AZ Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling

[Cinderella]

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed. Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

[catdd]

May as well get used to this.

[FrankRep]

May as well get used to this.

Police Officers need to be punished for violating people's rights. Punish him. That's fine.

I still support AZ protecting itself from the Illegal immigration invasion.

[Southron]

Truck drivers don't have constitutional rights in any state.

[pcosmar]

Police Officers need to be punished for violating people's rights. Punish him. That's fine.

I still support AZ protecting itself from the Illegal immigration invasion.

But the immigration laws were already there.
They have deliberately not been enforced to create a problem.

[FrankRep]

But the immigration laws were already there.
They have deliberately not been enforced to create a problem.

Arresting/Detaining Illegals is racism, not Politically correct according to the Leftists.

[paulitics]

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed. Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

This was done by ICE, the Feds. In the article it says it has nothing to do with Arizona's recently passed law. This customs enforcement is probably more to do with the War on Terror than illegal immigration enforcement. The article says that this is standard operating procedure for the FEDS.


This is not the same as average Joe in a honda civic being pulled over by the state troopers for no reason.

Lets use actual examples of civil liberties violations from the new Arizona law, not the FEDS and what they do. Lets keep the debate honest.

[bobbyw24]

Was the trucker Hispanic? or Black?

Hispanic is NOT a race, so if he is Hispanic it simply is not racial profiling

[catdd]

Police Officers need to be punished for violating people's rights. Punish him. That's fine.

I still support AZ protecting itself from the Illegal immigration invasion.

I meant the racial profiling charge. There's gonna be lots of those as a counter measure, and the SPLC will be in their corner.

[Cinderella]

I wrote this in another thread...figured it would be good to post it here as well...
Very touchy subject matter! Take the hate and emotion out of the equation and apply some common sense. I've been pondering this law a while now and have come to a conclusion.

This law really IS a loss of liberty for American Citizens. Hispanics in Arizona will live in perpetual fear, legal AND illegal. I'm not being racist, just real. Most know that over half of the illegals in this country are Mexican. All you have to do is search for the statistics, pewhispanic.org has numbers. This law will cost Americans untold millions of taxpayer dollars in litigation alone.

I believe Americans are being manipulated to fulfill a Political Agenda.

Let's talk about "Reasonable Suspicion" or maybe "Probable Cause" even. Just about any law enforcement officer will tell you that there are so many obscure laws on the books of most cities and towns, that it's REAL easy to come up with a reason to stop and question you. Thousands of towns across the US have vagrancy laws and odd curfews etc, etc... I could be out taking a walk in a town I'd lived in for over 15 years and be stopped, ID'd and questioned for an extended period of time because I supposedly match a description.

This law would work in a fantasy world where there is no anger and hate. It will effectively drive ALL Hispanics from Arizona, legal and illegal. Have you ever had the momentary fear of "Oh SH**, I forgot my Driver License" while driving down the road. Imagine having that fear walking down a sidewalk in town.

I agree, YES illegal immigration IS a major problem here in America and something needs to be done. I don't think this law is it. And I wonder why more Americans haven't INSISTED that the administration DO SOMETHING about it before now. Sometimes I wonder why a majority of American population is knee jerk reactionary to long running issues. It isn't like this is something new, this has been an issue for a LONG time.

Seriously guys, everyone on here that is saying it's OK to have to carry papers proving your citizenship surely aren't the same ones that are crying conspiracy and loss of liberty because of the National ID plan.

The National ID WOULD provide citizenship information, a Driver License or State ID wouldn't. Just look what is required on an I-9 form for employment eligibility. Several states have started asking for Birth Certificates to renew Driver Licenses to comply.

I learned many years ago that with some people, you give them an inch & they take a mile. Is this where this whole thing is headed? You know, I have NO desire to have to be able to prove my citizenship at the drop of a hat. I have a tendancy to react firmly when I feel my rights are being infringed upon no matter who you are! That has led to some interesting situations!

I'm starting to think it's a diversion and maybe a bullet point for the Administration to drive home why the National ID is needed.

Don't let these wing-nut politicians twist your thinking. You really don't think they have our best interests at heart now do you?

[angelatc]

Don't let these wing-nut politicians twist your thinking. You really don't think they have our best interests at heart now do you?

Open borders are most definitely not in our best interests. It is the NWO crowd that wants to have open borders. HOw you can look at the devastation of the border states and say that boggles the mind. It was a fun experiment in la la liberalism, but it went badly. It's time to let the people of Arizona exercise their sovereignty.

( I like you were losing the argument in the other thread, so you just started a new one using an example that's been posted about 50 times and, as a bonus, has nothing to do with the actual topic.)

This whole situation is an example of smaller government being more efficient.

[paulitics]

People are still not realizing in this thread that it was the FEDS not the State who did this.

[angelatc]

People are still not realizing in this thread that it was the FEDS not the State who did this.

And that the AZ law clearly spells out that, in the same situation, the officers would have been legally required to accept the drivers license. End of story.

[silentshout]

I'm starting to think it's a diversion and maybe a bullet point for the Administration to drive home why the National ID is needed.

Don't let these wing-nut politicians twist your thinking. You really don't think they have our best interests at heart now do you?

Exactly..this is what I'm thinking. There will be some great "bipartisan" effort to defuse this and it will be RealID. :(

[dannno]

Open borders are most definitely not in our best interests. It is the NWO crowd that wants to have open borders. HOw you can look at the devastation of the border states and say that boggles the mind. It was a fun experiment in la la liberalism, but it went badly. It's time to let the people of Arizona exercise their sovereignty.

( I like you were losing the argument in the other thread, so you just started a new one using an example that's been posted about 50 times and, as a bonus, has nothing to do with the actual topic.)

This whole situation is an example of smaller government being more efficient.


Why do you keep acting like the only solution to the illegal immigration problem is Nazi Germany?

And why ON EARTH would you prefer Nazi Germany to illegal immigration? I've lived my entire life around legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico.. they have helped provide a vibrant local economy and work really hard. They commit very little crime relatively. You really should consider that most of the crap you have been taught by right-wing politicians was propaganda just to get you mad and get them elected.

[bobbyw24]

Open Borders is part of the goal to end the nation-state and sovereignty of individual nations.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Id just like to take the time and say that I love the Mexican people. If the Union woulda just left the South alone, this never would have been a problem. Viva los Confederados!

[John Taylor]

Id just like to take the time and say that I love the Mexican people. If the Union woulda just left the South alone, this never would have been a problem. Viva los Confederados!

You don't have a problem with the Confederate states acting to preserve what they perceived to be the individual rights of their constitutent individual members, and yet you condemn AZ. Wowsers. I.R.O.N.Y.

[bobbyw24]

Id just like to take the time and say that I love the Mexican people. If the Union woulda just left the South alone, this never would have been a problem. Viva los Confederados!


Latinos in the Confederacy

Mexicans in the Confederacy: A Surprising Statistic

It is not surprising that Mexicans were a target of recruitment during the Civil War. A vast majority of the Mexicans in the United States lived in poverty, and offering small incentives for fighting could easily lure large crowds of Mexicanos and Tejanos into fighting. However, was is surprising is the number of Mexicans who fought on behalf of the Confederacy, who were well known for supporting political and social issues that Mexican Americans did not, outnumbered the number of Mexicans fighting for the Union by a ratio of nearly 3:1. As a testament to this fact, throughout the entire state of Texas in 1860, only 60 Tejanos actually owned slaves.[1]

There were many motivating forces for Tejanos to join the Confederate army. The increasing hostilities between the Federals and Confederacy in Virginia, and the threat of Union occupation of the Texas coast forces people all across Texas to join the Confederacy, and Tejanos were no exception.

For Tejanos who enlisted in the Union Army, a predominant amount of the fighting was done at home (until a transfer to Louisiana). This was not the case for Mexican Confederates. Some of these men who enlisted in Hood’s Texas Brigade marched off to Virginia to see action at the battles of Gaines’ Mill, Second Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, the Wilderness, and Appotomax.[2]

Following the second defeat of Cortina, the sixth months of duty required by the Mexicans serving in the Texas Militia who had enlisted at Laredo had transpired, and in the ensuing weeks many prepared to return to civilian life. Several Confederate officials who were high in command realized the importance of this regiment, and asked Benavides to encourage them to serve for an additional three years in the Confederate Army. Realizing this was an impossible feat, Benavides convinced the Confederate government to allow their service in the military to last only one year. The strong support of these Tejanos to the Confederacy was reflected in their lack of deserters in comparison to the Unionist Tejanos; only four men deserted the regiment over the course of nine months.

However, there was still much dissent amongst the Laredo Company due to the fact that they had not received payment for their service in over nine months. This culminated in a meeting held by Benavides’ brother in which he reportedly encouraged the men not to reenlist. The Confederate government did not want to this to happen; they realized how crucial a Mexican company in the Rio Grande was. “[T]he failure to organize one company for the Confederacy, from among the population of Mexican origin, would have amost injurious effect on the whole Rio Grande country.”[3] In the end, thirty-two of the one hundred and twelve men reenlisted. With the exception of one person, all the men in the company were Tejano.

