View Full Version : Just cant win
Unbelievable......
"
President Barack Obama on Thursday criticized a pending Arizona law that would make it a state crime to be in the United States illegally and require anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to produce identification.
During remarks at a naturalization ceremony for members of the military, Obama called the legislation "misguided" and warned that it could "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."
Gov. Jan Brewer is nearing a deadline to act o n the measure. Civil rights activists have said the bill would lead to racial profiling and deter Hispanics from reporting crimes. Hundreds of Hispanics protested the legislation at the State Capitol complex on Thursday."
More info here....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281/ns/politics/
ronaldrwl
04-23-2010, 10:40
That's 2 good laws from AZ. No CCW permit required to carry and this. That's happening there?
They flushed Napolitano, and got some common sense.
I think it is very telling that Mr. Obama has chosen to speak out against the strengthening of immigration policy at the state level.
If he's so in favor of our "cherished" presumption of innocence, why does he continue to condone warrantless wiretaps by the NSA?
They flushed Napolitano, and got some common sense.
I think it is very telling that Mr. Obama has chosen to speak out against the strengthening of immigration policy at the state level.
If he's so in favor of our "cherished" presumption of innocence, why does he continue to condone warrantless wiretaps by the NSA?
Not sure…Perhaps condoning wiretaps won’t prevent him from getting re-elected...Strengthening immigration laws, and pissing off the leagal Mexican voters, well that might be a problem…Sickening!
obama loves his illegal supporters as well as the welfare babies. he just gave them healthcare and they won't be able to vote for him if they aren't in country...of course he will criticize it.
obama is a joke.
BushMasterBoy
04-23-2010, 11:09
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12735293
Apparently the NSA is building a huge facility in Utah to start storing all the intel gleaned from the web. I wonder if this posting will be stored there too? The Constitution is now toilet paper the politicians will use to wipe us out of the way...
What good does it do to cater to illegals? They don't even vote? Am I just stupid?
ronaldrwl
04-23-2010, 11:14
They are going to make them legal and have a Dem majority forever
What good does it do to cater to illegals? They don't even vote? Am I just stupid?
they vote alright.
acorn got homeless people, pimps, hookers etc. to vote multiple times, they can get illegals to vote as well.
if they are legalized by the dems, they will vote for the dems because they think the dems will help them further.
How exactly would it work? The police detain someone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant until a friend or relative brings in their birth certificate or passport? Seems like a colossal waste of manpower and money that could be spent on trying to keep illegal immigrants out in the first place.
And consider this: driving home from the range, the police detain you until they can run a background check to determine if you're legally allowed to own firearms.
I know one illegal immigrant (I know, for a liberal that's a piss-poor number); my cousin who lives in Florida. She is white and speaks with a horrendous American accent, so her chances of being stopped on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant are slim to none.
Backinblackrifles
04-23-2010, 11:21
Oklahoma has already done this and it is working fine for them.
Homeless people, pimps, and hookers? I'm talking about illegals. The same people that are afraid to fill out the census.
ronaldrwl
04-23-2010, 11:22
Even if they just enforce immigration laws when someone is arrested for anything else that would be a big plus
Yeah the issue is that right now, when police suspect someone of being illegal, they are instructed to just let them go. This is changing that. I don't think this is going to turn the police into the INS and they are going to go out looking for illegals.
rhineoshott
04-23-2010, 11:36
Tell me about these "basic notions of fairness that we cherish in America" I am unfarmiliar.
iamhunter
04-23-2010, 11:42
I dunno guys, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.
anyone "suspected" of being an illegal has to provide identification?
What's the qualifications for "suspicion"?
I fear it could lead to abuses.
HBARleatherneck
04-23-2010, 11:42
[quote=jake;197384]How exactly would it work? The police detain someone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant until a friend or relative brings in their birth certificate or passport? Seems like a colossal waste of manpower and money that could be spent on trying to keep illegal immigrants out in the first place.
quote]
no, everyone will have to start carrying thier papers. think nazi era germany. Gestapo pulls up " papers please"
this wont work. and i am not sure it should.
what we need to do is secure the borders all the borders and check every ounce of cargo being imported. period. and as we pick up illegals for legitmate crimes then we deport them. but stopping brown people isnt going to work.
Yeah the issue is that right now, when police suspect someone of being illegal, they are instructed to just let them go. This is changing that. I don't think this is going to turn the police into the INS and they are going to go out looking for illegals.
About 2 years ago I got rear ended by a kid in a souped up rice burner just east of UNC, the officer onsite knew the kid from a prior offence, and acknowledged to me he was here illegally. Unfortunately at the time all he could do was issue a ticket for no license, proof of insurance and send him on his way. It took ALL I had not to go off. To this day the damage to my truck was never paid for.
Perfect example of what this is supposed to be changing.
HBARleatherneck
04-23-2010, 11:46
About 2 years ago I got rear ended by a kid in a souped up rice burner just east of UNC, the officer onsite knew the kid from a prior offence, and acknowledged to me he was here illegally. Unfortunately at the time all he could do was issue a ticket for no license, proof of insurance and send him on his way. It took ALL I had not to go off. To this day the damage to my truck was never paid for.
this happened to me as well. i was hit by a car load of illegals. they tried the no hablo ingles thing. but the cop who was right behind me at the time of the accident was an interpreter. unfortunately, no license, no insurance, driving after being convicted of dui, and the cop let him go. at this point a crime was commited. now hold for proof of citizenship and deportation. but we shouldnt stop everyone with a tan.
I think the no license is key. If you don't at least have a driver's license on you, then you have some explaining to do.
HBARleatherneck
04-23-2010, 11:52
while driving you mean. right?
i never carry an id. unless, i am driving. since the purpose of a drivers license is to show that you are legal to drive. not to prove who you are for daily life that doesnt involve driving. i also never give my ssn. if they cant do business without it, then i go somewhere else.
How exactly would it work? The police detain someone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant until a friend or relative brings in their birth certificate or passport?
Can we start with Obozo?
I guess. I usually carry my license because it lives in my wallet. Most people do as well.
What about getting into bars and paying with plastic and stuff?
HBARleatherneck
04-23-2010, 12:10
i have a 6 inch long beard. i dont get carded. but, once again the license is for driving as it is called a DRIVERS LICENSE. i am sure the founding fathers would roll over if they knew we would someday end up with a national id.
you really should pay with cash anyway. then you will spend within your budget. i know most people dont, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt.
i think it will be a sad day for freedom, when you have to carry id everywhere you go. it is a slippery slope, when we start giving up our liberty.
About 2 years ago I got rear ended by a kid in a souped up rice burner just east of UNC, the officer onsite knew the kid from a prior offence, and acknowledged to me he was here illegally. Unfortunately at the time all he could do was issue a ticket for no license, proof of insurance and send him on his way. It took ALL I had not to go off. To this day the damage to my truck was never paid for.
you didn't call INS or anything?
I've deliberately written "CHECK ID" on the back of every card that I own, and am happy when clerks actually ask me. Besides paying for things with plastic, I wouldn't give up my ID for anything that didn't require it (like buying a gun at a store), so I'm in agreement with your philosophy.
you didn't call INS or anything?
My first thought was ICE or INS, but after talking with officer and calling the Greeley precinct direct, it was apparent that the situation is out of control and everyone is frustrated with the policy…Good thing we have forums such as this to vent and hopefully get folks to wake up and take a look at what’s going on around them. This is a real problem!
How exactly would it work? The police detain someone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant until a friend or relative brings in their birth certificate or passport? Seems like a colossal waste of manpower and money that could be spent on trying to keep illegal immigrants out in the first place.
