got your papers?

This is the same state that prosecutes Arizona citizens that give water to people who are dehydrated walking in the desert if they turn out to be undocumented. That is the kind of state you have here. They punish basic human kindness. No wonder so many of you rightwingers applaud it. Compassionate conservatism my ass.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, but until now in Arizona as in all the other States in the Union, showing your drivers license or non-drivers ID would be sufficient....providing that the officer had PROBABLE CAUSE (loitering, exhibiting public drunkeness, public nusiance, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new stipulation in Arizona give the officer the power to demand seeing a birth certificate?

So since the Arizona governor signed off on this thing, essentially we're seeing their police become a version of the gestapo, or the Stasi or the KGB asking for your papers JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.....only for now it applies to people who MIGHT BE Mexicans or LOOK like they might be Mexicans. Scary stuff.
Click to expand...

The new AZ law makes no such stipulations. If someone is unable to provide proper ID, they can demand proof of citizenship. But they still are required to have probable cause. Just "looking Mexican" isn't probable cause, unless of course, you look Mexican and are hanging out in front of the Home Depot with a bunch of other Mexican-looking people.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, but until now in Arizona as in all the other States in the Union, showing your drivers license or non-drivers ID would be sufficient....providing that the officer had PROBABLE CAUSE (loitering, exhibiting public drunkeness, public nusiance, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new stipulation in Arizona give the officer the power to demand seeing a birth certificate?

So since the Arizona governor signed off on this thing, essentially we're seeing their police become a version of the gestapo, or the Stasi or the KGB asking for your papers JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.....only for now it applies to people who MIGHT BE Mexicans or LOOK like they might be Mexicans. Scary stuff.
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
The new AZ law makes no such stipulations. If someone is unable to provide proper ID, they can demand proof of citizenship. But they still are required to have probable cause. Just "looking Mexican" isn't probable cause, unless of course, you look Mexican and are hanging out in front of the Home Depot with a bunch of other Mexican-looking people.
Click to expand...

As they say, the devil is in the details. Read this excerpt, and check #4 especially. See it's one thing to roust a bunch of guys hanging out if front of the Home Depot.....but the new law DOES NOT prevent a cop from going up to some guy coming out of a coffee shop, asking him for ALL of his ID....meaning that if the guy doesn't produce everything the cop asks for, he could face a trip to the local precinct before things are cleared up....and there lies the problem:





B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
 
Socrtease said:
There are already some people here in NM planning on buying ad space on AZ TV and in Papers encouraging hispanics to move to NM where our constitution protects people who do not speak english and has since 1917. It actually says that the state cannot discriminate against non-english and non-spanish speakers. We are required to provide interpreters in all our courts regardless of your language. Albuquerque actually had to hire a mandarin speaker for a chinese defendant in a criminal case.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
I take it your tax base can afford to take on this added burden, when Mexico discovers that your state is a free enter zone. :good4u:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, but until now in Arizona as in all the other States in the Union, showing your drivers license or non-drivers ID would be sufficient....providing that the officer had PROBABLE CAUSE (loitering, exhibiting public drunkeness, public nusiance, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new stipulation in Arizona give the officer the power to demand seeing a birth certificate?

So since the Arizona governor signed off on this thing, essentially we're seeing their police become a version of the gestapo, or the Stasi or the KGB asking for your papers JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.....only for now it applies to people who MIGHT BE Mexicans or LOOK like they might be Mexicans. Scary stuff.
Click to expand...

The answer to your first question is NO, which then makes your second statement just a childish rant and only worthy of being ignored.
 
Taichiliberal said:
As they say, the devil is in the details. Read this excerpt, and check #4 especially. See it's one thing to roust a bunch of guys hanging out if front of the Home Depot.....but the new law DOES NOT prevent a cop from going up to some guy coming out of a coffee shop, asking him for ALL of his ID....meaning that if the guy doesn't produce everything the cop asks for, he could face a trip to the local precinct before things are cleared up....and there lies the problem:





B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Click to expand...

Fixed a fundamental part you seem to not be able to read, maybe the larger text will help you to understand that cops are not permitted by this law, to just harass people without "probable cause" as you are claiming.
 
DonQuixote said:
arizona legislature passes bill that requires any person that does not look like an american citizen to produces papers proving that they are a citizens or a legal resident

all it requires is the governors signature

however, i think that it is unconstitutional on the face of it:eek:
Click to expand...
What the fuck does an "American Citizen" look like? They seem to have a problem with the KKK in Arizona, don't they?
 
Of coure Dixie the most racist poster likes it. Question didn't Germans require papers in occupied countries during WWII. Yeah this is not facist.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What the fuck does an "American Citizen" look like? They seem to have a problem with the KKK in Arizona, don't they?
Click to expand...

When you climb down off of your soap box; maybe, just maybe, you'll realize that the words "...requires any person that does not look like an american citizen.." was Don's own interpretation of something he doesn't agree with or understand. :good4u:
 
I don't think this law will survive.

