login
Arizona (Page 6)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-04-27 11:20 PM in reply to: #2821599 |
Pro  4909    Hailey, ID |  Subject: RE: ArizonaBellinghamSpence - 2010-04-27 10:15 PM What would happen if you were in Mexico and you lost your passport and the Federallies started to ask you questions? They give you a job, free health care, free education for your children and let you vote, duh! |
| 2010-04-28 12:39 AM in reply to: #2813206 |
Extreme Veteran 513 Albuquerque | Subject: RE: Arizona For what its worth, I thought this worth passing along: Breaking News: Pima Co. sheriff rebels against new immigration law Posted: Apr 27, 2010 11:55 AM MST Updated: Apr 27, 2010 2:45 PM MST Reporters: Steve Nunez and Craig Smith Web Producer: Forrest Carr TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik tells KGUN9 News that SB 1070, Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration, is a "racist law," and says he has no intention of complying with it. In doing so, Dupnik becomes the first major local law enforcement official to officially rebel against the bill since Governor Jan Brewer signed it into law on Friday. Dupnik told KGUN9's Steve Nunez that the law is "disgusting" and "unnecessary." Dupnik said his deputies plan to keep on doing what they've always done. He said when illegal immigrants wind up in his custody, his deputies will detain them for federal agents, but will not take them to the county jail. Dupnik said he realizes that, under the terms of SB 1070, he could get sued for failing to comply with the law. But he indicated that's a risk he's willing to take. Dupnik insisted that federal law supersedes state law. In an e-mail exchange with KGUN9 News Tuesday afternoon, SB 1070's sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce sharply criticized Dupnik's position. Pearce wrote, "Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist." By contrast, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever now tells KGUN9 that he does plan to comply with SB 1070. But in an interview with KGUN9's Craig Smith on Tuesday morning, Dever also said he does not expect it to have much of an effect on the way his department operates. KGUN9 is working on full reports and community reaction, and will have those updates starting on KGUN9 News at 5 p.m. |
| 2010-04-28 1:23 AM in reply to: #2820443 |
| Subject: RE: Arizona Zilla - 2010-04-27 2:28 PM AcesFull - 2010-04-27 12:03 PM TriRSquared - 2010-04-27 1:59 PM AcesFull - 2010-04-27 2:56 PM rayd - 2010-04-27 1:35 PM drewb8 - 2010-04-27 11:54 AM I'm disappointed no one has brought up the obvious solution. Just put an RFID chip in every rightful citizens shoulder with scanners on all the sidewalks. If you're a citizen you walk on and nothing happens. If you don't have a chip a red light goes on and the cops come and take you away for further questioning. no messy problems with profiling, etc. If we can do it for my dog, why not us? It'll save a ton of money on enforcement. that's it...genious!
Of course, people will complain about AZ becoming a police state, but those folks who are complaining don't seem to mind when the police state only applies to people other than themselves. What group is it singling out? It's singling out criminals. Guess what, lots of laws single out criminals. The law states that the immigration status of ALL suspects need to be checked. Have you EVER been stopped by a cop and NOT been asked for some form of ID? They are not talking about stopping "suspects." They are talking about stopping anyone the police deem to be a possible immigrant. In AZ, that means Brown People. I have no problem with being ID'd randomly, or anytime I'm stopped for a possible crime. The AZ law makes it okay to ask me for ID just because I talk with a funny accent (which I've been developing with exposure to all the Minnesotans around me, you betcha). Over the years I've gone through many Border Patrol checkpoints on the wide open, not very heavily traveled highways of southern AZ, and when I've been alone they indicate for me to roll down my window .. they look in the car .. they look at me and they wave me along. When I've gone through with someone else in the car that "looked like" me .. same thing ... when I've gone through with someone Hispanic, who was very much so a US citizen, in the car ... we were asked to show ID and at times a few questions .. then we were waved on through. The only time they wanted me to step out of the car and pop my trunk was when I was driving my ex husbands fancy black sports car up from Sierra Vista, I was the only car at the checkpoint and no other cars came by in the time I was there. Maybe they were bored. Who knows. I don't know what that means but that's my experience with Border Patrol. Maybe the agent just thought you were HOT  |