And consider this: driving home from the range, the police detain you until they can run a background check to determine if you're legally allowed to own firearms.
I know one illegal immigrant (I know, for a liberal that's a piss-poor number); my cousin who lives in Florida. She is white and speaks with a horrendous American accent, so her chances of being stopped on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant are slim to none.
is she hot?
hehe... no seriously is she?
anyway, people immigrate illegally because it is the path of least resistance.
if we enforce the laws we have, and make obeying them the path of least resistance, the problem will disappear.
we have to, among other things, change the constitution so that children born in this country are not automatically citizens, proof of citizenship to get a job, and tough penalties for faking such proof.
Oh and deportation of repeat offenders.
Deportation to Africa.
iamhunter
04-23-2010, 13:30
I guess. I usually carry my license because it lives in my wallet. Most people do as well.
What about getting into bars and paying with plastic and stuff?
Why not just tag us like cattle?
Seems like it would be more efficient.
You do realize that modern identification came about originally as a device to RESTRICT freedom.
The benefit is that, supposedly, identification makes society "more secure"
But I would gladly trade my security if I didn't have to be identified and numbered like some piece of property.
Here's a brief summaryt from a book called "The Invention of the Passport"
The great watershed in the reestablishment of passport regimes among all the major countries of Europe and North America, however, was the First World War, under the declaration of "national emergency." In the political and economic nationalistic environment that followed the war in 1918, passport controls became an institutionalized feature of international travel, with governments reasserting the right to control exit from and entry into national territories under their control.
As the state has grown in power and authority over social and economic life in the 20th century governments have used national documents, including passports, as a legal device to "embrace" private individuals under their control and to exclude others. Passports have been a crucial technique for "nationalizing" their citizens. And until men in their social and economic life are once again denationalized, passport controls will remain government's way of managing the movement and activities of people around the world.
I willingly carry my ID. I don't understand the disconnect where you guys are saying that I think that people should be required to carry an id.
HBARleatherneck
04-23-2010, 13:44
i wasnt accusing you Stuart. I was trying to show the path that REQUIRING someone to carry an id all the time, is bad. in my opinion. less government is allways best. but if the government would control our borders, this wouldnt be an issue. ( at least as much)
iamhunter
04-23-2010, 13:48
i wasnt accusing you Stuart. I was trying to show the path that REQUIRING someone to carry an id all the time, is bad. in my opinion. less government is allways best. but if the government would control our borders, this wouldnt be an issue. ( at least as much)
Exactly.
And honestly, controlling our borders is one of the FEW things the fed should do.
I understand that guys. All I'm saying is that most people always carry their ID, so if you suspect someone of being illegally in the country, and they can't show you ID at the time, then start asking questions.
iamhunter
04-23-2010, 14:01
I understand that guys. All I'm saying is that most people always carry their ID, so if you suspect someone of being illegally in the country, and they can't show you ID at the time, then start asking questions.
But again, what would the qualifications for reasonable suspicion be?
being latino?
Maybe MOST people carry ID, but what about people who DON'T?
There is no law that says you have to carry ID. This is just like anything else, if you aren't suspected of being an illegal immigrant, then it doesn't matter if you have ID or not. I don't know what might cause an officer to suspect that someone isn't here legally, but the example that Waxthis gave seemed pretty solid. That officer had previous experience with the same guy. Only with this law, he could bring him in, instead of being forced to let him go.
iamhunter
04-23-2010, 14:26
There is no law that says you have to carry ID. This is just like anything else, if you aren't suspected of being an illegal immigrant, then it doesn't matter if you have ID or not. I don't know what might cause an officer to suspect that someone isn't here legally, but the example that Waxthis gave seemed pretty solid. That officer had previous experience with the same guy. Only with this law, he could bring him in, instead of being forced to let him go.
I could see that being beneficial, but then the law needs to stipulate that in order to detain someone, the following qualifications must be met
A) The suspect is participating in a licensed activity (like driving)
B) There must be reasonable suspicion that the suspect is here illegally
Still, I can see "reasonable suspicion" easily turning into racial profiling at this point.
And i know plenty of latino american citizens people who speak with thick accents because of their family.
I suppose the biggest part would be why they come into contact with police in the first place. I don't want brown people getting pulled over just because they are brown. Kind of like the seat belt law. They can't pull you over for that alone, but if they pull you over for something else, and you're not wearing your seat belt, then they can write you a ticket.
*I hesitate to use such a stupid law like the seat belt law in general.
If the police pull you over, they have a reason. You have to provide a driver's license and registration and insurance. If you cannot provide them, you get a ticket, or go to jail. If you are illegal, you won't be able to provide any of them. You shouldn't be here anyway.
I suppose the biggest part would be why they come into contact with police in the first place. I don't want brown people getting pulled over just because they are brown. Kind of like the seat belt law. They can't pull you over for that alone, but if they pull you over for something else, and you're not wearing your seat belt, then they can write you a ticket.
*I hesitate to use such a stupid law like the seat belt law in general.
Nope, They can pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt, no other reason is needed anymore.. Thank "tax" for that..
ChunkyMonkey
04-23-2010, 17:39
obama loves his illegal supporters as well as the welfare babies. he just gave them healthcare and they won't be able to vote for him if they aren't in country...of course he will criticize it.
obama is a joke.
There are plenty of rumors about immigration amnesty in works before 2012! 10 millions extra votes?!
deter illegals from reporting crimes...
like they do that anyways? WTF?
buffalobo
04-23-2010, 19:13
I dunno guys, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.
anyone "suspected" of being an illegal has to provide identification?
What's the qualifications for "suspicion"?
I fear it could lead to abuses.
As opposed to the abuses American citizens are subjected to by illegal alien criminals? Do some research on crime in Arizona and California, in particular kidnapping.
buffalobo
04-23-2010, 19:15
[quote=jake;197384]How exactly would it work? The police detain someone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant until a friend or relative brings in their birth certificate or passport? Seems like a colossal waste of manpower and money that could be spent on trying to keep illegal immigrants out in the first place.
quote]
no, everyone will have to start carrying thier papers. think nazi era germany. Gestapo pulls up " papers please"
this wont work. and i am not sure it should.
what we need to do is secure the borders all the borders and check every ounce of cargo being imported. period. and as we pick up illegals for legitmate crimes then we deport them. but stopping brown people isnt going to work.
There will be more to it than just stopping "brown people".
buffalobo
04-23-2010, 19:31
Of course if the fuds would protect our borders this sort of thing would be uneccessary. But until we can convince them(ha like that will happen) or vote them out what else you gonna do? If the federal govt will not do it then it must fall to the state to protect its citizens.
didn't Bush have Little Brown ones???
[quote=buffalobo;197675]Of course if the fuds would protect our borders
The Elmer Fuds?[ROFL3]
SShhh I'm hunting ilweegls.
buffalobo
04-23-2010, 19:41
Watch out, they are wascawy.[Luck]
Although I agree we need to enforce our border laws, we MUST detain and deport anyone that is blatantly here illegally, like the individual who hit me. What good is a secure border when we knowingly let illegal’s from any country run around inside our borders with no repercussions? There is no easy answer. As much as I hate to say it, I would much rather have to show my ID “even as a white boy” then deal with a smaller pay check, higher insurance rates, and deaths caused by the people that should not be here in the first place. It’s unfortunate Obama and and our government won’t do shit about this issue, at least Arizona is trying, stir the pot maybe something might happen. This will eventually fall into the hands of US citizens…
theGinsue
04-23-2010, 21:43
obama loves his illegal supporters as well as the welfare babies. he just gave them healthcare and they won't be able to vote for him if they aren't in country...of course he will criticize it.
obama is a joke.
