Great argument.

Naaa, the "great arguement" is actually reading the law vs implying innacuracies.  Notice how Prince took the 1 term made bold, but ignored the entire rest of the paragraph that reinforced why it was made bold.  Not sure you realize this Prince, but most of our readers don't have such a short term attention span.  Most of our readers will actually read beyond what's simply made bold, and realize that's not all that made the "arguement"

and there are far more laws that abusive/rogue cops can use to employ some perverse bigoted agenda.  The fact is this law EXPRESSLY BARS SUCH.

Of course. Just like the law protected the folks in New London against eminent domain abuse.

Nice deflection effort.  The issue remains the cop, not the law, I'm afraid.  And the law makes racial profiling ..... *drum roll....sirs is about to make bold a word*.... illegal

I'm sure this Arizona law will work just as well.

Sarcasm aside, not sure about that, but its a step in the right direction

[Universe Prince]

Naaa, the "great arguement" is actually reading the law vs implying innacuracies.  Notice how Prince took the 1 term made bold, but ignored the entire rest of the paragraph that reinforced why it was made bold.  Not sure you realize this Prince, but most of our readers don't have such a short term attention span.  Most of our readers will actually read beyond what's simply made bold, and realize that's not all that made the "arguement"

Hopefully most of our readers are savvy enough to notice that the paragraph in question amounted to arguing "it means something because it does." Arguing, as you have, that the law making racial profiling illegal means something because it makes racial profiling illegal is, in essence, saying that the provision in the law is meaningful because it just is.

Of course. Just like the law protected the folks in New London against eminent domain abuse.

Nice deflection effort.  The issue remains the cop, not the law, I'm afraid.  And the law makes racial profiling ..... *drum roll....sirs is about to make bold a word*.... illegal

You've confused deflection with illustration. Repeating that the law makes racial profiling illegal does not mean the law will actually do anything to stop racial profiling. You know, kinda like how protections against eminent domain abuse don't seem to stop government from abusing it when doing so suits them. The law will protect people only in so far at it suits the police officers to follow it. When it doesn't suit them, they won't bother with that part of the law, and they'll insist they are just doing their job. Kinda like the way the governments of New London and Brooklyn insist they are just doing their job.

[sirs]

Naaa, the "great arguement" is actually reading the law vs implying innacuracies.  Notice how Prince took the 1 term made bold, but ignored the entire rest of the paragraph that reinforced why it was made bold.  Not sure you realize this Prince, but most of our readers don't have such a short term attention span.  Most of our readers will actually read beyond what's simply made bold, and realize that's not all that made the "arguement"

Hopefully most of our readers are savvy enough to notice that the paragraph in question amounted to arguing "it means something because it does."

naaaa, most will likely grasp this issue is about the current AZ law, it's specifity, and its making it illegal for any racial profiling.  Any subsequent unlawful use of the law is an issue with the cop in question, and not the law itself

Arguing, as you have, that the law making racial profiling illegal means something because it makes racial profiling illegal is, in essence, saying that the provision in the law is meaningful because it just is.

Starting to get a grasp of what law is all about now?  Making murder illegal means something because it makes murder illegal is apparently "not meaningful"?  It's not my arguement that its meaningful "just because"

Of course. Just like the law protected the folks in New London against eminent domain abuse.

Nice deflection effort.  The issue remains the cop, not the law, I'm afraid.  And the law makes racial profiling ..... *drum roll....sirs is about to make bold a word*.... illegal

You've confused deflection with illustration.

Not at all.  Emminent domain is an entirely different issue.  This is about enforcing immigration law.  You don't like it....yea, we got that.  Repeating that the law makes racial profiling illegal does not mean the law will actually do anything to stop racial profiling.   NOTHING WILL stop racial profiling. 

That's not the function of this law, & not passing this law in no way lessons the likelyhood of racial profiling.  Bad cops, lazy cops, and racist cops still will.  This law was applied to do what the Fed has and continues to fail to do.  The state has been given authority BY the Fed, in both 1985, and reinforced in 1995 to enforce Federal immigration law.  That isn't an opinion, that's a fact.  AZ saw a need to "stop the bleeding", for lack of a better term, as it relates to their increasing level of violence, that could be connected to illegal immigrants.  They passed this law in an effort to deal with that riasing violent crime level, and even re-worded it, with your c/o's in mind, to make it clear that racial profiling is illegal, within this law.

Simple as that.

No, it won't stop racial profiling, but again, that is not a problem with the law, that is a problem with the cop

[Universe Prince]

Starting to get a grasp of what law is all about now?  Making murder illegal means something because it makes murder illegal is apparently "not meaningful"?  It's not my arguement that its meaningful "just because"

You've confused deflection with illustration.

Not at all.  Emminent domain is an entirely different issue.

I bet you don't even see the double standard.

In any case, clearly you're not grasping the basic meaning of what I said. And explaining my meaning to you has historically been a complete waste of time. And fighting against your double standard of debate has proven to also be a complete waste of time. So we're done.

[sirs]

I bet you haven't read the law.  I bet that even though you concede the law makes racial profiling illegal, you think this makes it open season for racial profiling, despite the clear wording of the law

Yea, you're done alright     

[sirs]

Ya know, I just gleemed how disengenous the effort was in trying to supposedly "illustrate" the comparable likeness of eminent domain with AZ's immigratiion law. 

With eminent domain, you have the Government seizing private property from an individual, who has broken no law, largely usurping their rights, as a property owning American.  A method most of us abhor (which of course is why its being used as a deflection attempt here), because when it is used, the Government is behind the abuse

With AZ's law, the abuse of racial profiling is expressly stated as illegal.  The law targets those who HAVE broken the law, and merely enforces existing Federal immigration law, with wording that makes it a crime to do anything other than that, with the Government in this case being behind the enforcement of those mandates

Yea, but they're largely identical, because Prince says so....because it just is