| 2010-04-28 6:44 AM in reply to: #2821642 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: Arizona megtrow - 2010-04-28 12:39 AM For what its worth, I thought this worth passing along: Breaking News: Pima Co. sheriff rebels against new immigration law Posted: Apr 27, 2010 11:55 AM MST Updated: Apr 27, 2010 2:45 PM MST Reporters: Steve Nunez and Craig Smith Web Producer: Forrest Carr TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik tells KGUN9 News that SB 1070, Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration, is a "racist law," and says he has no intention of complying with it. In doing so, Dupnik becomes the first major local law enforcement official to officially rebel against the bill since Governor Jan Brewer signed it into law on Friday. Dupnik told KGUN9's Steve Nunez that the law is "disgusting" and "unnecessary." Dupnik said his deputies plan to keep on doing what they've always done. He said when illegal immigrants wind up in his custody, his deputies will detain them for federal agents, but will not take them to the county jail. Dupnik said he realizes that, under the terms of SB 1070, he could get sued for failing to comply with the law. But he indicated that's a risk he's willing to take. Dupnik insisted that federal law supersedes state law. In an e-mail exchange with KGUN9 News Tuesday afternoon, SB 1070's sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce sharply criticized Dupnik's position. Pearce wrote, "Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist." By contrast, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever now tells KGUN9 that he does plan to comply with SB 1070. But in an interview with KGUN9's Craig Smith on Tuesday morning, Dever also said he does not expect it to have much of an effect on the way his department operates. KGUN9 is working on full reports and community reaction, and will have those updates starting on KGUN9 News at 5 p.m. It is a very liberal county with a liberal sheriff so I'm not surprised that the sheriff would toss the race card, infer that supporters are racist, and refuse to comply with the law. Edited by Jackemy 2010-04-28 6:48 AM |
| 2010-04-28 11:40 AM in reply to: #2818420 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Arizona megtrow - 2010-04-26 10:12 PM bradword - 2010-04-26 6:59 PM I would like to know where in the law it says they can do this because someone looks like an immigrant? As I read it, if someone is breaking the law in some way, they have the right to make them prove citizenship. I have not read the legislation, but are people just getting bent out of shape because some media outlet twist the law to get headlines, or is there actually something to it? (honestly I'm asking) As I understand it, and I have read the legislation, anyone can now be pulled over if a cop has 'reasonable suspicion' that they are illegally in this country. Yes, the law says that "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states", they can then check your status as an immigrant. But there has been considerable debate as to what exactly "any lawful contact" means. Just google that phrase, and you'll see how much has come up about it in the last few days, because it has not been defined. Just as 'reasonable suspicion' is not defined. I also read somewhere (as soon as I find the article, I will provide the link) that current AZ governor Jan Brewer, when asked what gives police "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant, simply said that the people must trust the good judgement of the police on this matter. Huh. I've read the legislation and I disagree with your interpretation. I see a two step process. First, lawful contact, then and only then if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not a legal resident can they ask for proof of residency. I believe that the law does not allow for a stop or detention based upon the suspicion that a person may be illegal. Regarding the issue of definitions the notion of "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" are terms of art and are well defined in both State and local case law. The issue regarding "lawful contact" I'm going to assume revolves around lawful citizen encounters, which is based upon something less than reasonable suspicion. Of course in a citizen encounter since there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause the citizen is free to break off the encounter at any time. What may be problematic is can an officer develop "reasonable suspicion" that a person is illegal during a "citizen encounter"? |
| 2010-04-28 11:52 AM in reply to: #2821018 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Arizona bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Someone pointed out 70% of Arizonians supported this law. Where did that number come from? Some poll or was this voted in? I honestly don't know, but if it is some poll I would like to see the demographics on that one. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. |
| 2010-04-28 12:07 PM in reply to: #2822993 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: Arizona Brock Samson - 2010-04-28 9:52 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Someone pointed out 70% of Arizonians supported this law. Where did that number come from? Some poll or was this voted in? I honestly don't know, but if it is some poll I would like to see the demographics on that one. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. I always carry my ID no matter what I am doing. It is not for fear of being arrested etc though. I just do not want to end up getting hit but a car out walking my dog and the police/medics NOT being able to Identify me, contact my wife, get my records etc and instead having to rely on other tactics to figure out who I am that could delay treatment or cause me to be given something I am allergic too. As for the law I am in full support of it and wish my state would do that too. We have a wider range of Illegal immigrants here (I am guessing most people assume that Arizona is full of hispanic illegal immigrants but in Washington we also have many asians/eastern Europeans etc here illegally.) and I think it would be nice to have a law with some teeth in getting them out of here. Like others have said the US has set immigration laws, just because it might take a while to get in it is better to come here legally and if you come illegally then be prepared to face any consequences coming your way. |