Very well put.
I don't get why so many legal Mexican immigrants and citizens (particularly the citizens) have such a hard-on about the efforts to fix the issue with illegal immigrants. You'd almost think they've got something to be afraid of.
theGinsue
04-23-2010, 21:47
What good does it do to cater to illegals? They don't even vote? Am I just stupid?
Some of them vote...Compliments of ACORN.
Stupid? No. Naive', yes.
Why should some minor archaic law requiring an individual to be a citizen prohibit someone from voting - especially if the person they are voting for will bring about changes in their favor? So silly!
The only people who shouldn't be allowed to vote are those nasty, vile, hateful gun owners and those who keep quoting that out of touch document the Constitution.
theGinsue
04-23-2010, 22:09
we have to, among other things, change the constitution so that children born in this country are not automatically citizens, proof of citizenship to get a job, and tough penalties for faking such proof.
Oh and deportation of repeat offenders.
Deportation to Africa.
Agreed. I believe that if you are born in the U.S. with parents who are NOT U.S. citizens, you get a birth certificate and then you and your family HAVE to go back to your home nation. Once you turn 18 you have 6 months to go to a U.S. Embassy with your birth certificate and submit your one time claim for citizenship. A background check will be done (one like the military has to go through for security clearances, not a simple one). If you hae a clean record, you will be informed of the date to report for transportation across the border where you can be in-processed on THIS SIDE of the border to receive citizenship documentation. You will not be allowed to being any other family members with you. You can always apply through the regular immigration programs to bring over a wife, child, whatever, but it won't be your entire family. If you are found to be violating the immigration laws for anyone else, you will lose your citizenship status permanently and all of you will be deported.
theGinsue
04-23-2010, 22:17
Of course if the fuds would protect our borders this sort of thing would be uneccessary. But until we can convince them(ha like that will happen) or vote them out what else you gonna do? If the federal govt will not do it then it must fall to the state to protect its citizens.
Other than costs, is there anything that prevents a state from securing their border(s) with another country on their own?
theGinsue
04-23-2010, 22:18
didn't Bush have Little Brown ones???
I had some little brown ones earlier. They flushed nicely. Thank you.
There are plenty of rumors about immigration amnesty in works before 2012! 10 millions extra votes?!
I wouldn't be surprised. might be right after this cap and trade issue and the value added tax gets a push. who knows how far he is going to push us now.
10 million? I bet it would be more along the lines of 30-40 million
The only people who shouldn't be allowed to vote are those nasty, vile, hateful gun owners and those who keep quoting that out of touch document the Constitution.
nail on the head. probably what a liberal thinks to a T.
other than the fact we are all right wing terrorists...[Shake]
theGinsue
04-23-2010, 22:37
nail on the head. probably what a liberal thinks to a T.
other than the fact we are all right wing terrorists...[Shake]
Remember a year ago hearing the Obama administration stating that we (the U.S.) would no longer be using the word "terrorist" because of all of the negative connotations (they were truly worried about offending a terrorist?)? Not a week after that announcement DHS came out with that whole "potential domestic terrorist" thing. According to this administration, it's okay to label a citizen a terrorist, just not anyone else.
Remember a year ago hearing the Obama administration stating that we (the U.S.) would no longer be using the word "terrorist" because of all of the negative connotations (they were truly worried about offending a terrorist?)? Not a week after that announcement DHS came out with that whole "potential domestic terrorist" thing. According to this administration, it's okay to label a citizen a terrorist, just not anyone else.
no no, they can't call citizens terrorists, only people who don't agree with them, whom they don't consider citizens and think of as an enemy and not a fellow countryman. we are right wing terrorist god loving, gun hugging big truck driving baby killers in their minds.
Bitter Clinger
04-23-2010, 23:20
Other than costs, is there anything that prevents a state from securing their border(s) with another country on their own?
I'm pretty sure there was a sherrif down in texas doing just that. Ol' Bam-Bam issed him an order to stop enforcing the LAW!
theGinsue
04-23-2010, 23:35
I'm pretty sure there was a sherrif down in texas doing just that. Ol' Bam-Bam issed him an order to stop enforcing the LAW!
I didn't think "Ol' Bam-Bam" had that level of authority over a locally elected official, not that such a thing would ever stop him.
I just started a new thread. it passed!!!!
buffalobo
04-24-2010, 17:15
Other than costs, is there anything that prevents a state from securing their border(s) with another country on their own?
IMO nothing would prevent it. I would think the costs would be offset by less crime and social spending in the case of AZ and southern border.
buffalobo
04-24-2010, 17:20
I'm pretty sure there was a sherrif down in texas doing just that. Ol' Bam-Bam issed him an order to stop enforcing the LAW!
I think that was Sheriff Joe in Maricopa county arresting and detaining illegals. Ginsue is refering to securing the boarder as in put guards on the border of AZ and Mexico. Just don't let them in to begin with.
theGinsue
04-25-2010, 10:56
I think that was Sheriff Joe in Maricopa county arresting and detaining illegals. Ginsue is refering to securing the boarder as in put guards on the border of AZ and Mexico. Just don't let them in to begin with.
Exactly - don't forget the big walls and seismic equipment to detect the tunnels.
Old video but relevant to this thread. I count 27.
http://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhMtM2oZ0kPv5eWRlw
Old video but relevant to this thread. I count 27.
http://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhMtM2oZ0kPv5eWRlw
I saw 26 of them. what sucks is the guy driving the other car probably got fucked by insurance and medical bills and these bastards ran away from the scene never to be heard from again[Rant2]
I've finally figured out why liberals love illegals so much.
Look how good those guys are at car pooling? They're pros!
Looks like this law is already being abused. Gloria's friend in Arizona is already suffering trouble from this. Her dad (who is from Mexico but is a citizen) was taking her kids to school this morning. Police pulled him over and told him he didn't stop at a stop sign long enough (bullshit reason to pull ANYONE over IMO). Anyway, he speaks broken English so they hauled him and her kids into jail. Now they won't release any of them until she brings in all their birth certificates and his legal documentation.
I told her to call the ACLU and sue. She should. None of those things are reasonable suspicion of not being here legally. If not speaking English is all it takes, then every high school student in Arizona is going to have a trip to jail.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Jumpstart
04-27-2010, 16:16
ACLU. Enemy of the people.
They are just waiting to sue over this and will probably represent them for free.
ACLU. Enemy of the people.
How do you figure? The people don't like Liberty? I'll grant the ACLU is pretty selective about the liberties they defend, but the NRA/RMGO and &c cover the 2nd amendment issues pretty well.
Looks like this law is already being abused. Gloria's friend in Arizona is already suffering trouble from this. Her dad (who is from Mexico but is a citizen) was taking her kids to school this morning. Police pulled him over and told him he didn't stop at a stop sign long enough (bullshit reason to pull ANYONE over IMO). Anyway, he speaks broken English so they hauled him and her kids into jail. Now they won't release any of them until she brings in all their birth certificates and his legal documentation.
I told her to call the ACLU and sue. She should. None of those things are reasonable suspicion of not being here legally. If not speaking English is all it takes, then every high school student in Arizona is going to have a trip to jail.
I'm pretty disappointed.
+1 for this entirely unforseen turn of events!
H.
I really feel like if the problem in Arizona is any where near as bad as they say it is, then there will be plenty of opportunity to route out illegals in a way that doesn't harass the legal citizens of the state. The police need to be kept in check and figure out how to do their jobs without being jack booted thugs.
