Fulton Commissioners Take Bold Stand Against Arizona Law

Proving that most government officials have way too much time on their hands, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners voted 4-2 to condemn Arizona’s tough new anti-illegal immigration law. No doubt the President of Mexico (as well as our handsome young President) is pleased.

“We feel very strongly that what’s happening in Arizona whether it’s 2000 miles away, it’s still something that we can say ‘this is wrong’ in terms of what they’re trying to do,” said Fulton County Commission Chairman John Eaves.

Commissioner Emma Darnell said she drafted the new resolution because Fulton County is one of the most diverse communities in the nation. She feels the Arizona law broadening officers’ power to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally is unfair.

Darnell said, “In America, you cannot be stopped because of a suspicion of the government. There must be a reason and the reason may not be the color of your skin.”

Kudos to Rob Pitts, who did not vote because he hasn’t actually read the Arizona law. Obviously Eaves and Darnell haven’t read it either since the law does not give cops the authority to pull people over because of the color of their skin. For those interested, you can read the bill for yourself.

WSB has an online poll asking if people would support an Arizona-style anti-illegal immigration bill in Georgia. The ayes have it thus far.

35 comments

  1. In The Arena says:

    How out of touch is the Fulton County Commission?

    According to Matt Towery of Insider Advantage, as reported by WSB, Nathan Deal moved up 6 points in the last month partly due to the fact that he was the first candidate to call for Arizona style laws here in Georgia.

    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23610515/detail.html

    • ByteMe says:

      As with all these small polls, margin of error is +/- 5%, so it’s also possible he didn’t move much at all in the polls. But I’ll bet you’re happy to crow about all those straw polls the ethically-challenged Deal “won” as well.

      • In The Arena says:

        So you’re saying that Matt Towery of Insider Advantage is wrong, WSB-TV is wrong, Rasmussen is wrong, and only you are right?

        I don’t know if I would call this “crowing”. I prefer the term “reposting what was reported on WSB on peach pundit, because any story that includes the quote “a huge boost for the Deal campaign” has no chance of ever showing up on the peach pundit.”

        • ByteMe says:

          WSB-TV is not wrong to report a poll. Insider Advantage did what they were paid to do. Rasmussen is also paid to do what he does, which is produce polls within the confines of the client’s needs.

          I am right that an MoE of 5% renders the poll ridiculous to draw a definitive conclusion.

          That leaves only you.

          • BuckheadConservative says:

            Question, ByteMe. Who is YOUR pollster of choice? You throw around a lot of rocks, but rarely offer alternatives. Is it the whole “If I don’t make a choice, you can’t criticize it” thing? If so, that’s pretty weak.

            You’ve built this whole case against RR that’s largely on sand b/c you don’t like what they have to say most of the time. Let’s see who you say does better.

            And for the record, I’m not defending Nathan Deal’s poll numbers here. I don’t really care what they are now b/c they’ll be half that come July 20th. I just think this absurd anti-Rassumsen campaign is dumb dumb dumb.

            • rugby says:

              Rassmusen has consistently been proven to have a bias for Republicans so its methodology is dubious.

              Not speaking for ByteMe here at all but at least for me, it isn’t the pollster per se that is problematic, but the poll itself.

            • ByteMe says:

              Since you haven’t figured me out yet, BC, my pollster of choice is… None of them. It’s not about the pollster, it’s about the poll and the methodology used to interpret the numbers. Some get it right and understand the limitations of their polling methods and account for that, and some pollsters do not.

              You really think this is about me and not about the limitation of a poll that has an MoE that’s absurdly large.

              A 423-person sample in a state with likely 1+ million primary voters is too small to be useful as anything other than blog and press release fodder. But the -bots will come crawling out of the woodwork to proclaim that it proves their candidate walks on water… when any student of stats will tell you it proves only the gullibility of certain -bots.

  2. RuralDem says:

    Wow, where to start….

    “Obviously Eaves and Darnell haven’t read it either since the law does not give cops the authority to pull people over because of the color of their skin.”

    Where in the article does Eaves say anything relating to that?

    Also, I’m sure that since you’ve linked the legislation then you’ve obviously read it, can you define the definition of “reasonable suspicion” on page 5, Section E., lines 20-23?

    Finally, since resolutions like this are a waste of time, I trust that if you’re elected to the State House that you’ll certainly refrain from introducing any resolutions honoring or acknowledging constituents in your district, and that you’ll refrain from signing onto any other non-binding resolutions as a sponsor.

    Right?

  3. ChuckEaton says:

    This vote will be an interesting discussion item the next time Fulton seeks assistance with its payments for Grady Hospital.

  4. SFrazier says:

    Typical Fulton county liberals. We do not have one elected true conservative from Fulton….

      • Ambernappe says:

        Lynn Riley WAS a true representative of North Fulton County, and the others charged her with ethics violations because she supports the establishment of Milton County. It is a true exercise in “suspension of reality” to watch the Fulton County Commission meetings on cable.

        • Buzzfan says:

          Bob Fulton was another good one, imo (from the days when I still lived in N Fulton….what was still unincorporated A’Retta)

  5. Ambernappe says:

    The MSM will conclude that this “non-binding” resolution represents the majority of Fulton County, GA voters, and, in my opinion, it does not.

    The May 16 edition of The Beacon includes a letter from an Arizona State Senator which describes what the landowners have faced for several years. How could anyone support such activity!

    The primary responsibility of the President is protect United States citizens from “within and without” the country. Our current President will not even identify enemies. Seems to me that anarchist Mexican drug lords are enemies of the United States. It also appears, by definition, that entering this country illegally, is a crime.

    • Ambernappe says:

      correction: to protect citizens from ENEMIES from within and without the country……….

  6. ChuckEaton says:

    It’s amazing to me that the press would give the Mexican President the bully pulpit, on the White House lawn, to criticize our immigration policies, as our own President cheers him on, while zero attention is given to Mexico’s immigation policies. You would think the hypocrisy angle would make for an interesting POV.

    • B Balz says:

      Maybe FULCO Comm ought to endorse a hunger strike to protest AZ, like the college kids in Cali.

      TAG (Absurd, Fulton County Commission, Grandstanding to THEIR Constituents, SEE Absurd.)

      • Technocrat says:

        I was impressed that the Arizona PSC members threatened to try to cut off 25% of LA’s Power grid in reposnse to their boycott. Just wink the lights a few times to show them you are serious.
        For fear of helping terrorists I cannot explain how easy it is near the State line out in the boonies for a trained hunter.

        Remember my concern for States [like GA] who don’t locally produce the fuel for inState power plants. No oil, no coal, no gas, no uranium, no thorium, some sappy pine but zero refineries to supply gasoline for chain saws.

Comments are closed.