Thursday, January 20, 2011

"Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act" not supported by law enforcement

As we noted yesterday, the immigration legislation that passed the Senate this week creates an unfunded mandate and a new private cause of action against local governments. While this might make Mississippi's lawyers happy, it's drawn the ire of the Mississippi Municipal League. It turns out that the MML isn't alone in opposing this bill.

Despite the bill's title, law enforcement is actually against this legislation. The associations for both the sheriffs and the police chiefs have voiced their strong disagreement, and urged the Senate to pass the Baria Amendment, which would have removed the civil liability language. That amendment failed which has to make you wonder: is this bill really about supporting law enforcement...or supporting lawyers?

Thanks to the Internet, you can see who voted against law enforcement by clicking here.


MS Smitty said...

Go ahead and show us where the law enforcement organizations formally asked for the passage of Baria's amendment. The only anecdotal evidence he offered during debate on the Senate floor was a single conversation he had.

Cottonmouth said...

Smitty, I take it you were there, and I take it you know exactly who to talk to if you think Baria's lying about it. In fact, I personally spoke with the representative for the sheriffs this afternoon, and he confirmed what Baria said.

If your reason for being against Baria's amendment and in favor of lawsuits against local government is that you think Baria was lying, well, I just feel sorry for you. Not because you're wrong, but because that's just dumb. Have fun explaining that vote for the rest of the year, because you can bet you'll be hearing about it. A lot.

MS Smitty said...

Yes, I was there. Listened to the ENTIRE debate. No, I'm convinced Baria had the one specific conversation he discussed during the debate.

What I'm saying is the law enforcement organizations did not formally come out, as a collective body, with a statement, position paper, resolution, press conference, etc either against the bill or in favor of Baria's amendment before or during the debate in the Senate. You allude or try to mislead your readers that they did. I'd challenge you again to prove it but know already that you can't.

Furthermore, I never stated that I was against Baria's amendment, nor in favor of lawsuits, nor referred to Baria as a liar. Those are your words. Your response epitomizes the definition of 'knee-jerk'.

MS Smitty said...

It is also convenient since it runs counter to your allusions that you fail to mention that Baria said specifically during debate --(but of course you weren't there)-- that he would vote in favor of the illegal immigration bill if his amendment was approved.

You also fail to note that Baria didn't take a stand by voting against the bill but merely voted present.

There is no political leverage in voting 'present'. None.

Cottonmouth said...

Well, Smitty, you asked where they "formally" asked for passage of the Baria Amendment, and then cast aspersion on the idea that they actually supported the amendment by referring to the "anecdotal evidence." The clear inference being that, contrary to what Baria said, the sheriffs and police chiefs of Mississippi were actually in favor of language that would get them sued. If you aren't trying to call Baria a liar, why do you repeatedly ask for evidence of their position when Baria told you what it was?

MS Smitty said...

You obviously weren't there for the debate therefore you aren't credible regarding what was and was not said.

End of line.

Cottonmouth said...

Ugh. Waste of my time, I guess. Smitty, how do you know whether or not I was there? How do we know you were there? And why does that matter regarding whether or not you think law enforcement should be sued?