Laredo, Texas
Laredo, Texas around 1878

By the year 1862, the number of Confederate troops in the valley had grown to 917. Throughout this year, the Confederate forces began to experience the full-scale effects of guerilla warfare. Renegade bands of Union soldiers in the Rio Grande area, primarily Tejanos, continued to raid Confederate supply chains and small groups of soldiers. In most cases, this resulted in the deaths of several Confederate Tejano soldiers without any casualties for the Union men, aside from one raid that occurred outside of Fort Brown in which a Confederate Mexican soldier opened up on the intruders with his revolver killing two men.[4]

Benavidez, whom at this point was thoroughly fed up with the raids, set out with 54 of his men to attack the raiders. He was able to track the renegades past the border of Mexico into a Corral near the city of Camargo. His men, many of whom had been victim of these raids, stormed into the Corral and opened fire, killing 18 of the bandits, and taking many more captive. These prisoners were never seen or heard from again, and many believe this is because they were executed to send a message to the raiders.

Still amid, their vast amount of success against the Union troops along the river, the Tejano and Mexicano soldiers continued to flee the army and cross the border back into Mexico. In order to prevent these desertions from occurring, Benavidez allowed his men to return to Mexico during hiatuses from the fighting so long as they left their pistols with him. However, this did not last long as one of his men who was returning home to Mexico for a brief visit with his family was shot in Nuevo Laredo for no apparent reason. Hearing about this tragedy, Benavidez quickly returned to Laredo where he found a band of Tejano Confederates ready to storm the city and avenge their friend’s death. Benavidez quickly rode into the city and demanded the arrest of the men who committed the crime, but it was to no avail, as the men were never found.

In order to subdue these diversions, the Confederate government passed something that is still viewed today as one of the most controversial decisions in the history of Texas. A draft was implemented that required any white man between the ages of 18 and 35 who were drafted to serve three years in the service. The only people avoiding the draft were those who possessed jobs that were “critical” to life outside the war. When government officials swept through Southern Texas and forced many Tejanos to enlist in the army after being drafted, they refused. Many were forced into the army only to be treated like wild animals. This caused hundreds of more men to flee into Mexico. Many Tejanos also claimed to be citizens of Mexico after being drafted, which therefore meant they were exempt from the draft. This effort was to no avail, as the Confederate government forced them into service regardless (it is important to note that most of these men were probably citizens of Texas). Finally, the government realized the forced recruitment of Tejanos to fight was not working, and other means were used to make them want to enlist. A very popular tool for enlisting them was serving in the Texas Militia, where they would be close to home, and service time was only four months long.

The War in the South was becoming more of a joke than it had ever been for the Confederacy, especially after the departure of the Second Texas Cavalry of the North to Louisiana, and the morale of the troops was running low. This was caused by problems similar to those in the Union army: supplies were low, many men felt like they were not even real soldiers, but pawns in a game of chess that was much bigger than themselves. They also rarely received compensation for their services, which caused a deep agitation within the men, as a vast majority of them were only serving in order to make money for their families.

In 1865, following the surrender of General Robert E. Lee, the war was officially over. Following only one more battle in the south (discussed in the Mexican Soldiers in the Union Army portion of the website), the Tejano Confederates duty had finally finished. Reluctantly, Satnos Benavidez received his parole papers from the Federal government, and the war in Texas was officially over. As put by Thompson himself, “[T]ejanos had been among the first to take up arms for the Confederacy, and were among the last to surrender. Even in defeat, a sense of dignity and honor abounded.”[5]


Analysis: The appeal to the Confederacy from Tejanos is somewhat surprising to many people and for good reason. The blatantly racist attitude of the Confederates (although not limited to their side of the fight) would lead many, including ourselves, to believe that most Tejanos and Mexicanos would side with the Union Army. One major reason many Mexicans joined the Confederate side of the fight is for the simple reason that they did not truly understand the scale or cause of the conflict they were becoming involved in. Most of these Mexicans did not speak English and were only fighting for a chance at a paycheck. To them, it didn’t matter what side they were fighting for, just as long as they were receiving money. The confederate side of the fight in Texas also received much more succe

ss in their skirmishes than did the Union. Times became so difficult for the Union in Texas that they had to resort to guerilla warfare, and when these guerillas actually might opposition forces, they were easily crushed.

The Confederate army did have several Mexicans, namely Benavidez and his family, who were loyal to the cause of the Confederacy. Still, most Mexicans who were fighting in this war, regardless of the side they chose, were not doing it for causes loyal to the war.[6]

http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects07/cwlatinos/Mexicans%20in%20the%20Confederacy.html

[dannno]

Open Borders is part of the goal to end the nation-state and sovereignty of individual nations.

That's like saying Free Trade is part of the goal to end the nation-state and sovereignty of individual nations just because of NAFTA.. but as we all know, NAFTA is government managed trade, not free trade.. The NWO doesn't want open borders, they want to control them, and have them not be up to the whims of the citizenry of each nation.

The NWO agenda is based on control.. they want the borders open for big corporations to send cheap slave made goods around the globe to un-suspecting consumers on the other side so they can profit off of the consumer via their consumer debt and profit off of the slave labor directly and at the same time.

If you live off the grid you won't be able to cross the border. You'll need a chip or a special ID.

Giving more power to the state is the NWO agenda.. they will "open borders" for their buddies, they will open borders to destroy a healthy society.. but their ultimate goal is not open borders for the sake of open borders, all they are after is control.. all they want is our rights.. so giving up our rights in this situation is counterproductive.

[bobbyw24]

I agree, danno

[dannno]

You don't have a problem with the Confederate states acting to preserve what they perceived to be the individual rights of their constitutent individual members, and yet you condemn AZ. Wowsers. I.R.O.N.Y.

WTH??? When did she advocate the Federal Govt intervene in AZ?

[JeNNiF00F00]

Latinos in the Confederacy

Mexicans in the Confederacy: A Surprising Statistic

It is not surprising that Mexicans were a target of recruitment during the Civil War. A vast majority of the Mexicans in the United States lived in poverty, and offering small incentives for fighting could easily lure large crowds of Mexicanos and Tejanos into fighting. However, was is surprising is the number of Mexicans who fought on behalf of the Confederacy, who were well known for supporting political and social issues that Mexican Americans did not, outnumbered the number of Mexicans fighting for the Union by a ratio of nearly 3:1. As a testament to this fact, throughout the entire state of Texas in 1860, only 60 Tejanos actually owned slaves.[1]

There were many motivating forces for Tejanos to join the Confederate army. The increasing hostilities between the Federals and Confederacy in Virginia, and the threat of Union occupation of the Texas coast forces people all across Texas to join the Confederacy, and Tejanos were no exception.

For Tejanos who enlisted in the Union Army, a predominant amount of the fighting was done at home (until a transfer to Louisiana). This was not the case for Mexican Confederates. Some of these men who enlisted in Hood’s Texas Brigade marched off to Virginia to see action at the battles of Gaines’ Mill, Second Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, the Wilderness, and Appotomax.[2]

Following the second defeat of Cortina, the sixth months of duty required by the Mexicans serving in the Texas Militia who had enlisted at Laredo had transpired, and in the ensuing weeks many prepared to return to civilian life. Several Confederate officials who were high in command realized the importance of this regiment, and asked Benavides to encourage them to serve for an additional three years in the Confederate Army. Realizing this was an impossible feat, Benavides convinced the Confederate government to allow their service in the military to last only one year. The strong support of these Tejanos to the Confederacy was reflected in their lack of deserters in comparison to the Unionist Tejanos; only four men deserted the regiment over the course of nine months.

However, there was still much dissent amongst the Laredo Company due to the fact that they had not received payment for their service in over nine months. This culminated in a meeting held by Benavides’ brother in which he reportedly encouraged the men not to reenlist. The Confederate government did not want to this to happen; they realized how crucial a Mexican company in the Rio Grande was. “[T]he failure to organize one company for the Confederacy, from among the population of Mexican origin, would have amost injurious effect on the whole Rio Grande country.”[3] In the end, thirty-two of the one hundred and twelve men reenlisted. With the exception of one person, all the men in the company were Tejano.

Laredo, Texas
Laredo, Texas around 1878

By the year 1862, the number of Confederate troops in the valley had grown to 917. Throughout this year, the Confederate forces began to experience the full-scale effects of guerilla warfare. Renegade bands of Union soldiers in the Rio Grande area, primarily Tejanos, continued to raid Confederate supply chains and small groups of soldiers. In most cases, this resulted in the deaths of several Confederate Tejano soldiers without any casualties for the Union men, aside from one raid that occurred outside of Fort Brown in which a Confederate Mexican soldier opened up on the intruders with his revolver killing two men.[4]

Benavidez, whom at this point was thoroughly fed up with the raids, set out with 54 of his men to attack the raiders. He was able to track the renegades past the border of Mexico into a Corral near the city of Camargo. His men, many of whom had been victim of these raids, stormed into the Corral and opened fire, killing 18 of the bandits, and taking many more captive. These prisoners were never seen or heard from again, and many believe this is because they were executed to send a message to the raiders.