Jumpstart
04-27-2010, 16:46
How do you figure? The people don't like Liberty? I'll grant the ACLU is pretty selective about the liberties they defend,
Well you answered your own question "ACLU is pretty selective". For Christ's sake the ACLU was founded by a communist. So I guess thats how "I figure".
Jumpstart
04-27-2010, 16:53
I really feel like if the problem in Arizona is any where near as bad as they say it is, then there will be plenty of opportunity to route out illegals in a way that doesn't harass the legal citizens of the state. The police need to be kept in check and figure out how to do their jobs without being jack booted thugs.
This IS an opportunity to route out illegal aliens. The law specifically addresses not racially profiling (which, by the way is both effecient and effective). The police need be able to do their jobs. White, black, yellow, red Americans all have burdens to bear because of illegal immigration, now so do brown ones. Finally.
If the police don't get their act together and remember to treat people with respect, they are going to quickly find out that people's patience will boil over and they'll have even bigger problems on their hands.
I fully expect to hear more stories like this, and also stories about illegals freaking out and shooting at the police, running and going on high speed chases, etc. The police already have a big enough job on their hands and they don't need go around stepping on the throats of every brown person to take care of their illegal problem. I don't know about you guys, but if I were an officer in the same situation, I'd be on the lookout for panicking illegals trying to blast me so they can enjoy one more day of freedom, and wouldn't go looking for trouble.
Jumpstart
04-27-2010, 17:13
If the police don't get their act together and remember to treat people with respect, they are going to quickly find out that people's patience will boil over and they'll have even bigger problems on their hands.
I fully expect to hear more stories like this, and also stories about illegals freaking out and shooting at the police, running and going on high speed chases, etc. The police already have a big enough job on their hands and they don't need go around stepping on the throats of every brown person to take care of their illegal problem. I don't know about you guys, but if I were an officer in the same situation, I'd be on the lookout for panicking illegals trying to blast me so they can enjoy one more day of freedom, and wouldn't go looking for trouble.
Okay so you have used "jack booted thugs" and "Stepping on the throats of brown people". Enough with that already. Brown people also work in law enforcement in Arizona, a lot of Latinos. The BP is probably 50 % brown. There are brown Arizonans who are also sick and tired of illegal aliens and fully support Enforcing the law. (Which is all they are doing.) You won't here a lot about the type of suppositions that you presented so far here. You will see crime rates climb and floods of illegal aliens in other states along with a declining quality of life, while Arizona's quality of life will rise.
"I'm not a racist, I'm a realist." Kinky Friedman
I fully expect floods of illegals in other states and the quality of life to rise in Arizona. I'm in agreement with that. However, I'm not at all in agreement with how this particular incident went down. I realize that there are two sides to every story (surprised no one has said that already) but I just hope that this is an exception, and won't be the norm.
There was zero reason to suspect anyone of not being legal in this case.
ChunkyMonkey
04-27-2010, 17:24
How exactly would it work? The police detain someone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant until a friend or relative brings in their birth certificate or passport? Seems like a colossal waste of manpower and money that could be spent on trying to keep illegal immigrants out in the first place.
And consider this: driving home from the range, the police detain you until they can run a background check to determine if you're legally allowed to own firearms.
I know one illegal immigrant (I know, for a liberal that's a piss-poor number); my cousin who lives in Florida. She is white and speaks with a horrendous American accent, so her chances of being stopped on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant are slim to none.
Jake, if you read the bill, it doesn't transform the LEO into a border/immigration enforcement. When one is arrested, detained, or temporary stopped under at least a reasonable suspicion, it requires the LEO to check on his identification. It does nothing BUT 'requiring' LEOs to enforce the CURRENT LAW. I dont see anything wrong with that then I am all for it.
LEOs check on IDs when one is stopped anyway! However, as of now, it doesn't require him/her to detain that person if one couldn't prove his/her residency.
I am a legal immigrant who is sick and tired of getting screwed by the illegals who like shortcuts. Just like anything illegal, it couldve been obtain legally - I know! The fact that noone is enforcing the immigration law devalue your citizenship and my residency in this country. I don't like the detainable part of the law and have mixed feeling on it, however, this might force the Fed to secure the border.
On the contrary, the next thing this thing might lead to is NATIONAL ID system [Bang]
ChunkyMonkey
04-27-2010, 17:29
Okay so you have used "jack booted thugs" and "Stepping on the throats of brown people". Enough with that already. Brown people also work in law enforcement in Arizona, a lot of Latinos. The BP is probably 50 % brown. There are brown Arizonans who are also sick and tired of illegal aliens and fully support Enforcing the law. (Which is all they are doing.) You won't here a lot about the type of suppositions that you presented so far here. You will see crime rates climb and floods of illegal aliens in other states along with a declining quality of life, while Arizona's quality of life will rise.
"I'm not a racist, I'm a realist." Kinky Friedman
Before that gets to work, we will see attempt to 'better identify' illegals - National ID System.. We already see reports on false detentions!
Jake, if you read the bill, it doesn't transform the LEO into a border/immigration enforcement. When one is arrested, detained, or temporary stopped under at least a reasonable suspicion, it requires the LEO to check on his identification. It does nothing BUT 'requiring' LEOs to enforce the CURRENT LAW. I dont see anything wrong with that then I am all for it.
LEOs check on IDs when one is stopped anyway! However, as of now, it doesn't require him/her to detain that person if one couldn't prove his/her residency.
Yeah, Stuart already said that, but from his most recent post it sounds like it's already leading to problems.
Jumpstart
04-27-2010, 17:50
Before that gets to work, we will see attempt to 'better identify' illegals - National ID System.. We already see reports on false detentions!
Yep. On 1-25 and 1-10 in NM you will get "detained" if only momentarily at check points. Citizens have been for a quarter of a century +. Being from there I am acclimated to it, hell, I acclimated to a lot infringment of U.S. citizens rights via illegal aliens and illegal immigration . We should have enforced our laws that the "never again" amnesty (Immigration Reform Act of 1986) was supposed to address. Then we wouldn't have more and more of our freedoms taken under one guise or another.
I've heard of the national ID for a long time now, intertwined with immigration and illegal trespassing. New world order is knocking on our doors. Glenn Beck does a good job reporting on these issues.
Looks like this law is already being abused. Gloria's friend in Arizona is already suffering trouble from this. Her dad (who is from Mexico but is a citizen) was taking her kids to school this morning. Police pulled him over and told him he didn't stop at a stop sign long enough (bullshit reason to pull ANYONE over IMO). Anyway, he speaks broken English so they hauled him and her kids into jail. Now they won't release any of them until she brings in all their birth certificates and his legal documentation.
I told her to call the ACLU and sue. She should. None of those things are reasonable suspicion of not being here legally. If not speaking English is all it takes, then every high school student in Arizona is going to have a trip to jail.
I'm pretty disappointed.
What did "Gloria's friends dad" say the officer's reaction was when he produced his driver's license?
I really feel like if the problem in Arizona is any where near as bad as they say it is, then there will be plenty of opportunity to route out illegals in a way that doesn't harass the legal citizens of the state. The police need to be kept in check and figure out how to do their jobs without being jack booted thugs.
from what I have heard/read the only extra thing it allows them to do is to check citizenship if someone has broken the law.
racial profiling exists already, now the cops have the authority to check peoples legal status and get them to ICE quickly via state law.
I don't have a problem with it. if you are here legally it shouldn't be an issue. If you are here illegally you will obviously have an issue. if you feel like you are going to get profiled, maybe you shouldn't put golf cart tires on a truck...