| 2010-04-28 12:07 PM in reply to: #2822993 |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: Arizona Brock Samson - 2010-04-28 9:52 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. I am reading the law a bit different, and maybe I am wrong, but you do not have to be doing anything illegal for them to ask for proof. They just have to feel suspicious that you are there illegally. Me talking and the Canadian flag on my leg might be enough for them to become suspicious. |
| 2010-04-28 12:10 PM in reply to: #2823055 |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: Arizona bel83 - 2010-04-28 10:07 AM I always carry my ID no matter what I am doing. It is not for fear of being arrested etc though. I just do not want to end up getting hit but a car out walking my dog and the police/medics NOT being able to Identify me, contact my wife, get my records etc and instead having to rely on other tactics to figure out who I am that could delay treatment or cause me to be given something I am allergic too. . I use Road ID, as I expect a lot of people do. Probably not valid proof that I am there legally. |
| 2010-04-28 12:10 PM in reply to: #2823056 |
Extreme Veteran 513 Albuquerque | Subject: RE: Arizona bzgl40 - 2010-04-28 10:07 AM Brock Samson - 2010-04-28 9:52 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. I am reading the law a bit different, and maybe I am wrong, but you do not have to be doing anything illegal for them to ask for proof. They just have to feel suspicious that you are there illegally. Me talking and the Canadian flag on my leg might be enough for them to become suspicious. This is my understanding as well. And just about everyone else's in Arizona. Also, nobody has brought up the fact yet that Obama called this legislation "misguided" and asked for a full investigation into it's legality. Thus far, nobody on this thread who is FOR the bill has been from our state. Just sayin'. |
| 2010-04-28 12:13 PM in reply to: #2821762 |
Champion 5522 Frisco, TX | Subject: RE: Arizona Jackemy - 2010-04-28 6:44 AM megtrow - 2010-04-28 12:39 AM For what its worth, I thought this worth passing along: Breaking News: Pima Co. sheriff rebels against new immigration law Posted: Apr 27, 2010 11:55 AM MST Updated: Apr 27, 2010 2:45 PM MST Reporters: Steve Nunez and Craig Smith Web Producer: Forrest Carr TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik tells KGUN9 News that SB 1070, Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration, is a "racist law," and says he has no intention of complying with it. In doing so, Dupnik becomes the first major local law enforcement official to officially rebel against the bill since Governor Jan Brewer signed it into law on Friday. Dupnik told KGUN9's Steve Nunez that the law is "disgusting" and "unnecessary." Dupnik said his deputies plan to keep on doing what they've always done. He said when illegal immigrants wind up in his custody, his deputies will detain them for federal agents, but will not take them to the county jail. Dupnik said he realizes that, under the terms of SB 1070, he could get sued for failing to comply with the law. But he indicated that's a risk he's willing to take. Dupnik insisted that federal law supersedes state law. In an e-mail exchange with KGUN9 News Tuesday afternoon, SB 1070's sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce sharply criticized Dupnik's position. Pearce wrote, "Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist." By contrast, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever now tells KGUN9 that he does plan to comply with SB 1070. But in an interview with KGUN9's Craig Smith on Tuesday morning, Dever also said he does not expect it to have much of an effect on the way his department operates. KGUN9 is working on full reports and community reaction, and will have those updates starting on KGUN9 News at 5 p.m. It is a very liberal county with a liberal sheriff so I'm not surprised that the sheriff would toss the race card, infer that supporters are racist, and refuse to comply with the law. The question is if anyone has the cajones to sue or arrest him for breaking the law.... As a law enforcement officer, you don't get to decide which laws to enforce and last I checked the local sheriff doesn't decide what is constitutional and what is not... |
 2010-04-28 12:18 PM in reply to: #2823084 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-04-28 12:19 PM in reply to: #2823070 |
| Champion 5522 Frisco, TX | Subject: RE: Arizona megtrow - 2010-04-28 12:10 PM bzgl40 - 2010-04-28 10:07 AM Brock Samson - 2010-04-28 9:52 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. I am reading the law a bit different, and maybe I am wrong, but you do not have to be doing anything illegal for them to ask for proof. They just have to feel suspicious that you are there illegally. Me talking and the Canadian flag on my leg might be enough for them to become suspicious. This is my understanding as well. And just about everyone else's in Arizona. Also, nobody has brought up the fact yet that Obama called this legislation "misguided" and asked for a full investigation into it's legality. Thus far, nobody on this thread who is FOR the bill has been from our state. Just sayin'. Not on COJ anyway (which tends to have a liberal tilt most of the time). The bill enjoys widespread support in your state. I think Texas (which has similar problems) should follow suit... |
| 2010-04-28 12:25 PM in reply to: #2823070 |
| Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: Arizona megtrow - 2010-04-28 10:10 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-28 10:07 AM Brock Samson - 2010-04-28 9:52 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. I am reading the law a bit different, and maybe I am wrong, but you do not have to be doing anything illegal for them to ask for proof. They just have to feel suspicious that you are there illegally. Me talking and the Canadian flag on my leg might be enough for them to become suspicious. This is my understanding as well. And just about everyone else's in Arizona. Also, nobody has brought up the fact yet that Obama called this legislation "misguided" and asked for a full investigation into it's legality. Thus far, nobody on this thread who is FOR the bill has been from our state. Just sayin'. While I am not sold on this legislation, I can't imagine why a Democratic president who depends on teh Hispanic vote to get elected would ever come out against a law that the Hispanic community is vehemently opposed to. Whether or not this law is right, I wouldn't use Obama's stance on it as evidence. "Recent polling data released by Beginner Triathlete.com has shown that 100% of Arizonians are opposed to the new legislation. With a sample size of 5, this data has been deemed conclusive." |
| 2010-04-28 12:30 PM in reply to: #2823108 |
| Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: Arizona AcesFull - 2010-04-28 10:18 AM I would love to see every legal Mexican immigrant (and most Mexicans in AZ are legal) to immediately run away from every police officer they see, just to trigger a stop and require the officer to check on ID. I would imagine that regardless of your race, if you ran every time you saw a police officer, you would generally be stopped and questioned. |
| 2010-04-28 12:38 PM in reply to: #2813206 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Arizona Tell ya what.. I'd like to see this enacted to immigrate into our country...
I would also like to ensure:
...guess where I got this from. Mexico's immigration laws. Fair's fair right? Edited by TriRSquared 2010-04-28 12:40 PM |
| 2010-04-28 12:39 PM in reply to: #2823108 |
| Pro 4277 Parker, CO | Subject: RE: Arizona AcesFull - 2010-04-28 11:18 AM I would love to see every legal Mexican immigrant (and most Mexicans in AZ are legal) to immediately run away from every police officer they see, just to trigger a stop and require the officer to check on ID. you forgot to use red italics. or are you serious? |
| 2010-04-28 12:44 PM in reply to: #2823187 |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: Arizona TriRSquared - 2010-04-28 10:38 AM Tell ya what.. I'd like to see this enacted to immigrate into our country...
I would also like to ensure:
...guess where I got this from. Mexico's immigration laws. Fair's fair right? Actually, I do believe those are the same or very similiar laws that exist in the states. I can't imagine that there are many American's sneaking across the boarder to find work though. I had to jump through hoops to get into the country and the rules for a Mexican immigrant is the same as what I had to go through. If you want to get to the route of the problem go after the businesses that take illegals to work. Figure out the drug problem. Without drugs and jobs under the table this problem really wouldn't exist. Drugs exist in Mexico in great part to America. |
| 2010-04-28 12:47 PM in reply to: #2813206 |
| Master 1963 | Subject: RE: Arizona I saw in the news today that Mexico is complaining and issuing warnings against traveling to AZ (rubbish, by the way). The saddest thing is that the Federal Government won't even come to AZ's defense saying this is an internal matter. Some interesting tidbits from the Mexican Constitution. At a minimum, equal, but generally way more harsh. Article 33 says you can deport someone immediately and without any legal proceedings. Article 27. --snip-- Legal capacity to acquire ownership of lands and waters of the Nation shall be governed by the following provisions: 1. Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country. The State, in accordance with its internal public interests and with principles of reciprocity, may in the discretion of the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs authorize foreign states to acquire, at the permanent sites of the Federal Powers, private ownership of real property necessary for the direct services of their embassies or legation Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization: 1. Mexicans by birth are: 1. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents: 2. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father; 3. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. 2. Mexicans by naturalization are: 1. Foreigners who obtain letters of naturalization from the Secretariat of Foreign Relations; 2. A foreign woman who marries a Mexican man and has or establishes her domicile within the national territory. ... Article 32. (14)Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces. In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of pratique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic. Chapter III Foreigners Article 33. Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30. They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I, of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action. Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. Edited by merlin2375 2010-04-28 1:06 PM |