Still amid, their vast amount of success against the Union troops along the river, the Tejano and Mexicano soldiers continued to flee the army and cross the border back into Mexico. In order to prevent these desertions from occurring, Benavidez allowed his men to return to Mexico during hiatuses from the fighting so long as they left their pistols with him. However, this did not last long as one of his men who was returning home to Mexico for a brief visit with his family was shot in Nuevo Laredo for no apparent reason. Hearing about this tragedy, Benavidez quickly returned to Laredo where he found a band of Tejano Confederates ready to storm the city and avenge their friend’s death. Benavidez quickly rode into the city and demanded the arrest of the men who committed the crime, but it was to no avail, as the men were never found.

In order to subdue these diversions, the Confederate government passed something that is still viewed today as one of the most controversial decisions in the history of Texas. A draft was implemented that required any white man between the ages of 18 and 35 who were drafted to serve three years in the service. The only people avoiding the draft were those who possessed jobs that were “critical” to life outside the war. When government officials swept through Southern Texas and forced many Tejanos to enlist in the army after being drafted, they refused. Many were forced into the army only to be treated like wild animals. This caused hundreds of more men to flee into Mexico. Many Tejanos also claimed to be citizens of Mexico after being drafted, which therefore meant they were exempt from the draft. This effort was to no avail, as the Confederate government forced them into service regardless (it is important to note that most of these men were probably citizens of Texas). Finally, the government realized the forced recruitment of Tejanos to fight was not working, and other means were used to make them want to enlist. A very popular tool for enlisting them was serving in the Texas Militia, where they would be close to home, and service time was only four months long.

The War in the South was becoming more of a joke than it had ever been for the Confederacy, especially after the departure of the Second Texas Cavalry of the North to Louisiana, and the morale of the troops was running low. This was caused by problems similar to those in the Union army: supplies were low, many men felt like they were not even real soldiers, but pawns in a game of chess that was much bigger than themselves. They also rarely received compensation for their services, which caused a deep agitation within the men, as a vast majority of them were only serving in order to make money for their families.

In 1865, following the surrender of General Robert E. Lee, the war was officially over. Following only one more battle in the south (discussed in the Mexican Soldiers in the Union Army portion of the website), the Tejano Confederates duty had finally finished. Reluctantly, Satnos Benavidez received his parole papers from the Federal government, and the war in Texas was officially over. As put by Thompson himself, “[T]ejanos had been among the first to take up arms for the Confederacy, and were among the last to surrender. Even in defeat, a sense of dignity and honor abounded.”[5]


Analysis: The appeal to the Confederacy from Tejanos is somewhat surprising to many people and for good reason. The blatantly racist attitude of the Confederates (although not limited to their side of the fight) would lead many, including ourselves, to believe that most Tejanos and Mexicanos would side with the Union Army. One major reason many Mexicans joined the Confederate side of the fight is for the simple reason that they did not truly understand the scale or cause of the conflict they were becoming involved in. Most of these Mexicans did not speak English and were only fighting for a chance at a paycheck. To them, it didn’t matter what side they were fighting for, just as long as they were receiving money. The confederate side of the fight in Texas also received much more succe

ss in their skirmishes than did the Union. Times became so difficult for the Union in Texas that they had to resort to guerilla warfare, and when these guerillas actually might opposition forces, they were easily crushed.

The Confederate army did have several Mexicans, namely Benavidez and his family, who were loyal to the cause of the Confederacy. Still, most Mexicans who were fighting in this war, regardless of the side they chose, were not doing it for causes loyal to the war.[6]

http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects07/cwlatinos/Mexicans%20in%20the%20Confederacy.html

More propaganda. :rolleyes:

[bobbyw24]

More propaganda. :rolleyes:

I don't know much about this.

Propaganda to what end?

[dwdollar]

truck drivers don't have constitutional rights in any state.

+1000

[dean.engelhardt]

I'm starting to think it's a diversion and maybe a bullet point for the Administration to drive home why the National ID is needed.

Don't let these wing-nut politicians twist your thinking. You really don't think they have our best interests at heart now do you?

This really torks me. Will the government really start jailing its own citizens to pressure us to accept a national ID card?:mad:

[JeNNiF00F00]

WTH??? When did she advocate the Federal Govt intervene in AZ?

He ASSumes that I am for open boarders because I do not support the AZ bill. Like a broken record, you can look at all of his posts and see that he pretty much repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over. If John Taylor is a Republican and is representing "liberty" then thats a scary thought.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I don't know much about this.

Propaganda to what end?

Its too much to explain on here, and was mainly a tongue in cheek comment to begin with.

[John Taylor]

He ASSumes that I am for open boarders because I do not support the AZ bill. Like a broken record, you can look at all of his posts and see that he pretty much repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over. If John Taylor is a Republican and is representing "liberty" then thats a scary thought.

What is an "open boarder"? I know what an open border is, I live right next to it and see the victims of the illegal's crimes daily, but I'm not familiar with boarders... aren't those the people that PAY you to let them live with you?

[bobbyw24]

Its too much to explain on here, and was mainly a tongue in cheek comment to begin with.

Gotcha; will do more research later.

[JeNNiF00F00]

This really torks me. Will the government really start jailing its own citizens to pressure us to accept a national ID card?:mad:

Looks that way, if other states began taking up this law. If we would drop the incentives for them to come here thee numbers will dwindle.

[John Taylor]

WTH??? When did she advocate the Federal Govt intervene in AZ?

I didn't say she did. Learn to READ danno. I said that I found it ironic that she didn't have a problem with the Confederate states acting to preserve what they perceived to be the individual rights of their constitutent individual members, and yet you condemn AZ for acting to preserve those same variety of individual rights.

[Elwar]

The new AZ law doesn't kick in for another 3 months.

[JeNNiF00F00]

What is an "open boarder"? I know what an open border is, I live right next to it and see the victims of the illegal's crimes daily, but I'm not familiar with boarders... aren't those the people that PAY you to let them live with you?

Again, you fail to see WHAT is causing these crimes to begin with. Which is PROHIBITION. Just making more PROHIBITION is only going to make matters worse. Add that with OTHER incentives to come here, and you have problems. If I lived in poverty, inside of Mexico and then knew that I could sneak over the boarder and grow some dank weed on US soil and then profit 120+ dollars per 7 grams of weed I grew out on top of getting other incentives such as welfare, a drivers license, schooling for kids, food stamps etc. Think about it. Wouldn't you? Now I'm not condoning this however, its like sticking a big pot of hot stewed beef in front of a starving person, and expecting them not to eat it. Take away the incentives of the market, and stop giving them govt welfare and public schooling and it will stop.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I didn't say she did. Learn to READ danno. I said that I found it ironic that she didn't have a problem with the Confederate states acting to preserve what they perceived to be the individual rights of their constitutent individual members, and yet you condemn AZ for acting to preserve those same variety of individual rights.

Mexico and the confederacy got along just fine.

[John Taylor]

Mexico and the confederacy got along just fine.

Yeah, and I get along just fine with my Mexican girlfriend.

[John Taylor]

Again, you fail to see WHAT is causing these crimes to begin with. Which is PROHIBITION. Just making more PROHIBITION is only going to make matters worse. Add that with OTHER incentives to come here, and you have problems. If I lived in poverty, inside of Mexico and then knew that I could sneak over the boarder and grow some dank weed on US soil and then profit 120+ dollars per 7 grams of weed I grew out on top of getting other incentives such as welfare, a drivers license, schooling for kids, food stamps etc. Think about it. Wouldn't you? Now I'm not condoning this however, its like sticking a big pot of hot stewed beef in front of a starving person, and expecting them not to eat it. Take away the incentives of the market, and stop giving them govt welfare and public schooling and it will stop.

I favor open immigration, but only after the welfare/warfare state is deconstructed. That's where we disagree, you are fine with continuing the slide towards redistributionism here so long as tens of millions of illegals can come in, but the second a state attempts to prevent itself from being swamped by those who statistically compose the voting blocks most favorable to redistribution.... oh the horror!!!!

[angelatc]

Take away the incentives of the market, and stop giving them govt welfare and public schooling and it will stop.

They don't qualify for things like food stamps and housing subsidies until they have children who are citizens, and SCOTUS already ruled that the states aren't allowed to keep illegal immigrant children out of school.

Got another plan?

[MelissaWV]

What is an "open boarder"? I know what an open border is, I live right next to it and see the victims of the illegal's crimes daily, but I'm not familiar with boarders... aren't those the people that PAY you to let them live with you?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AiMKxQd79ck/S0MnIcJtZlI/AAAAAAAAALw/Or7wlotuLh8/s400/Glass+House+AT+Jan10.jpg


Yeah, and I get along just fine with my Mexican girlfriend.

Does this mean there's some poor woman we should feel very sorry for, or is it some other inside joke we'll never understand, like the one about dannno being 4ft 9 or me being Venezuelan?


The new AZ law doesn't kick in for another 3 months.

WINNER. DING DING DING!

[JeNNiF00F00]

They don't qualify for things like food stamps and housing subsidies until they have children who are citizens, and SCOTUS already ruled that the states aren't allowed to keep illegal immigrant children out of school.

Got another plan?

They're still making cash $$ though. Stop catering to them. Does AZ make spanish signs for them to read? Does AZ already go after people who hire these illegals? Seems like someone would need this 'identification' in order to pay their workers legally.