I fully expect to hear more stories like this, and also stories about illegals freaking out and shooting at the police, running and going on high speed chases, etc. The police already have a big enough job on their hands and they don't need go around stepping on the throats of every brown person to take care of their illegal problem. I don't know about you guys, but if I were an officer in the same situation, I'd be on the lookout for panicking illegals trying to blast me so they can enjoy one more day of freedom, and wouldn't go looking for trouble.
whats so different now? they already drink and drive and have very little repercussions for it. you yourself posted a video of 26 or 27 illegals in a van in a high speed pursuit that crashed into someone and they all fled.
the police are already on the lookout for sketchy people looking to blast them. the illegals do it now, giving police more options to enforce the law isn't going to create that much greater of an ill will toward them, I believe it will have the opposite effect and create more fear in the illegals, who may in turn think twice before coming into the country illegally.
Yeah, Stuart already said that, but from his most recent post it sounds like it's already leading to problems.
those problems are not due to this bill...since it hasn't been implemented yet. they said it won't happen until late july or august...that is if it isn't held up in a monster legal batter. the way things are shaping now, it appears that will be the case.
Jumpstart
04-27-2010, 18:42
All the law does is mimic and mirror federal law.
What did "Gloria's friends dad" say the officer's reaction was when he produced his driver's license?
She hasn't come home yet and I rushed onto the computer to make this exact point. I personally have strong suspicion that he didn't have it on him, but we'll see. I think that since I don't personally know this person I'll never hear the whole story though.
I was just thinking on the way home that I wonder if he produced a driver's license or not. I definitely got wrapped up into this, it is hard not to when someone close to you is upset about it.
She hasn't come home yet and I rushed onto the computer to make this exact point. I personally have strong suspicion that he didn't have it on him, but we'll see. I think that since I don't personally know this person I'll never hear the whole story though.
I was just thinking on the way home that I wonder if he produced a driver's license or not. I definitely got wrapped up into this, it is hard not to when someone close to you is upset about it.
i am guessing there is a lot more to this story. i think the "call the ACLU" is quite the knee jerk reaction, just like all the protesters who haven't read the bill throwing things at cops, defacing public property, painting a nazi sign with beans etc etc, some realy 3rd world shit going on there...
it is obvious not every officer is going to follow every law to a T. we all know this and have seen it, some of us first hand. they don't know all the laws...no one does.
I am currently listening to sarah palin on fox news. apparently 70% of people in arizona agree with this new law. it mirrors federal law, it specifically says racial profiling will not be tolerated. it specifically says one can not be stopped just on the basis for potentially being in country illegally, the person must first be suspected of committing another crime.
i continue to see nothing wrong with this bill and will go further to say each state should implement it.
Sounds like he had his license in his pocket and produced it when asked. I can't get any more of the story out of her. It's kind of a touchy subject for someone who legally came her to escape gorilla warfare and better her life.
I'm not sure if any of you have actually read any of my posts, but I thought that I made it pretty clear that I also agree with this law. What I'm NOT okay with is the abusing of this law, as evidenced by this story. That point seems to have been glossed over.
palepainter
04-27-2010, 20:42
I moved to CO from AZ. I have seen good hard working Latino people, many of whom I became friends with as well as employees of mine. And yes, they paid taxes. I also had a few friends killed when their business was robbed by illegal gang thugs. I think that the state needs the law, I hope more states with the same issues go the same route. Doubtful, but some kind of effort is needed.
I personally carry my ID at all times. I do not leave home with out it. It is for my own good that I do that in case I am in an accident. This law is on the opposite side of the approach they have now. I am interested in seeing where it goes.
theGinsue
04-27-2010, 22:50
i continue to see nothing wrong with this bill and will go further to say each state should implement it.
I agree 100%
In regards to what palepainter said, about a month ago I saw a national news report from (amazingly) some liberal news outlet that said that the illegal immigration situation and the explosive growth of Mexican gangs in the U.S. is hitting some areas particularly hard. It listed Colorado, and specifically Colorado Springs as being one of the top places where this is notable. So, I agree with what palepainter said too and want ot add ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - Why hasn't CO done what AZ had the courage to do!?
ChunkyMonkey
04-27-2010, 22:54
ABC called the Tea Party racist and violent... then it called the Anti Immigration Law mob a PEACEFUL protest. Nothing new I guess
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cb_1272398740
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaXpysu_7E8
theGinsue
04-27-2010, 23:08
ABC called the Tea Party racist and violent... then it called the Anti Immigration Law mob a PEACEFUL protest. Nothing new I guess
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cb_1272398740
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaXpysu_7E8
I noticed that while watching the violence of the "peaceful protests" today. Interesting how the protests (which were anything but truly peaceful) were almost exclusively done by one demographic. And THAT wasn't racist (on their behalf!)?
I wonder if the mob had a permit to protest - as the Tea Party protesters are required to get.
I agree 100%
In regards to what palepainter said, about a month ago I saw a national news report from (amazingly) some liberal news outlet that said that the illegal immigration situation and the explosive growth of Mexican gangs in the U.S. is hitting some areas particularly hard. It listed Colorado, and specifically Colorado Springs as being one of the top places where this is notable. So, I agree with what palepainter said too and want ot add ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - Why hasn't CO done what AZ had the courage to do!?
watching FOX news last night a almost identical bill has been introduced in Utah.
I would hope CO and Texas and New Mexico aren't far behind. Why not in my opinion. it just strengthens the already implemented federal law. that way when obama tries to allow amnesty the states can give him the bird and say..."not in this state".
I wonder if the mob had a permit to protest - as the Tea Party protesters are required to get.
you don't need a permit when you are illegal. they haven't made that law yet![Stooge]
ChunkyMonkey
04-28-2010, 19:24
Could we limit one Zombie Slayer allowed per thread only? Too many smartass comments! LOL
The bias in the mainstream media is getting so extreme, I wonder why anyone is still watching them.
Could we limit one Zombie Slayer allowed per thread only? Too many smartass comments! LOL
The bias in the mainstream media is getting so extreme, I wonder why anyone is still watching them.
fine jerk! I will leave, but I am going to leave you with this: [Gas2]
[LOL]
iamhunter
04-29-2010, 07:22
you guys fail to see that you are in essence trading they're trading the rights of valid citizens for the implementation of this law. Which is NOT ok.
What happens when you're downtown, and run across the street (jaywalking, like so many people do) or breaking some other sort of pedantry law.
Most of you probably break a number of stupid driving laws on a daily basis (not stopping at a stop sign long enough, not coming to a complete stop before turning right at a red light, driving for an extended period of time in the left lane of the freeway, speeding even slightly, failing to signal a turn or a lane change, etc.)
Are you OK with possibly being pulled over just to be harassed about your citizenship?
"Papers please"
You know where that was a popular request?
Nazi Germany.
I don't care how BAD the illegal immigration problem is,
this is half-assed, poorly planned solution that leaves way to much room for abuse.
We have a fundamental right to move about this nation without having to constantly submit to scrutiny, prove who we are, and why we are here.
And I for one would rather keep my rights, privacy, and decency than give them up in pursuit of some false sense of "security".
God,, Have I mentioned the stock that I need to buy in Reynolds wrap....
All the Law in Arizona did was put Teeth into the extisting 70 y/o Federal law..
Do you honestly believe the progressive talking points?
You sound worse than they do..
It's like the Patriot Act,, If you aren't on the phone to the middle east talking about the destruction of the Sears tower how the hell is it even effecting you.. Please, cite just one example of how somebody got railroaded by it..
Hell even the half breed in chief was making a big show of how He was going to get rid of it. Yet, He seemed to renew it.. My only fear is He'll dream up some excuse to use it in a way that will justify all the tinfoil about it.. Just one more thing that He can "blame Bush" for.
Besides it is the the law that if you are a resident alien, you must have your "papers" on you at all times anyway.. Please,, explain just how it is harassment for L.E. to do thier job? You would be putting yourself in that position if you broke the law and got pulled over, NOT the L.E.'s
Simple enough,, Don't run a foul of the law, no worries..
palepainter
04-29-2010, 08:03
The law is on the extreme side of a solution, but to do nothing is way worse IMO. I am for seeing how it goes and then react from there. Valid citizens have nothing to worry about. The Patriot Act was way more of a violation of our rights. To sit back and say, we may offend someone in this case is going to ensure more problems than not doing anything.
In Nazi Germany, If you had identification showing you were Jewish, you were shot or interned. Here if you cant prove your a Citizen or have papers, your given a bus ride back home. Big difference there.
ThunderSquirrel
04-29-2010, 08:13
What's the first thing any Officer asks when you get pulled over? 'License and Registration please.' Since this has been going on for years... why has no one compared this to Nazi Germany? All of the sudden its a big issue that you have to show ID to an Officer?
If you're here illegally, its a crime. All the law does is put more enforcement to a law that already exists.
HBARleatherneck
04-29-2010, 08:16
[quote=
In Nazi Germany, If you had identification showing you were Jewish, you were shot or interned. Here if you cant prove your a Citizen or have papers, your given a bus ride back home. Big difference there.[/quote]
here is the biggest thing. we dont want to hurt these people. (And i dont care what country they are from. wether, they overstayed thier visa, came on vacation and never left, slipped accross our borders, shipped themselves here in a conex box, they need to go, if they are not here legally.) we just want them to go back to thier country of origin. We dont want to kill them, we sure dont want to pay to lock them up.
I think that there is nothing wrong with this. humanely sending them home and keeping them from coming back is what we need to do.
The Patriot Act was way more of a violation of our rights.
I would be willing to bet, (That is, if I cared enough to do the research.) I could find a dozen laws on the books, Prior to, that more or less say the same thing as the PA.
iamhunter
04-29-2010, 08:24
I would be willing to bet, (That is, if I cared enough to do the research.) I could find a dozen laws on the books, Prior to, that more or less say the same thing as the PA.
*Whew* that's a relief.
But aside from that, I may be mistaken.
Does this new law ONLY allow officers to pursue this policy during a traffic stop?
or during a stop for ANY reason?
*Whew* that's a relief.
But aside from that, I may be mistaken.
Does this new law ONLY allow officers to pursue this policy during a traffic stop?
or during a stop for ANY reason?
As stated in the other thread, The abusive ones will abuse, Those who don't,won't..
Not sure what else I can say..
palepainter
04-29-2010, 08:38
From what I understand, there has to be a prior legal action required for the check.
The abusive ones will abuse, Those who don't,won't.
Hopefully the ubiquitous video cameras on everyones cellphone will at least have abusive officers thinking twice about what they can get away with in public.
H
Hopefully the ubiquitous video cameras on everyones cellphone will at least have abusive officers thinking twice about what they can get away with in public.
H
There is always hope.. [Tooth]
So the guy and kids that were thrown in jail have since been let out. So to answer Cerbu's question, when the guy showed his driver's license, the officer's response was apparently, "We're taking you and the kids to jail."
Family's response? "We're just glad they're all out. We don't want to sue any one or make any trouble. We don't want to make ourselves any more of a target than we already are." <- Not a real quote, just a summary.
Hope that guy doesn't have any troubles getting a job in the future because he has an arrest on his record now.
ChunkyMonkey
04-29-2010, 11:12
I dont think a detain = an arrest. Am I wrong? I had a few buddies that were detained overnight, but weren't charged nor have arrest records. LEO?
funkfool
04-29-2010, 11:38
And again:
Repetition of hearsay is foolish.
Those who repeat what they hear without benefit of engaging their brain should just hold up a sign that says "FOOL".
(No - not Funkfool!)
Repetition of statements of questionable fact can be criminal.
Re: Fire in a theatre and you are pointing people to an area without an exit - yelling "EXIT" and they die - it is as if you pushed them into the fire yourself.
And THAT - my friends, is EXACTLY what these people who are making these comments want... repetition of falsehoods make them begin to appear as pseudo fact.
Please.
Do youself and others a favor.
Read the bill yourself and make informed intelligent comments:
Since I don't see where anyone has posted it...
Here it is: SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf)
And since the site is getting so much traffic for the .pdf ...
Here is the Legislative fact sheet: FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm)
After reading it... you may have different ideas of what this law does and does not do.
iamhunter
04-29-2010, 12:07
I actually read the entire bill this morning, and my concerns still exists here:
1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.
How on earth can you you gauge "reasonable suspicion" that a person is here illegally?
An accent?
A skin color?
What?
What's the definition of "legitimate contact"?
I have no problems with a law like this one, except this specific bill is poorly worded in numerous places, leaves alot of room for interpretation, and leaves alot of room for abuse.
Easy Fixes:
A.) In order to be subject to a immigration check, the suspect must
i.) Be engaged in a licensed activity (i.e. driving) and/or
ii.) Be committing, or intending to commit a misdemeanor or felony.
I leave out minor infractions and petty offenses because I don't think the cops should have carte blanche to stop and identify people for something stupid like jaywalking, loitering, etc.
I mean would anyone have a problem with the above clauses being incorporated into the law?
It would go along way to protect valid citizens from undue scrutiny and invasion of privacy.
Maybe the above provisions already exist in the bill.
Like I said, I read it, but found no such clauses.
Granted, legal jargon can be hard to understand and I may have simply missed it.
Comes down to if you never run across the law in a way that get you stopped, You stay here. If you are stopped and don't have the proper documents,Which by the way, as a resident alien you would need to have at all times (Federal law.) You get a free ride home and try it again next week..
In all honesty, it just brings the Federal law down to state level. That way, they don't have to deal with the Feds who aren't going to do anything to begin with..
funkfool
04-29-2010, 14:12
I actually read the entire bill this morning, (Excellent - thank you. :-) ®)
and my concerns still exists here:
How on earth can you you gauge "reasonable suspicion" that a person is here illegally?
An accent? No
A skin color? No
What?
To gauge "reasonable suspicion" that a person is here illegally:
If, during a legitimate contact, the person being questioned could not produce valid identification, in the form of a drivers license or ID, and then could not or would not produce citizenship documentation - then you have "reasonable suspicion".
What's the definition of "legitimate contact"?
Legitimate contact:
When a police officer has a legal reason to approach a person who has committed a violation, such as a traffic violation or other crime.
What about when you produce your driver's license and just don't speak perfect English.
cowboykjohnson
04-29-2010, 14:22
Then your driver's license gets checked like everyone else that has to present it, and if you come back clean your good to go.
funkfool
04-29-2010, 14:25
I do love how Obama is saying this law will produce effects akin to:
"Show me your papers please."
When he just gleefully signed a law - and made sure it had heavy and strict enforcement of non-compliance... that results in this:
"Produce your health care documentation at tax time.
Don't have it?
Fine him, and if he does not comply - take him to the stockade."
That IS in the health care law:
Non-compliance will result in fines and/or imprisonment.
Yet - you somehow don't hear much of a noise out of people about that.