| 2010-04-28 12:47 PM in reply to: #2823213 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Arizona bzgl40 - 2010-04-28 1:44 PM Actually, I do believe those are the same or very similiar laws that exist in the states. I can't imagine that there are many American's sneaking across the boarder to find work though. I had to jump through hoops to get into the country and the rules for a Mexican immigrant is the same as what I had to go through. If you want to get to the route of the problem go after the businesses that take illegals to work. Figure out the drug problem. Without drugs and jobs under the table this problem really wouldn't exist. Drugs exist in Mexico in great part to America. Bingo. Done. I rest my case your honor. Much ado about nothing. We are simply enforcing the laws we currently have in the country. I agree we need to penalize companies that hire illegals. But you'll never see a political go after them. They want the Hispanic vote too much. Edited by TriRSquared 2010-04-28 12:48 PM |
| 2010-04-28 1:11 PM in reply to: #2823056 |
| Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Arizona bzgl40 - 2010-04-28 1:07 PM Brock Samson - 2010-04-28 9:52 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. I am reading the law a bit different, and maybe I am wrong, but you do not have to be doing anything illegal for them to ask for proof. They just have to feel suspicious that you are there illegally. Me talking and the Canadian flag on my leg might be enough for them to become suspicious. Suspiciuos and "reasonable suspicion" are not the same thing. Reasonable suspicion is a legal term that is found through out case law on the state and federal level. Additionally, there is a predicate to the asking for proof of citizenship and that is lawful police contact in the first instance. The way I read the law it does not provide for a stop based upon race as the predicate for police/citizen interaction. |
| 2010-04-28 1:16 PM in reply to: #2823070 |
| Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Arizona megtrow - 2010-04-28 1:10 PM bzgl40 - 2010-04-28 10:07 AM Brock Samson - 2010-04-28 9:52 AM bzgl40 - 2010-04-27 6:50 PM Am I the only one who doesn't always carry id? I do not take my license when I am out running or biking or if I walk across the street to the store, or I take my dog out for a walk. If I do this and a cop decides to ask for my id (justified or not) and I do not have it I have potential jail and a huge fine. So, now it is the law that you must carry your license or other such documentation with you. Thankfully I am Canadian so they'll probably leave me alone but it worries me none the less. This is very similiar to when the blacks had to carry papers to prove that they were free and not slaves. Again, the law does not provide for a stop based upon belief of citizenship, there must be a predicate illegal offense or lawful law enforcement encounter prior to asking about citizenship. I am reading the law a bit different, and maybe I am wrong, but you do not have to be doing anything illegal for them to ask for proof. They just have to feel suspicious that you are there illegally. Me talking and the Canadian flag on my leg might be enough for them to become suspicious. This is my understanding as well. And just about everyone else's in Arizona. Also, nobody has brought up the fact yet that Obama called this legislation "misguided" and asked for a full investigation into it's legality. Thus far, nobody on this thread who is FOR the bill has been from our state. Just sayin'. With all due respect I believe your interpretation is not accurate. I maintain the proper interpretation of the law is that there is a two step process. (1) the predicate condition is lawful police citizen encounter not based upon race. e.g. an arrest, a lawful traffic stop. (2) then if and only if there is a lawful police encounter, then the police can request the citizen proof if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is not a legal resident. Again, reasonable suspicion has a legal definition, the case law is filled with discusions of what is and what isn't reasonable suspicion. |
| 2010-04-28 1:19 PM in reply to: #2823350 |
Champion 10018 , Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Arizona I agree with Brock. Several of us have attempted to point this out. Read the bill. |
| 2010-04-28 1:20 PM in reply to: #2820555 |
| Elite 2768 Raleigh | Subject: RE: Arizona AcesFull - 2010-04-27 2:59 PM TriRSquared - 2010-04-27 2:55 PM Paulettejo - 2010-04-27 3:40 PM What suspicious activity do no-citizens do (that citizens don't) that raises a red flag that these people are in the country illegally? ...I can't think of anything, so in the end, it really is about brown people...which is unconstitutional. What does it matter if they are citizen or not. If they are doing something suspicious they are stopped. ONLY THEN CAN THEY BE ASKED ABOUT THEIR STATUS. Read. Then come back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion They are not going to be able to randomly be able to stop brown skinned people and check their IDs. The cases will be throw out of court. Are there racists in the police force. Sure. Are they ALL racists. Heck no. Having lived in the South, I just hate to see us going back to the days of, "What are you doing in these parts, ni****r?" No, most cops are not racists, but why give the racists quarter? If we want to be sure everyone is a citizen, then lets just require everyone to carry documentation and submit to random checks. I'm fine with that, so long as we don't single out a specific group. And yes, the will be able to randomly stop brown people.
Edited by trigods 2010-04-28 1:44 PM |
| 2010-04-28 1:25 PM in reply to: #2813206 |
| Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Arizona I say we just tell Rick Perry to jog along the Rio Grande. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK