Arizona signs immigration bill into law

[flavio]

That is TOTALLY untrue. Your identity could be verified any number of ways without any documentation. This has been pointed out and explained to you over and over and over again yet you choose to ignore reality.

Please quote the acceptable methods of proving your legal status without documentation in the law. Why should I have to prove my identity if I haven't done anything wrong?

 

[flavio]

totally untrue.

like i said all aboard the hysteria train!!!

Tell me how this is untrue exactly. How do you prove your legal status with your papers?

 

[Svnla]

Most people want illegals out. That's not the problem with this law.

People giving up their freedoms should be harassed.

Some like the bill? Great. Some people are dumb..

Most want illegals out? Are you sure? Look at my post a few posts up (#532) about the new bill from Democrats.

Giving up freedom? I am more than glad to show ID rather than let illegals jump in front of us legals and become citizens.

So if we support this "not perfect" bill, we are dumb? And people that chanting "racist" or "undocumented" or "we are all humans" and on and on and want the goverment entities to do nothing about this huge mess or happy with the status quo are smart?

So what do you think we should do about ILLEGAL immigration? Obviously, amnesty and do nothing about border enforcement/enforce existing federal and state laws (for the last 20+ years on both D and R administrations) create a huge problem now.

This bill is not perfect. None of us say it is. But it is much better than let illegals roamming free in the land of the brave and then they have the nerve to DEMAND amnesty/path to citizenship. I said it before and I will say it again. Name me one country, just one, that will let anyone sneak in ILLEGALLY and then give those amnesty/citizenship. I am waiting....oh, I am not white so can't called me racist

 

[ElFenix]

You don't have to be driving.

An out of state license will not work.

says who?

maybe the AG will give an opinion on what procedures will suffice for identification. until then, this is all a guessing game by everyone.

 

[OutHouse]

Tell me how this is untrue exactly. How do you prove your legal status with your papers?

i carry my ID on me at all times.. why dont you?

 

[flavio]

So what do you think we should do about ILLEGAL immigration?

I would go after the companies that employ them hard. Much better than giving up freedom.

 

[flavio]

says who?

The law does not list it as acceptable.

 

[flavio]

i carry my ID on me at all times.. why dont you?

Why should I? Also my ID wouldn't be acceptable since it's out of state.

Also, my 13yr old doesn't have one and shouldn't need one.

 

[Svnla]

I would go after the companies that employ them hard. Much better than giving up freedom.

Just after companies? Nothing else? Is that easy?

 

[OutHouse]

I would go after the companies that employ them hard. Much better than giving up freedom.

the law specifically addresses companies who hire illegals and towns that have sanctuary policies. further proof you didnt read the law.

 

[OutHouse]

Why should I? Also my ID wouldn't be acceptable since it's out of state.

Also, my 13yr old doesn't have one and shouldn't need one.

out of state license not acceptable? lol well then guess you better not drive in AZ then.

gee i dunno maybe just in case you get hurt and the authorities would have some place to start in getting a hold of your family?

my 13 year old doesn't have a ID either so whats your point.

 

[flavio]

the law specifically addresses companies who hire illegals and towns that have sanctuary policies. further proof you didnt read the law.

I said I would go after the companies hard. You say the bill addresses companies. Those two things are not equal. Further proof that you don't know what you are talking about.

well then guess you better not drive in AZ then.

I'm down with the boycott.

my 13 year old doesn't have a ID either so whats your point.

They could end up being detained at the police station until their legal status is established.

 

[ElFenix]

The law does not list it as acceptable.

the law doesn't list anything in particular. it just says reasonable suspicion. the AG could write an opinion that any driver's license negates reasonable suspicion.

 

[dainthomas]

Please quote the acceptable methods of proving your legal status without documentation in the law. Why should I have to prove my identity if I haven't done anything wrong?

Because they TOOK ERRR JERRRRRRRRRBBBSSSS!

 

[DAGTA]

Flavio, you're clearly unhappy about this. Why not consider moving out of AZ? Perhaps to San Francisco? Why not take some of the illegals with you. Help them out.

 

[Steeplerot]

i carry my ID on me at all times.. why dont you?

If you do not drive, why should you?

 

[Patranus]

Why should I? Also my ID wouldn't be acceptable since it's out of state.

Also, my 13yr old doesn't have one and shouldn't need one.

How do you figure?

There are only like 2 states that give IDs to illegal.

Your legal 13 year old has a social security number right?

 

[ElFenix]

If you do not drive, why should you?

i've had to show it while driving about 4 or 5 times. i have to show it every time i buy beer. it's really a liquor license.

 

[Patranus]

If you do not drive, why should you?

I have been pulled over driving and didn't have my drivers license on me at the time. A bit of information fed into the computer confirmed my identity.

Not really sure what the problem is here.

 

[blackangst1]

This whole talk of stopped for walking to get ice cream and similar blatent lies has been settled already in Terry vs Ohio. A LEO who randomly stops people for no reason would be subject to discipline according to the offense, and "being brown" will not hold up to the standard.

The Court assessed the reasonableness of the police activity here by comparing it to activity that would ordinarily require a warrant. “... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.

Arguing that "its still possible" is like saying the police could launch a drug investigation against you for saying "Man, a coke sounds good now". Is it possible? I suppose anything is possible. Will it stand up in court? Not a chance. All of this has already been ruled on by SCOTUS.

Also, with AZ being one of 23 states with "stop and identify" statutes on the books, that has been decided also. In Brown v. Texas the Court struck down Texas’s stop-and-identify law as violating the Fourth Amendment because it allowed police officers to stop individuals without “specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity.”

So walking down the street whistling your favorite Stones song isnt going to happen.

 

[her209]

If I call and complain about noise disturbances about my neighbors, would the police have to check the IDs of the occupants? Would that satisfy the "legal contact" clause?

What if I suspected "domestic violence" and called in for that?

 

[Patranus]

If I call and complain about noise disturbances about my neighbors, would the police have to check the IDs of the occupants? Would that satisfy the "legal contact" clause?

What if I suspected "domestic violence" and called in for that?

Well considering the fact they check IDs anyways to confirm identification and run the people for warrants............

 

[blackangst1]

If I call and complain about noise disturbances about my neighbors, would the police have to check the IDs of the occupants? Would that satisfy the "legal contact" clause?

What if I suspected "domestic violence" and called in for that?

For noise itself? No. In my life Ive been at probably a dozen places where noise was called in and no one's ID was taken. If, when the door was opened police saw drug paraphenalia laying around? Or saw 5 asian women tattered looking sitting on the floor? Absolutely. But this law has nothing to do with that. At all.

With your second example, absolutely. But again this law has nothing to do with that. Identification is required by all jurisdictions for all parties involved in a criminal investigation, which a domestic disturbance would be.

 

[spidey07]

Law is being changed. Now opponents have NOTHING to stand on for their complaints. Skin color can't be used nor any other protected class of the civil rights act. And lawful contact is being changed to stop/detain/arrest. That puts an end to every complaint and still gets the job done of getting rid of illegals.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_521396.html

That passage has now been changed from 'lawful contact' to 'stop, detain or arrest'. Another passage which read that law enforcement officers were prevented from 'solely' using race as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country has been changed to remove the word 'solely'. A spokesman for Arizona Governor Brewer insisted the changes made it clear racial profiling was illegal. Rights activists said the changes were no guarantee that racial profiling would not take place.

 

[bob4432]

Law is being changed. Now opponents have NOTHING to stand on for their complaints. Skin color can't be used nor any other protected class of the civil rights act. And lawful contact is being changed to stop/detain/arrest. That puts an end to every complaint and still gets the job done of getting rid of illegals.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_521396.html

just to back up spidey's statement here is additional proof of what he states, from the gov herself

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Gov-Brewer-sits-down-with-3TV-to-talk-about-SB-1070-92506274.html

http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Lawmakers-amend-language-of-SB-1070-92499929.html