Yes, some may attempt to enforce this immigration law outside of strict compliance with statute... that happens with EVERY law.
It leaves those persons with definable legal options intact.
Ie: You can sue.
funkfool
04-29-2010, 14:27
What about when you produce your driver's license and just don't speak perfect English.
If your DL comes back clean - you get your ticket and go.
Then your driver's license gets checked like everyone else that has to present it, and if you come back clean your good to go.
Nope - you get your traffic ticket JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!
[Beer]
cowboykjohnson
04-29-2010, 14:30
depending on what you did... if your not an a$$ clown to the officer you may get a warning.
Except for the person I just told you guys about that was detained in a cell until further proof of being here legally was presented.
I honestly don't expect that to be the norm. I'm sure there is going to be a rather uncomfortable...adjustment period...but I don't expect it to last for ever and think things will be hunky dory again in short order.
Easy Fixes:
A.) In order to be subject to a immigration check, the suspect must
i.) Be engaged in a licensed activity (i.e. driving) and/or
ii.) Be committing, or intending to commit a misdemeanor or felony.
i.) I would not agree, no relevancy to one’s legal status
ii.) If you are on US soil, and as of the signing of this law, in AZ, and not under a recognized legal status you already ARE committing a misdemeanor.
[quote=Stuart;200209]Except for the person I just told you guys about that was detained in a cell until further proof of being here legally was presented.]/quote]
Are you referring to that story you relayed the other day, Gloria's friends dad?
clublights
04-29-2010, 14:40
I leave out minor infractions and petty offenses because I don't think the cops should have carte blanche to stop and identify people for something stupid like jaywalking, loitering, etc.
Except The Cops can do this anyways. always have been able to. Jaywalking is Illegal. Loitering is illegal. dropping your cigarette butt on the ground is technically littering. which is illegal. Any officer in Colorado ( or AZ or NM Or Utah or Cali). Can give you a ticket for these offenses. which of course requires him to ID you. you can't write tickets to " John Doe"
Now Lets say you can't provide a state issued ID( because you don't have one ) , and you don't know your SSN, now would that make it reasonable for the officer to think maybe you could be an illegal ?
Your Basically required by Colorado law to have a state issued ID With you at all times in public. at least this is the way I've been told and read the related laws. ( same in NM and AZ)
funkfool
04-29-2010, 14:40
i.) I would not agree, no relevancy to one’s legal status
ii.) If you are on US soil, and as of the signing of this law, in AZ, and not under a recognized legal status you already ARE committing a misdemeanor.
Winner.
Points for using the grey matter holding your ears together.
Except for the person I just told you guys about that was detained in a cell until further proof of being here legally was presented.
Are you referring to that story you relayed the other day, Gloria's friends dad?
Yes, her dad and her kids. They were all detained until she could bring down the kid's birth certificates and whatever paper work he had. I don't know if he is a full citizen or just a legal resident alien.
Yes, her dad and her kids. They were all detained until she could bring down the kid's birth certificates and whatever paper work he had. I don't know if he is a full citizen or just a legal resident alien.
I'll be candid Stuart, I dismissed that immediately as an "example of abuse" as you characterized it, still do. I get the emotional connection you touched-on but two things,
1. I never, under any circumstance, would take a thrice removed re-telling of something like that and so quickly attach a fact statement to it, especially on a sensitive topic such as this. As written (or as shared with you), the bias of those carrying the message forward would have corrupted the facts so intensely their account would have little value in my assessment by the time it reached my ears/eyes.
2. Unless I have multiple sources providing counter-points (preferably to include 3rd-partys) and substantiating facts, eliminating bias and getting to the truth is a no-go. I purge hearsay and anecdotal commentary without giving it a second thought, especially when driven by emotion and the desire to “inflate” or sway opinion and decisions.
In your posted example, I absolutely do not accept that an aged, legal citizen with youngsters in the car and a valid driver’s license in his pocket, regardless of his “broken English” was detained and then required to show added proof of citizenship under this just-signed law. That story-line does not meet the minimum common-sense factor, it just doesn’t, and I suspect you know that too. If that gentleman was detained this week, and he probably was, I submit something else was the root-cause.
Question: What jurisdiction (city, town or township of record) did this event occur in?
No doubt you shared exactly what you heard but...that's not good enough evidence in my book to put a black-mark against LE and the new AZ law, not even close.
I totally understand and agree. I can only go off of what I've been told. I thought he wasn't going to have had a driver's license or something myself. That's really all I've heard about it. I'm skeptical about it myself. I don't know these people at all, so it's not like I'm worried about my poor little grandma being detained or something. I guess when they got out, the cops just told them that they are just enforcing the law. Again, all hearsay. I could try and find out where this took place if you want, but I was just passing the story along, not trying to vilify the police (especially not a specific department).
This isn't a complaint about the law either. The law is going to make a lot of big changes down there, even if it isn't enforced as strongly as people think it will be.
On a side note, I'm under the impression that an official, state issued driver's licenses can be had plenty easily while legal, then just keep it after your papers expire. Just get one while your visa is active, and you'll have a valid license for however many years until the license expires, even if your visa or other documents have expired.
Perhaps that is part of the reason of being taken in, not that he isn't legal, but that a driver's license doesn't prove anything.
I appreciate you being candid.
Yes, her dad and her kids. They were all detained until she could bring down the kid's birth certificates and whatever paper work he had. I don't know if he is a full citizen or just a legal resident alien.
This is why you are in such an uproar about this?
The question comes to mind, if, he is a resident alien,Why, wasn't He in possession of his documents as REQUIRED, by federal law? Which, going off what you said, I'm guessing is the case. Or, is there maybe a little more to it?
Okay,, That'll teach me to type faster..
This is why you are in such an uproar about this?
The question comes to mind, if, he is a resident alien,Why, wasn't He in possession of his documents as REQUIRED, by federal law? Which, going off what you said, I'm guessing is the case. Or, is there maybe a little more to it?
From what I always understood during my time as a resident alien, only a customs and immigration officer could demand to see my green card, not a police officer. I'll be honest, it was such a complicated process to get mine (not a complaint about that, by the way) that I only carried it when I was leaving the country for fear of losing it.
This is why you are in such an uproar about this?
Believe it or not, this has nothing to do with why I'm in such an uproar about this.
From what I always understood during my time as a resident alien, only a customs and immigration officer could demand to see my green card, not a police officer. I'll be honest, it was such a complicated process to get mine (not a complaint about that, by the way) that I only carried it when I was leaving the country for fear of losing it.
Sounds like it is similar to how only an ATF agent may inquire to see your tax stamp for your NFA item. However, that won't stop the police from detaining you until the appropriate authority arrives to check out your stuff.
Believe it or not, this has nothing to do with why I'm in such an uproar about this.
must have something to do with you calling anyone and everyone a racist...
he fucked up, got caught. sucks to be him. end of story.
From what I always understood during my time as a resident alien, only a customs and immigration officer could demand to see my green card, not a police officer. I'll be honest, it was such a complicated process to get mine (not a complaint about that, by the way) that I only carried it when I was leaving the country for fear of losing it.
Only a customs and immigration officer could demand to see my green card, not a police officer.True.
I'll be honest, it was such a complicated process to get mine (not a complaint about that, by the way) that I only carried it when I was leaving the country for fear of losing it. Also quoted for truth.
Jake, where were you born if you do not mind my asking. I assume you jusy "upgraded" from permanent resident to us citizen , right?
Born in the UK, lived here for seven years, became a citizen last October. Apart from tricking my wife into marrying me, the smartest decision I ever made.