Also, more immigration battles loom:

Washington (CNN) -- Two key Republican lawmakers joined a growing GOP effort Sunday to halt the push for immigration reform, arguing the time is not right to take on the massive and complex issue.

"I'm not sure how you can really justify" trying to tackle immigration or energy reform this year, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, told CNN's "State of the Union."

"We've got a lot of work left on our plate between now and the end of the summer. And we're starting on financial regulatory reform. ... I'm not sure where you find the time to deal with these other major issues," Chambliss said, adding that "until you secure the border, trying to really have an overall reform package on immigration just simply can't be done."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/25/immigration.reform/
 
Mister Wonderful said:
I don't think this law will survive.

Also, more immigration battles loom:

Washington (CNN) -- Two key Republican lawmakers joined a growing GOP effort Sunday to halt the push for immigration reform, arguing the time is not right to take on the massive and complex issue.

"I'm not sure how you can really justify" trying to tackle immigration or energy reform this year, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, told CNN's "State of the Union."

"We've got a lot of work left on our plate between now and the end of the summer. And we're starting on financial regulatory reform. ... I'm not sure where you find the time to deal with these other major issues," Chambliss said, adding that "until you secure the border, trying to really have an overall reform package on immigration just simply can't be done."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/25/immigration.reform/
Click to expand...

Are you ever going to answer as to why this is a bad law, or do we just take your silence as proof that you have absolutely no knowledge of this entire situation and are just spewing bytes of computer data.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, but until now in Arizona as in all the other States in the Union, showing your drivers license or non-drivers ID would be sufficient....providing that the officer had PROBABLE CAUSE (loitering, exhibiting public drunkeness, public nusiance, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new stipulation in Arizona give the officer the power to demand seeing a birth certificate?

So since the Arizona governor signed off on this thing, essentially we're seeing their police become a version of the gestapo, or the Stasi or the KGB asking for your papers JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.....only for now it applies to people who MIGHT BE Mexicans or LOOK like they might be Mexicans. Scary stuff.
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
The answer to your first question is NO, which then makes your second statement just a childish rant and only worthy of being ignored.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong....go and read the law, of which this excerpt comes from:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

It's up to the personal discretion of the cop to determine "reasonable suspicion" and how many forms of ID would be necessary for the suspect to present.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As they say, the devil is in the details. Read this excerpt, and check #4 especially. See it's one thing to roust a bunch of guys hanging out if front of the Home Depot.....but the new law DOES NOT prevent a cop from going up to some guy coming out of a coffee shop, asking him for ALL of his ID....meaning that if the guy doesn't produce everything the cop asks for, he could face a trip to the local precinct before things are cleared up....and there lies the problem:





B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Fixed a fundamental part you seem to not be able to read, maybe the larger text will help you to understand that cops are not permitted by this law, to just harass people without "probable cause" as you are claiming.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, but you're not reading comprehensively! See it's the cop who determines what's "reasonable", and the criteria he's now given are SEVERAL forms of identity that the cop can choose from to address his "reasonable" suspicion.

Back to square one: the cop is now given the power to demand from a person he "suspects" is an illegal alien to produce either a VISA, non-drivers ID, drivers license, birth certificate, tribal card......either one and/or more of the forementioned. People who don't meet the criteria as determined at the point of question can get a trip to the local police station to be held. That doesn't bode well for the Native American who's bopping down to the store for something or stops to shoot the breeze with similar friends and gets pulled over or stopped.......for "looking Mexican".
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, you're wrong....go and read the law, of which this excerpt comes from:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

It's up to the personal discretion of the cop to determine "reasonable suspicion" and how many forms of ID would be necessary for the suspect to present.
Click to expand...

In the true actuallity, you're incorrect and you really need to live life rather then reading about it.

Try studying some case studies and then get back to us when you've decided to act like an adult.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, you're wrong....go and read the law, of which this excerpt comes from:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

It's up to the personal discretion of the cop to determine "reasonable suspicion" and how many forms of ID would be necessary for the suspect to present.
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
In the true actuallity, you're incorrect and you really need to live life rather then reading about it.

Try studying some case studies and then get back to us when you've decided to act like an adult.
Click to expand...

And yet in two sentences you didn't logically or factually prove where I was wrong or explain why.....you just do the usual intellectually bankrupt neocon shuffle and personally attack people on a subject you can't honestly debate.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And yet in two sentences you didn't logically or factually prove where I was wrong or explain why.....you just do the usual intellectually bankrupt neocon shuffle and personally attack people on a subject you can't honestly debate.
Click to expand...

This is where your strawman falls apart, every time.
There is no way to "logically or factually" disprove one of your stupid analogies.
You had nothing, you have nothing, and you will never have anything that comes even close to being fact or logic.
All you do is try and find anything that you hope means something and then you continue to shake it like a starving dog with a bone.

Tell you what I'll do, sissie.
You find case study and peer reviews that support your asinine opinion and we'll study them; but they have to be fact and logical, or else they're just going to be dismissed as lunacy again.
You're dismissed, class over. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top