The violence is coming from the drug war. Happens with black people, and white people too, and a lot of innocents get stuck in the middle.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I favor open immigration, but only after the welfare/warfare state is deconstructed. That's where we disagree, you are fine with continuing the slide towards redistributionism here so long as tens of millions of illegals can come in, but the second a state attempts to prevent itself from being swamped by those who statistically compose the voting blocks most favorable to redistribution.... oh the horror!!!!

So build up the state power, and then destroy the welfare state, and then somehow think the state will magically disappear?

[JeNNiF00F00]

Yeah, and I get along just fine with my Mexican girlfriend.

Awww she must be desperate!

[Cinderella]

It's been my experience that most people with power will abuse it. The more they abuse it, the less they think about abusing it. Lawmen are no different with exception to how profound the impact. There are lawmen that are drug dealers, child molesters, and as seen recently in the media, murderer. I know not all of them are like that, but they are out there and the trust has been lost for most.

[JP2010]

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed. Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

So ICE, who haven't been doing their jobs, arrests a man contrary to what the AZ law states, so people like cinderella here can cry 'racial profiling'?

Keep that propaganda comin'

[dean.engelhardt]

So ICE, who haven't been doing their jobs, arrests a man contrary to what the AZ law states, so people like cinderella here can cry 'racial profiling'?

Keep that propaganda comin'

Do you think if this guy was of Irish heritage he would have been arrested until his wife produced his Birth Certificate?

[angelatc]

They're still making cash $$ though. Stop catering to them. Does AZ make spanish signs for them to read? Does AZ already go after people who hire these illegals? Seems like someone would need this 'identification' in order to pay their workers legally.

The violence is coming from the drug war. Happens with black people, and white people too, and a lot of innocents get stuck in the middle.

So, your plan is to burden everybody except the people that are actually breaking the law by being here. You'd start by making life harder (and more expensive) for businesses.

Are we expecting every business owner to become an expert in detecting fraudulent documents, or should the state create some sort of an e-verify system?

What are we going to do when the mayor's brother-in-law's company never gets fined when he is inspected, but all his competitors do?

Instead of having LE enforce the law as part of their day-to-day routine, you'd create a new squad of business inspectors? Who would pay for that - the people that are running businesses?

And how would that work? You don't want the inspectors to harass the workers, so how would you prove they have illegals working for them, exactly?

The system of having business screen employees has been in place for 20 years, and it has proven to be a failure

And the violence isn't exclusively from the drug war. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the country. The coyotes smuggle in people, then stash them in houses until their families cough up more money than originally agreed upon. Until that happens, they're beaten and raped, and their clothes are taken to keep them from running away.

Your plan would never catch these guys, because their day job doesn't involve a paycheck.

[Cinderella]

So lets say the states were given the power to enforce this how would they deport people? Who would man the systems to track who is deported and who hasn't been? How would you check to see if they are a greater threat the US than just an illegal? Better yet who is watching you to make sure that you aren't just removing people you want to? Each state would tackle it differently with no uniformity. You are going to drive every illegal immigrant you find to a border? What about the illegal’s who aren't from mexico or Canada are you going to fly them to their country? You know you can't right?

There is a reason we have refugee status and asylum status in the United States, there is a reason you can't deport people back to certain home countries. People don't grasp all of that when they think about illegal immigration, all they hear is oh Mexican’s lets get them out. There are a lot of illegal’s in the US good majority are Hispanic but what will you do with the ones that aren't? You only going to deport Hispanic people? Mexico doesn't want people from any other country out there.

NOT TO MENTION IT'S NOT A CRIME TO BE HERE ILLEGALLY, by AZ making it illegal they are circumventing the Federal law on the matter. It's an admistrative offense, hence why immigration court isn't a criminal court, look it up it's called Present without Admission. By doing that they violate the constitution. I am all for state rights and less government control, but you can't deny the fact that power over immigration and citizenship wasn't given to states.


My last question is if you were given the power how would your state make sure they didn't come back in? You know what the problem is? We can deport people and they come back in within a day. You can't control the problem until you can enforce our borders. Just deporting people doesn't solve the problem. If you read the AZ law all they do is send the people to ICE they don't actually deport people.

[Vessol]

Police Officers need to be punished for violating people's rights. Punish him. That's fine.

I still support AZ protecting itself from the Illegal immigration invasion.

This isn't about AZ protecting itself from Illegal immigrants. This is about expanding the Police State. Maybe you should read the actual law?

And this is going to continue to happen over and over again as police are given more and more power.

You can't solve things with government power. You can try to deport as many immigrants as you want, but they'll just come back in. It's impossible to stop. Thus why we need to solve the real problem, the Welfare State. Not "try" to fight the issue by giving more power to police.

[angelatc]

Do you think if this guy was of Irish heritage he would have been arrested until his wife produced his Birth Certificate?

The bartender at the Irish Pub we frequent was deported. She was Irish. Got a point?

[John Taylor]

So build up the state power, and then destroy the welfare state, and then somehow think the state will magically disappear?

All we're talking about is the states exercising some of the power now solely exercised by the federal government. This is a localization of power, and decentralization, that's it.

[John Taylor]

This isn't about AZ protecting itself from Illegal immigrants. This is about expanding the Police State. Maybe you should read the actual law?

And this is going to continue to happen over and over again as police are given more and more power.

You can't solve things with government power. You can try to deport as many immigrants as you want, but they'll just come back in. It's impossible to stop. Thus why we need to solve the real problem, the Welfare State. Not "try" to fight the issue by giving more power to police.

Yeah, READ the law.

[angelatc]

NOT TO MENTION IT'S NOT A CRIME TO BE HERE ILLEGALLY,

Now you're just being silly. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

[Vessol]

All we're talking about is the states exercising some of the power now solely exercised by the federal government. This is a localization of power, and decentralization, that's it.

This is all a plan by the Globalists in order to embolden Republicans into pushing for more Immigration laws and a National ID. Give them enough drive by giving false resistance from the Democrats, and the Republicans will make it a major part of their campaigns this 2010 where they will easily win control of the Congress and Senate.


Yeah, READ the law.

I did. It's a sham. It's a complete power grab by the police over legal citizens.

[John Taylor]

This is all a plan by the Globalists in order to embolden Republicans into pushing for more Immigration laws and a National ID. Give them enough drive by giving false resistance from the Democrats, and the Republicans will make it a major part of their campaigns this 2010 where they will easily win control of the Congress and Senate.



I did. It's a sham. It's a complete power grab by the police over legal citizens.

You're reading a different law than the one passed and signed here in AZ.

This is a law which will prevent redistributionist illegals from moving or remaining in AZ.

[Cinderella]

This law doesn't address the state being able to deport anyone. It only allows the state to ask for immigration verification.

Now the problem here is that the USCIS (immigration control) has no authority over US Citizens. None whatsoever! And under federal law only immigration judges and border patrol officers can ask for verification.

Also it is completely legal for me as a US Citizen to walk around without any ID on me. It is also legal for me to leave my state in a vehicle or to travel in a vehicle as a passenger without any form of ID.

So I ask you how exactly is it that any officer whether they have probable cause or not should be allow to ask anyone whether they are legally in this country and then to have that officer require proof?

Even the federal government admits via USCIS documents that they can't even legitimately and constitutionally enforce that all immigrants carry their visa or greencard with them at all times. Even tho as an immigrant you are told you must carry proof at all times. This is because of a little thing called the 4th amendment. Just looking at someone you can not tell if they are legally here a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Now I am all for STATES being able to deport someone once it is proven in a court with a immigration judge that this person is illegally in the US. How you get to that step is when they are arrested on another charge and placed in front of a judge who can then ask them for proof of citizenship.

I however, will never submit willingly to any state law officer asking me for proof of my citizenship simply because this smacks of fascism and goes against my civil rights.

And just so everyone knows I am totally against amnesty, I think we need to tighten our borders and actually deport people who are found to be here illegally.

[angelatc]

This is all a plan by the Globalists in order to embolden Republicans into pushing for more Immigration laws and a National ID. Give them enough drive by giving false resistance from the Democrats, and the Republicans will make it a major part of their campaigns this 2010 where they will easily win control of the Congress and Senate.

I did. It's a sham. It's a complete power grab by the police over legal citizens.

No, the plan by globalists is to flood the country with illegal immigrants, giving corporate America slave labor and creating the demand for an ever bigger welfare state.

[Cinderella]

Now you're just being silly. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

How do you think EOIR, CBP can deport people without going through criminal courts? It's against the law, but it's not a CRIME you understand? The concept is pretty simple. When you commit a crime in this country you go to a criminal court. EOIR is not a criminal court it's an administrative one. Ask anyone who works in EOIR hell look up EOIR yourself. Immigration matters like that circumvent regular court systems for efficiency. Sometimes district courts rule on immigration matters that's fine. But EOIR and CBP deport people administratively.

I'm curious besides the law in AZ where can you find a law that says it's a CRIME to be here illegally? It makes someone inadmissible. Look at the INA...hell 8CFR?

[Vessol]

You're reading a different law than the one passed and signed here in AZ.

This is a law which will prevent redistributionist illegals from moving or remaining in AZ.

If you believe that, I have a beach-front property to sell you in Arizona Bay.

This isn't going to solve any problem. The government is ineffective and corrupt. Deport as many people as you want, they'll just come back with more.

Oh you can strengthen the border all you want, considering how large it is, it would cost hundreds of billions to do that, and even then there would still be easy ways for people to get in, they'd find them.

We need to solve the real issue of the welfare state. Not give more power to police officers.


No, the plan by globalists is to flood the country with illegal immigrants, giving corporate America slave labor and creating the demand for an ever bigger welfare state.

While they force all legal citizens to get National IDs.

This law is not going to end or even put a dent on the flood of illegal immigrants.

[angelatc]

So I ask you how exactly is it that any officer whether they have probable cause or not should be allow to ask anyone whether they are legally in this country and then to have that officer require proof?


There are more than 40 years of precedents that define reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

[John Taylor]

If you believe that, I have a beach-front property to sell you in Arizona Bay.

This isn't going to solve any problem. The government is ineffective and corrupt. Deport as many people as you want, they'll just come back with more.

Oh you can strengthen the border all you want, considering how large it is, it would cost hundreds of billions to do that, and even then there would still be easy ways for people to get in, they'd find them.

We need to solve the real issue of the welfare state. Not give more power to police officers.

The welfare state will never be defeated if we cannot staunch the flow of redistributionist voters who now flood the country from foreign lands.

What part of that do you not comprehend?

[angelatc]

I'm curious besides the law in AZ where can you find a law that says it's a CRIME to be here illegally? It makes someone inadmissible. Look at the INA...hell 8CFR?

Like I just said, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

[Vessol]

The welfare state will never be defeated if we cannot staunch the flow of redistributionist voters who now flood the country from foreign lands.

What part of that do you not comprehend?

This isn't going to put even a dent on the flood of illegal immigrants.

Why do you suddenly think that government can now be effective in actually stopping a problem, especially one they profit from and caused in the first place?

This isn't going to stop or even put a dent on illegal immigrants. It won't lower the amount of redistributionalist voters by one bit.

[bruce leeroy]

This law doesn't address the state being able to deport anyone. It only allows the state to ask for immigration verification.

Now the problem here is that the USCIS (immigration control) has no authority over US Citizens. None whatsoever! And under federal law only immigration judges and border patrol officers can ask for verification.

Also it is completely legal for me as a US Citizen to walk around without any ID on me. It is also legal for me to leave my state in a vehicle or to travel in a vehicle as a passenger without any form of ID.

So I ask you how exactly is it that any officer whether they have probable cause or not should be allow to ask anyone whether they are legally in this country and then to have that officer require proof?

Even the federal government admits via USCIS documents that they can't even legitimately and constitutionally enforce that all immigrants carry their visa or greencard with them at all times. Even tho as an immigrant you are told you must carry proof at all times. This is because of a little thing called the 4th amendment. Just looking at someone you can not tell if they are legally here a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Now I am all for STATES being able to deport someone once it is proven in a court with a immigration judge that this person is illegally in the US. How you get to that step is when they are arrested on another charge and placed in front of a judge who can then ask them for proof of citizenship.

I however, will never submit willingly to any state law officer asking me for proof of my citizenship simply because this smacks of fascism and goes against my civil rights.

And just so everyone knows I am totally against amnesty, I think we need to tighten our borders and actually deport people who are found to be here illegally.

where did you get the idea that its legal for you as a citizen to walk around in public without ID?
there is a misdemeanor charge called "failure to ID" in most states

[angelatc]

where did you get the idea that its legal for you as a citizen to walk around in public without ID?
there is a misdemeanor charge called "failure to ID" in most states

Yes, but if appealed, it's generally been found to be unconstitutional.

[angelatc]

This isn't going to put even a dent on the flood of illegal immigrants.

Why do you suddenly think that government can now be effective in actually stopping a problem, especially one they profit from and caused in the first place?

This isn't going to stop or even put a dent on illegal immigrants. It won't lower the amount of redistributionalist voters by one bit.

What do you base that on?

[Cinderella]

Just don't get it do you? Sigh I am tired of fighting the point with you and everyone else who can't grasp that concept. If it was a CRIME it would be handled in CRIMINAL court. You do know that there are things against the law but that aren't what we consider crimes? Sigh...

And just to pose a question to everyone saying it is indeed a criminal offense to be here illegally. Why would AZ have to pass a law to make it ILLEGAL (crimally) to be here in the US if it wasn't already illegal?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Now you're just being silly. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

Since the code cited only refers to entry into the United States which is a defined term in the code can you elaborate on the jurisdiction of the United States?

Why wouldn't the code cited read something like this which is contained elsewhere in the code?



in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

[low preference guy]

This discussion is misdirected. The cause of the law is the rising crime in Arizona, but it won't stop until the War on Drugs ends. You guys are focusing on the wrong issue.

[John Taylor]

This discussion is misdirected. The cause of the law is the rising crime in Arizona, but it won't stop until the War on Drugs ends. You guys are focusing on the wrong issue.

It's more than this. To quote Murray Rothbard: "I began to rethink my views on immigration, when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples." After serious reflection, he realized that "the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

[angelatc]

Just don't get it do you? Sigh I am tired of fighting the point with you and everyone else who can't grasp that concept. If it was a CRIME it would be handled in CRIMINAL court. You do know that there are things against the law but that aren't what we consider crimes? Sigh...

No, everything that is against the law is considered a crime. Some of them are considered misdemeanors, and some of them are felonies, but they're all crimes. Illegal aliens are punished by prison time as well as fines and deportation.

Are you saying they aren't felonies? I'll give you that.



And just to pose a question to everyone saying it is indeed a criminal offense to be here illegally. Why would AZ have to pass a law to make it ILLEGAL (crimally) to be here in the US if it wasn't already illegal?


Because now it gives Arizona a reason to arrest them and/or fine them when ICE says they're simply not going to show up and do their job of deporting the aliens that have been apprehended.

[Cinderella]

Our current immigration problem stems from the fact that after seizing this important power from the states, the federal government has exercised it in an illogical, unfair, and haphazard fashion. Legal applicants wait years to be processed through the morass of bureaucracy and red tape of Homeland Security, while others simply walk across our unprotected boarders and set up house. This has happened for a number of reasons, among them the fact that our leaders no longer view our nation as an independent, sovereign entity worthy of protection (any more than they do the states, for that matter) but rather a loosely affiliated trading block governed by international banks and corporations. See NAFTA and SPP for more on that aspect. For all intents and purposes, the United States no longer exists.

States are hamstrung by Fed 'color of law' statutes claiming authority on this matter as well as the threat of lawsuits and withheld federal funds should they rock the political boat on this issue, or try to practice self help like AZ or TX are now doing.

The solution, like with so many other huge problems we face today, is to simply re-establish the proper, legal and moral right to the states to determine who live and work within their borders. This was never a federal matter, nor was it meant to be. It cannot be resolved by any amount of money, laws, or press conferences coming out of Washington, but by common sense and adherence to that "deeply flawed document" our president has labelled the Constitution.

As far as imprisoning "illegals"-- do we really think we have the unlimited funds to house and feed these people when states are going bankrupt one by one? Saving millions on health care, schooling and welfare to illegal residents makes little sense if we simply spend it on trials and lengthy incarceration which benefit no one.

On the other hand, I am not proposing we turn a blind eye to actual crimes committed by non-citizens. But let's agree to define 'crime' by its truest measure, i.e. "Injury or loss to person or property." We have more than enough laws on the books to cover that.

[dean.engelhardt]

The bartender at the Irish Pub we frequent was deported. She was Irish. Got a point?

I don't know the details of the bartender deportation. I assume she was determined to be in the US illegally. The comparision of deporting an illegal alien and detaining a US citizen until a birth certificate is produced misses the point of racial profiling.

Do you truly believe if the truck driver in this story was US citizen of Irish heritage instead of Mexican he would have been detained until his wife showed up with his birth certificate? My opinion is no. I'll respect your opinion.

There was a time when Irish immigration wasn't a very popular either.

[angelatc]

It's more than this. To quote Murray Rothbard: "I began to rethink my views on immigration, when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples." After serious reflection, he realized that "the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

Exactly. There's a quote here somewhere in one of these threads...the president of Mexico called for his people here to do exactly that. To keep coming, and to take over their cities.

[RedStripe]

Police Officers need to be punished for violating people's rights. Punish him. That's fine.

I still support AZ protecting itself from the Illegal immigration invasion.

LOL

Qualified immunity basically protects all cops who do this kind of stuff. If you knew anything about how law enforcement, and state agencies in general, operate you would have realized this.

Yet another reasons that giving cops an additional reason to arrest people is a fucking stupid idea - because there's basically no redress when it is wrongfully done (unless the cop goes absolutely nuts, and there is actually evidence to prove it).

[angelatc]

I don't know the details of the bartender deportation. I assume she was determined to be in the US illegally. The comparision of deporting an illegal alien and detaining a US citizen until a birth certificate is produced misses the point of racial profiling.

Do you truly believe if the truck driver in this story was US citizen of Irish heritage instead of Mexican he would have been detained until his wife showed up with his birth certificate? My opinion is no. I'll respect your opinion.