Sounds like it is similar to how only an ATF agent may inquire to see your tax stamp for your NFA item. However, that won't stop the police from detaining you until the appropriate authority arrives to check out your stuff.
Never seen that happen, Most of the time up at the north site.. Boulder,County. the Cops would walk up the hill, BS, for a few, Ask too see the paperwork, look at it, hand it back, BS for a couple more. Then be on their way..
Born in the UK, lived here for seven years, became a citizen last October. Apart from tricking my wife into marrying me, the smartest decision I ever made.
Congrats!! (-:
That's because people just hand it over. You're not required to show your paper work to anyone but ATF, that I'm aware of, but if you don't, then you get to leave the property (if it's privately owned), or the officer can respond to your attitude by detaining you until an ATF agent is located and makes the time to come see your paper work. Much easier to just flash your tax stamp.
funkfool
04-30-2010, 13:15
Very interesting article with legal perspective and analysis:
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/crime-97942-illegally-made.html
(Also - check out the results in the poll... hmmm)
OUR VIEW:
It's not a crime to be here illegally
Civil and criminal law are vastly different
April 29, 2010 7:55 PM
It has never been a crime for an immigrant to be in this country illegally. Arizona just made it a crime — a misdemeanor the first time, a felony for repeat offenders.
Even some erudite Americans remain confused about immigration, which leads to bad policy. In today’s Gazette, and in newspapers throughout the country, columnist George Will explains the new Arizona law like this: “Arizona’s law makes what is already a federal offense — being in the country illegally — a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona’s right to assert concurrent jurisdiction.”
Critics don’t understand because Arizona will adjudicate a new law that’s nothing similar to federal law. Robert J. Barron, a leading immigration attorney in Colorado Springs, confirmed that it’s not a crime to be in the United States illegally. It’s a common misconception that feeds immigration hysteria. Federal law says it’s a civil infraction — just as it’s a civil violation, and therefore “illegal,” to send e-mail spam without an “unsubscribe” option. The difference between a civil and criminal offense is colossal.
It’s understandable why some want to make criminals of immigrants in violation of a mere civil statute. In Arizona and a few other states, a relative few are causing significant problems. That’s because we have created mayhem at the border by refusing to reform federal immigration laws and adjust quotas to serve the country’s realistic needs.
If criminal immigrants are terrorizing Arizona, it’s because immigration has become a kind of underground railroad. It thrives because our nation’s economy begs immigrants to fill jobs, at wages exceeding minimum wage, even as unemployed Americans subsist on state assistance or unemployment insurance and show themselves unwilling to clean motel rooms or work landscape labor. When the market demands forbidden fruit — as seen with guns, liquor, marijuana and Cuban cigars — an underground solution will fill the void.
The United States needs immigration reform that allows generous numbers of law-abiding citizens of Mexico and other countries south of the border to come and go from the United States lawfully — committing neither civil nor criminal infraction — in order to produce for our economy in compliance with wage and labor laws. It needs a secure border, with enforcement of laws that make sense.
The United States cannot prosper and thrive without substantial numbers of immigrants. American citizens have not reproduced in quantities to provide a labor force adequate to fund pensions, provide health care, buy existing homes, fund Social Security, and produce ample wealth in the form of goods and services.
Most developed and developing countries, including China, are learning that dwindling fertility rates of the past 30 years mean economic peril or more immigration.
Only warm bodies create wealth and prosperity. There is no other source. Therefore, it would benefit us to pass laws that favor reasonable and lawful importation of law-abiding immigrants. Establishing a new class of criminals produces nothing but another burden for the state.
— Wayne Laugesen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Laugesen), editorial page editor, for the editorial board
I don't quite understand the 'forbidden fruit' statement in regards to guns, etc...
By referencing those specific items - if you develop an 'underground' for those things - you become a criminal.
IE: You voilate laws to traffic 'underground' liquor... specifically some tax laws.
Very interesting article with legal perspective and analysis:
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/crime-97942-illegally-made.html
(Also - check out the results in the poll... hmmm)
Opening a can of worms here, but:
There is a statement in the article that reads along the lines of "..beg immigrants to do jobs Americans won't...".
My story:
There was a time in my undergrad during which I was looking for construction work. Yes I had expeirence. It came down to myself and an ILLEGAL immigrant. Yes, I asked if he was an illegal. He said yes, he was here to find a job and support his family in Mexico. They chose him over me. I asked the reasoning. Foreman says the other guy can work longer and cheaper, plus I'm still in school (no bearing as this was a weekend DOT project). I said fine and left. I would've done the work. I think the blanket statement that "they will do jobs that Americans don't want" is an outright lie propagated to garner support for evading taxes, etc... which ironically, they most likely voted for....
I'm done.
funkfool
04-30-2010, 13:28
Opening a can of worms here, but:
There is a statement in the article that reads along the lines of "..beg immigrants to do jobs Americans won't...".
+1
I agree.
Tell that to the thousands looking for work now....
I posted that article on another board and someone said that they thought that letting a Visa expire is a civil offense, but physically jumping the boarder is still a criminal offense. Certainly worth looking into.
Opening a can of worms here, but:
There is a statement in the article that reads along the lines of "..beg immigrants to do jobs Americans won't...".
My story:
There was a time in my undergrad during which I was looking for construction work. Yes I had expeirence. It came down to myself and an ILLEGAL immigrant. Yes, I asked if he was an illegal. He said yes, he was here to find a job and support his family in Mexico. They chose him over me. I asked the reasoning. Foreman says the other guy can work longer and cheaper, plus I'm still in school (no bearing as this was a weekend DOT project). I said fine and left. I would've done the work. I think the blanket statement that "they will do jobs that Americans don't want" is an outright lie propagated to garner support for evading taxes, etc... which ironically, they most likely voted for....
I'm done.
I would have got pissed, found out where they were working and call ICE.
The law does not allow LE to ask to "see your papers" for no reason. They have to stop you for breaking a law. Everyone is already required to show ID when stopped (driving or walking), if you are a "resident alien" or visa holder, you are already required to carry those papers as well. This law does nothing but enforce the law the FEDS won't. There was also an executive order to go along with this law that will provide training to LE on what is and is not reasonable suspesion.
I'll be candid Stuart, I dismissed that immediately as an "example of abuse" as you characterized it, still do. I get the emotional connection you touched-on but two things,
1. I never, under any circumstance, would take a thrice removed re-telling of something like that and so quickly attach a fact statement to it, especially on a sensitive topic such as this. As written (or as shared with you), the bias of those carrying the message forward would have corrupted the facts so intensely their account would have little value in my assessment by the time it reached my ears/eyes.
2. Unless I have multiple sources providing counter-points (preferably to include 3rd-partys) and substantiating facts, eliminating bias and getting to the truth is a no-go. I purge hearsay and anecdotal commentary without giving it a second thought, especially when driven by emotion and the desire to “inflate” or sway opinion and decisions.
In your posted example, I absolutely do not accept that an aged, legal citizen with youngsters in the car and a valid driver’s license in his pocket, regardless of his “broken English” was detained and then required to show added proof of citizenship under this just-signed law. That story-line does not meet the minimum common-sense factor, it just doesn’t, and I suspect you know that too. If that gentleman was detained this week, and he probably was, I submit something else was the root-cause.
Question: What jurisdiction (city, town or township of record) did this event occur in?
No doubt you shared exactly what you heard but...that's not good enough evidence in my book to put a black-mark against LE and the new AZ law, not even close.
I have to add to this, though I agree with cebeu.
In what way can you blame this new law for this incident? It does not even go into effect until late summer.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.