There was a time when Irish immigration wasn't a very popular either.

Stop playing the race card , because nobody cares what color these immigrants are.

I've said about a million times, the truck driver has no bearing on the Arizona law. The Arizona law clearly says that the police must accept a drivers license.

If they go as far as the ICE officers did, there will be grounds for a lawsuit.

As for the truck driver, if he is a Hispanic male driving an empty semi down a road known for being heavily trafficked by Mexican smugglers, then he's going to attract suspicion by law enforcement . He should be pissed at the illegal aliens and drug runners for putting him in that position.

[Cinderella]

Here is a section of the law:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"


That is pretty broad and much broader than any other law. So I think Arizona was just interested in randomly asking "darker skinned" people if they are here legally.

BTW Arizona already has a State Law on Human Smuggling which they could have used to arrest those crossing the border.

[MelissaWV]

Cinderella:

As pertains to the Arizona bill, the question isn't really whether or not simply being here illegally is against the law. That isn't the language used in the legislation, at least in the part that most welcomes the idea of profiling.

It is a "removable offense." There is a long list of these. Some of them are a bit obvious and I don't think anyone would be leaping up and objecting to a rapist or murderer from their neighborhood. Among that list of removable offenses is the act of being here illegally. That's where it comes into play.

The Arizona law talks about being able to arrest, without warrant, those suspected of being engaged in removable offenses. The question is what kind of "profile" is used there. I don't think it does anyone justice to call this racial profiling, either. Since this is left up to the police, you can be sure the profiles will have at least as much to do with age, neighborhood, dress, vehicle being driven, and so on. Until someone can pick out "suspected illegals" on the basis of anything approaching solid, this whole thing is going to stink.

Legal immigrants (or illegals with good forgeries) are always supposed to have their papers on them. Legal citizens are not required to have an "I am a citizen" card. You can go your whole life without a photo ID if you really, really want to. Why should you be faulted for that if you strike an officer as a potential illegal? Why not just rephrase the law to omit the removable offense of simply being here?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Our current immigration problem stems from the fact that after seizing this important power from the states, the federal government has exercised it in an illogical, unfair, and haphazard fashion. Legal applicants wait years to be processed through the morass of bureaucracy and red tape of Homeland Security, while others simply walk across our unprotected boarders and set up house. This has happened for a number of reasons, among them the fact that our leaders no longer view our nation as an independent, sovereign entity worthy of protection (any more than they do the states, for that matter) but rather a loosely affiliated trading block governed by international banks and corporations. See NAFTA and SPP for more on that aspect. For all intents and purposes, the United States no longer exists.

States are hamstrung by Fed 'color of law' statutes claiming authority on this matter as well as the threat of lawsuits and withheld federal funds should they rock the political boat on this issue, or try to practice self help like AZ or TX are now doing.

The solution, like with so many other huge problems we face today, is to simply re-establish the proper, legal and moral right to the states to determine who live and work within their borders. This was never a federal matter, nor was it meant to be. It cannot be resolved by any amount of money, laws, or press conferences coming out of Washington, but by common sense and adherence to that "deeply flawed document" our president has labelled the Constitution.

As far as imprisoning "illegals"-- do we really think we have the unlimited funds to house and feed these people when states are going bankrupt one by one? Saving millions on health care, schooling and welfare to illegal residents makes little sense if we simply spend it on trials and lengthy incarceration which benefit no one.

On the other hand, I am not proposing we turn a blind eye to actual crimes committed by non-citizens. But let's agree to define 'crime' by its truest measure, i.e. "Injury or loss to person or property." We have more than enough laws on the books to cover that.

The federal government hasn't taken anything from the states. The federal government does not have the power to police state borders without states making application to Congress for assistance. The only thing the federal government has ever had is power to provide a uniform rule of naturalization.

States can provide a lessor path of naturalization (ie residency). It is no coincidence in the media reporting you heard the word residency used. The power for states to police their own borders has always existed. Raise a militia and go police it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Exactly. There's a quote here somewhere in one of these threads...the president of Mexico called for his people here to do exactly that. To keep coming, and to take over their cities.

I do not deny the political or tactical implications of immigration in the world. My only rebuttal is respond honorably. If the president of Mexico makes a bold claim. Make a bold response.

[dean.engelhardt]

The welfare state will never be defeated if we cannot staunch the flow of redistributionist voters who now flood the country from foreign lands.

What part of that do you not comprehend?

There are parts of this I don't comprehend. I do have questions, not to be confused with arguements.

I assume you are discussing legal immigrants. Unless I'm ignorant, illegal immigrants cannot vote. Is there something I don't know about illegal immigrants voting?

Are you charaterizing legal immigrants as redistributionist voters? Do you have any data to back this up?

[MelissaWV]

Stop playing the race card , because nobody cares what color these immigrants are.

I've said about a million times, the truck driver has no bearing on the Arizona law. The Arizona law clearly says that the police must accept a drivers license.

If they go as far as the ICE officers did, there will be grounds for a lawsuit.

As for the truck driver, if he is a Hispanic male driving an empty semi down a road known for being heavily trafficked by Mexican smugglers, then he's going to attract suspicion by law enforcement . He should be pissed at the illegal aliens and drug runners for putting him in that position.

Fixed ;) Don't think every human trafficker fits that profile... not even close. As for the Arizona law accepting driver's licenses, I thought it said they must accept AZ licenses, and may accept out-of-state ones? That's a smart wording, since some states still have non-citizen licenses still valid. Perhaps he would have been caught up in the flipside of "may" which is "may not."

There are too many threads on this :( I can't really find the list now of what's acceptable identification or not.

[angelatc]

Here is a section of the law:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

That is pretty broad and much broader than any other law. So I think Arizona was just interested in randomly asking "darker skinned" people if they are here legally.

BTW Arizona already has a State Law on Human Smuggling which they could have used to arrest those crossing the border.

....a reasonable attempt, when practicable,......" Yeah, that's realllly ominous. :rolleyes:

So you understand then that "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" have specific meanings in legal code, right?

And you also understand that Arizona is constitutionally prohibited from just asking random people for ID?

The law specifically prohibits the officers from racial profiling, but the liberals and the anarchists keep playing the race card. I guess that's all they have left, since the facts don't support them.

It's like arguing foreign policy with a neocon. No matter how many times I point out that what we're doing isn't working, their solution is to call me names and insist that we should stay the course.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So you understand then that "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" have specific meanings in legal code, right?

They do? Please enlighten...

[angelatc]

I do not deny the political or tactical implications of immigration in the world. My only rebuttal is respond honorably. If the president of Mexico makes a bold claim. Make a bold response.

Like making an effort to throw the illegals out isn't a bold response? Writing a stern letter won't work when they're already sending troops across the border.

[low preference guy]

^angela, saying that critics of the law want to "stay the course" is a criticizing a straw man. one proposal they make is to make the borders more secure. you might disagree with their proposals but the claim that they want to "stay the course" is false.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Like making an effort to throw the illegals out isn't a bold response? Writing a stern letter won't work when they're already sending troops across the border.

Deportation is bold but I do not consider the present methods advocated of creating new police powers to compel an individual honorable. If you want to be bolder address the specific nation in question. Don't hide behind anti-discrimination.

[angelatc]

They do? Please enlighten...

I am not a lawyer. That's what the lawyer said.


“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.


What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0mWVqCaf7

[low preference guy]

Comparing opponents of the Arizona law to neocons is the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far. After all, it's neocons the ones who'll like to get the population used to having a police state. That's why it's no surprise Kristol supports the Arizona law.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am not a lawyer. That's what the lawyer said.

I did not get any specific impressions about the specific meaning. It seems pretty vague and subjective. And you can't even define it. How could one expect a reasonable person to understand it's meaning.

[MelissaWV]

I am not a lawyer. That's what the lawyer said.

This is about one passage. It is not about the passage regarding removable offenses.

Arrests may be made, without warrant, of those police suspect are engaged in removable offenses. Being here illegally is a removable offense.

Why do you guys keep citing only the "lawful contact" portion, and neither the "removable offense" area, nor the e-verify requirements? I guess I understand on the last point, but isn't it just getting dishonest to circle around and misrepresent things hoping everyone else just gets tired and hasn't read the bill?

[angelatc]

Deportation is bold but I do not consider the present methods advocated of creating new police powers to compel an individual honorable. If you want to be bolder address the specific nation in question. Don't hide behind anti-discrimination.


There are no new powers created in this law. However, the existing laws can now be enforced by local LE, who are better equipped to know the people living in their beat anyway.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There are no new powers created in this law. However, the existing laws can now be enforced by local LE, who are better equipped to know the people living in their beat anyway.

I did pose a question about the code you cited a couple pages back. Still waiting for a reply.

Edit:

If you can't define the law how can you possibly expect a reasonable person not to be ignorant of it?

Regarding the creation of new police powers to compel and individual to prove they are a citizen or quota eligible... not sure how you can characterize a new power to compel an individual that has never occurred in the history of this country as not a newly created power.

[angelatc]

This is about one passage. It is not about the passage regarding removable offenses.

Arrests may be made, without warrant, of those police suspect are engaged in removable offenses. Being here illegally is a removable offense.

Why do you guys keep citing only the "lawful contact" portion, and neither the "removable offense" area, nor the e-verify requirements? I guess I understand on the last point, but isn't it just getting dishonest to circle around and misrepresent things hoping everyone else just gets tired and hasn't read the bill?

That confused me at first. The e-verify stuff was already on their books. Only the stuff in blue is new: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf and it appears to exist to give employers a tool to comply.

The removable offense is coupled with probable cause. I'm not troubled by that, because they can't use racial profiling to justify probable cause.

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

I can see where there's a potential conflict there. Let's say that Joe is driving a red Chevy, drunk, and runs over a kid, then flees the scene. Pete happens to have the bad luck to be driving a different red Chevy, and gets pulled over and detained because they have probable cause to believe that he might have just killed a child. If Pete is a citizen, they'll let him go. If Pete's here illegally, he just got busted.

Oh well. There's a certain margin of error in everything.

[angelatc]

I did pose a question about the code you cited a couple pages back. Still waiting for a reply.

Edit:

If you can't define the law how can you possibly expect a reasonable person not to be ignorant of it?

Regarding the creation of new police powers to compel and individual to prove they are a citizen or quota eligible... not sure how you can characterize a new power to compel an individual that has never occurred in the history of this country as not a newly created power.

There is no new power. INS/ICE has always has that power.

I don't have to define the clauses. Nor do I have to understand them. That responsibility belongs to the officers.

[angelatc]

^angela, saying that critics of the law want to "stay the course" is a criticizing a straw man. one proposal they make is to make the borders more secure. you might disagree with their proposals but the claim that they want to "stay the course" is false.

Nobody in Washington is talking seriously about securing the borders. Nobody was talking about immigration reform much at all until AZ threw this out there.

And Arizona was in the position of waiting (for 20 years) for somebody, somewhere, to do something. They just decided that freedom from dependency on the federal government was the solution.

[MelissaWV]

That confused me at first. The e-verify stuff was already on their books. Only the stuff in blue is new: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf and it appears to exist to give employers a tool to comply.

The removable offense is coupled with probable cause. I'm not troubled by that.

1. Thank you!!! That actually clears up a lot for me, too, and I had been wondering why different sites showed me different "colors" for the bill.

2. It's a tail-chase. The officer suspects the person of being an illegal, which is a removable offense, so they are eligible for a warrantless arrest (and the appropriate actions that follow), and identity check and all that jazz. There still has to be a probable cause/reasonable suspicion, and the courts will hash out what's "reasonable" here or not... but it'll all add up the same way once it's done. Arizona could have fixed this clause with a single exclusion pertaining to the offense of just being here.

It's so obvious, easy, and would have made the entire thing nearly protest-proof. When something that makes life that much simpler on the surface for everyone involved doesn't happen, it either means that the people enacting the thing (and writing it) are morons, or that there's something else going on.

No one wins this one. Scenarios that come to mind:

A Someone arrests the wrong person (it'll most likely be a legal Mexican, or someone who's a victim of identity theft; definitely someone without an AZ license), who reacts in the wrong way (runs/resists/pulls a cellphone), causing a cops-shoot-unarmed-person scenario, further complicated by the fact the entire "arrest" was going to end up being on a bad premise. People love to glue unrelated things together. That would be an absolute field day on various levels for some groups.

B. Coyotes/Cartels start peddling an increased number of duplicate identities, in particular Puerto Rican ones. You're covered even though you only speak Spanish, and you could just say you are on vacation. If run through the system, it will come back as a valid ID. Despite the new "change your birth certificate" scam the governments have going on, they're actually decreasing identity security. This summer (convenient timing) an awful lot of personal data is going to be flying around as people scramble to get these "new" certificates. Copies of licenses, SSNs, and so on will be going out... the "new" certificates will be coming in. I talked about duplicate IDs before; they're less easy to "spot" because they're not meant to use for credit checks and the like. They're just "I'm a citizen" cards, even if they are utterly fake. If that illegal is caught, the coyote/cartel will still keep going, and make money, and the original person in Puerto Rico will now (if they ever happen to be in a state with the AZ kind of law) be in jeopardy and potentially not even know it.

This would lead a lot of people, I'm sure, towards a version of Real ID or some other national ID card.

C. Without all the fuss, Obama just steps in shortly (the moment there's enough "violence" or "clash") and establishes calm. He hasn't done anything very Messiahlike in the eyes of his supporters lately. ObamaCare was pretty tarnished by the time it passed, and it's just not doing much, and people have crappy attention spans. Not you, or you wouldn't have gotten this far. "Reform" is undertaken (again) and things get worse for absolutely everyone involved.

D. The happy ending. La Raza, NAACP, and other Race-Banner organizations, fleeing Arizona during the fallout for a peaceful non-violent bout of bottle-throwing and tazing, all flee to California by autumn. The sudden overburdening of the state awakens the fault line, fulfilling weatherbill's prophecy. China comes in and does *not* give us amnesty.

[low preference guy]

I can see where there's a potential conflict there. Let's say that Joe is driving a red Chevy, drunk, and runs over a kid, then flees the scene. Pete happens to have the bad luck to be driving a different red Chevy, and gets pulled over and detained because they have probable cause to believe that he might have just killed a child. If Pete is a citizen, they'll let him go. If Pete's here illegally, he just got busted.

Oh well. There's a certain margin of error in everything.

The problem is solved if they're allowed to ask for papers only after they formally convict someone for a crime. Otherwise we open the door for a terrifying police state in the United States.

[angelatc]

Comparing opponents of the Arizona law to neocons is the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far. After all, it's neocons the ones who'll like to get the population used to having a police state. That's why it's no surprise Kristol supports the Arizona law.

The logic is the same though: "We shouldn't change anything because it might make things worse!!!"

[low preference guy]

Nobody in Washington is talking seriously about securing the borders.

That's no excuse to violate the rights of innocent American Citizens. They shouldn't be required to show their identity; they shouldn't be required to carry an ID. This is a major milestone on the road to dictatorship.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There is no new power. INS/ICE has always has that power.

I don't have to define the clauses. Nor do I have to understand them. That responsibility belongs to the officers.

We are not talking about INS/ICE. Authorized agents of the State of Arizona executive branch are now empowered to compel an individual to prove citizenship. That is a new power.

It's appalling a person who alleges to believe in liberty would make authoritative assertions they can not explain and when presented with irrefutable information to the contrary claim they do not have to understand them and would even fucking support the notion of persecuting other people for ignorance of that which they claim no duty to understand.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Not to Hijack the Thread...

You can chat LIVE with Judge Napolitano on the issues or the next 35 minutes at: http://www.foxbusiness.com/happyhour/live.html (http://www.foxbusiness.com/happyhour/live.html)

confront his view on this immigration if you wish

[dean.engelhardt]

Stop playing the race card , because nobody cares what color these immigrants are.

I've said about a million times, the truck driver has no bearing on the Arizona law. The Arizona law clearly says that the police must accept a drivers license.

If they go as far as the ICE officers did, there will be grounds for a lawsuit.

As for the truck driver, if he is a Hispanic male driving an empty semi down a road known for being heavily trafficked by Mexican smugglers, then he's going to attract suspicion by law enforcement . He should be pissed at the illegal aliens and drug runners for putting him in that position.

OK, I will plead guilty to playing the race card. Will you answer the original question?

Do you truly believe if the truck driver in this story was US citizen of Irish heritage instead of Mexican he would have been detained until his wife showed up with his birth certificate?

I will still respect your opinion.

[angelatc]

The problem is solved if they're allowed to ask for papers only after they formally convict someone for a crime. Otherwise we open the door for a terrifying police state in the United States.

That door opened when we started issuing Visas and green cards, and the drug war has done far more damage to our civil rights than this ever will.

Deporting them after they've served their time is essentially the situation we have now, and it isn't working.

Heck, right now they have more rights than we do. They won't have to buy health care, they don't get their bank accounts attached if they don't pay income taxes, and their credit scores aren't ruined when they skip out on their bills.

[angelatc]

OK, I will plead guilty to playing the race card. Will you answer the original question?

Do you truly believe if the truck driver in this story was US citizen of Irish heritage instead of Mexican he would have been detained until his wife showed up with his birth certificate?

I will still respect your opinion.

Honestly, I don't care. It's pretty stupid to pretend to avoid stereotypes at all costs. It I'm dressed like a whore, I can probably assume that occasionally I'll be mistaken for a whore. If I'm a Latino driving a semi down the road in a border state, I can probably assume that I'll occasionally be mistaken for a smuggler.

But will you concede that the AZ law specifically says that AZ cops would indeed have to be satisfied with the driver's license?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Not to Hijack the Thread...

You can chat LIVE with Judge Napolitano on the issues or the next 35 minutes at: http://www.foxbusiness.com/happyhour/live.html (http://www.foxbusiness.com/happyhour/live.html)

confront his view on this immigration if you wish

LOL, I seen you in there.

[low preference guy]

That door opened when we started issuing Visas and green cards, and the drug war has done far more damage to our civil rights than this ever will.

Deporting them after they've served their time is essentially the situation we have now, and it isn't working.

Heck, right now they have more rights than we do. They won't have to buy health care, they don't get their bank accounts attached if they don't pay income taxes, and their credit scores aren't ruined when they skip out on their bills.

You already acknowledge that Americans lost many of their rights. I find it strange that you are OK with them losing even more rights! Right now they can walk around without carrying an ID any time. When this law is passed, they lose that right! So it makes the problem you are complaining about... worse.

And all this is not probably going to be effective since illegals can get fake driver licenses or find other ways around the law. Again, find a way to stop illegal immigration without infringing the rights of citizens. There are many possibilities. Ask them for their ID AFTER they're convicted, or when they're requesting public services.

[dean.engelhardt]

Honestly, I don't care. It's pretty stupid to pretend to avoid stereotypes at all costs. It I'm dressed like a whore, I can probably assume that occasionally I'll be mistaken for a whore. If I'm a Latino driving a semi down the road in a border state, I can probably assume that I'll occasionally be mistaken for a smuggler.

But will you concede that the AZ law specifically says that AZ cops would indeed have to be satisfied with the driver's license?

Respect to you first.

Yes, I will concede the AZ law accepts driver's licenses as proof of citizenship.

[angelatc]

We are not talking about INS/ICE. Authorized agents of the State of Arizona executive branch are now empowered to compel an individual to prove citizenship. That is a new power.

No, they don't have to prove citizenship. They have to prove they're here legally. So, you concede that the Fed Gov, via INS/ICE indeed had that legal power, yet still insist that it is a new government power. Whatever.

70% of the people in Arizona approved of extending that power from the fed to their local law enforcement. Don't they get a say about what powers their law enforcement officers should have?

If the laws weren't constitutional, the fed gov wouldn't be allowed to have them.



It's appalling a person who alleges to believe in liberty would make authoritative assertions they can not explain and when presented with irrefutable information to the contrary claim they do not have to understand them and would even fucking support the notion of persecuting other people for ignorance of that which they claim no duty to understand.

You've refuted nothing. Just because you are have decided to pretend not to acknowledge that the legal concepts already exist doesn't mean they don't.

The courts have written hundreds of opinions on these things. Go look them up if you want to, then explain why the precedents are not going to work. That would be a legitimate argument. Or PM one of the lawyers that post here. Hell, go look it up in Wikipedia. But it's not necessarily bad law just because some people might not understand it.

I have a question - what part of the political spectrum are you from?

[angelatc]

Respect to you first.

Yes, I will concede the AZ law accepts driver's licenses as proof of citizenship.

So that's that then. Cops have always been assholes, they will always be assholes. This law won't change that.

[low preference guy]

If the laws weren't constitutional, the fed gov wouldn't be allowed to have them.

The constitutionality hasn't been tested yet. Many people plan to sue, but no Court has analyzed the case yet.

[angelatc]

You already acknowledge that Americans lost many of their rights. I find it strange that you are OK with them losing even more rights! Right now they can walk around without carrying an ID any time. When this law is passed, they lose that right! So it makes the problem you are complaining about... worse.

And all this is not probably going to be effective since illegals can get fake driver licenses or find other ways around the law. Again, find a way to stop illegal immigration without infringing the rights of citizens. There are many possibilities. Ask them for their ID AFTER they're convicted, or when they're requesting public services.

What right am I losing?

Immigrants have always been required to carry their papers. That's only a problem for people that are illegal immigrants because they don't have papers. Duh!

They don't get public services until they have anchor babies. SCOTUS won't allow us to boot their non-citizen kids out of schools. The plan to have businesses monitor their employees has failed dismally.

This law is the most economical way to start cracking down on illegal immigration in AZ, and it puts more responsibility on the state instead of the fed.

[angelatc]

The constitutionality hasn't been tested yet. Many people plan to sue, but no Court has analyzed the case yet.

They are all powers (laws) that the federal government has. The only issue I've seen worthy of real debate is whether Arizona can have concurrent jurisdiction.

[angelatc]

That's no excuse to violate the rights of innocent American Citizens. They shouldn't be required to show their identity; they shouldn't be required to carry an ID. This is a major milestone on the road to dictatorship.

They don't have to do anything they aren't already doing. The cops can't walk up to you and demand to see your ID. If you get pulled over, they're going to ask you for a drivers license.

If you get arrested, they're going to ask you for ID.

If you don't have one, they're going to verify your identity. If you have a drivers license in your name, you're done. I

Illegal aliens don't even have anything to worry about as long as they're not driving or getting arrested.

[low preference guy]

What right am I losing?


The right of not having to carry around an ID with you.


That's only a problem for people that are illegal immigrants because they don't have papers.

It's a problem for citizens who refuse to carry around their papers because they're not comfortable living like people in a police state do.

[low preference guy]

The cops can't walk up to you and demand to see your ID.

Yes they can. If they cannot, they wouldn't be allowed to ask IDs of illegals either. They don't need to have a proof that you're illegal before asking for your ID, thus, they can ask for the id of citizens.


A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No, they don't have to prove citizenship. They have to prove they're here legally.

That is citizenship, residency, or quota eligibility...



So, you concede that the Fed Gov, via INS/ICE indeed had that legal power, yet still insist that it is a new government power. Whatever.

No I did not concede that. I called you out on your citation of federal code questioning the jurisdiction which you said you do not have a duty to not be ignorant of the law.



70% of the people in Arizona approved of extending that power from the fed to their local law enforcement.

What power exactly? The police power to compel an individual to prove citizenship or quota eligibility?



Don't they get a say about what powers their law enforcement officers should have?

Law enforcement is not a power to compel proof it is a power to enforce unlawful criminals acts. DUH!



If the laws weren't constitutional, the fed gov wouldn't be allowed to have them.

Obviously I or anyone else is wasting their time with you because you are talking out your ass. You expressed you have no duty to not be ignorant of the law.



You've refuted nothing. Just because you are have decided to pretend not to acknowledge that the legal concepts already exist doesn't mean they don't.

You have already admitted you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. No need for you to pollute intelligent conversation on shit you know nothing about.



The courts have written hundreds of opinions on these things. Go look them up if you want to, then explain why the precedents are not going to work. That would be a legitimate argument. Or PM one of the lawyers that post here. Hell, go look it up in Wikipedia. But it's not necessarily bad law just because some people might not understand it.

I have already cited cases and articulated it quite well. Don't pass off your failure to respond as if it's my ignorance.



I have a question - what part of the political spectrum are you from?

The individual freedom spectrum.

I have a question for you:
Who are you a shill for?

[angelatc]

The right of not having to carry around an ID with you.

It's a problem for citizens who refuse to carry around their papers because they're not comfortable living like people in a police state do.

You might have a point if the law said citizens had to carry ID at all times, which it doesn't.

[low preference guy]

You might have a point if the law said citizens had to carry ID at all times, which it doesn't.

But they can be asked for an ID any time with or without warrant! The only way to make sure you don't go to jail or further questioning for not having an ID is carrying one all the time!

Geez, I didn't expect to see Orwellian speak at RPF.

[angelatc]

No I did not concede that. I called you out on your citation of federal code questioning the jurisdiction which you said you do not have a duty to not be ignorant of the law.



What? I said that the entire AZ law was written based on the exact set of laws that the federal government uses to enforce immigration law. Which was intentional.



What power exactly? The police power to compel an individual to prove citizenship or quota eligibility? I have no idea what quota eligibility means, but yes - the people of Arizona want their law enforcement officers to verify the citizenship of the people who the police encounter.




Law enforcement is not a power to compel proof it is a power to enforce unlawful criminals acts. DUH!

Illegal immigration is illegal.



Obviously I or anyone else is wasting their time with you because you are talking about your ass. You stated you have no duty to not be ignorant of the law.

I'm so confused by that statement - I said I understood the concepts. I gave you a quote from a lawyer giving specific examples in layman's terms, and you threw a tantrum because I'm not a lawyer.

I then said I don't need to understand every nuance of the law, because I am not the one enforcing it. If the law then bites me in the butt, then I can blame myself and/or hire a lawyer who makes a living off such things.




You have already admitted you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. No need for you to pollute intelligent conversation on shit you know nothing about.

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about established legal precedents. You, on the other hand, are resorting to calling me names and flinging profanity.




I have already cited cases and articulated it quite well. Don't pass of your failure to respond as if it's my ignorance.


I haven't seen any legal cites. Sorry, this thread is busy, Please post them again and I'll be happy to opine.


The individual freedom spectrum.

Is that like the open borders lobby?


I have a question for you:
Who are you a shill for?

Why can't you answer my question honestly? Who am I a shill for? Get over yourself. I'm a Republican, like Ron Paul. He believes that illegal immigration should be stopped and that our country is being invaded. He believes in states rights, too.

Have you heard of him?

[low preference guy]

If you want to bring Ron Paul, he has stated in John Stossel that it's ok to ask people for identification AFTER they have been convicted of a crime.

He mentions that doing it before will force asking legal citizens for it and open the door for a national ID card, something he opposes.

[RedStripe]

Guys, if you're not an illegal immigrant you have nothing to worry about!

[dean.engelhardt]

Guys, if you're not an illegal immigrant you have nothing to worry about!

If you mean that being detained until a relative delivers your birth certificate doesn't worry you, you are a very calm person. I admire you.