CenterBHSFan wrote:That right there will cure over 50% of the illegal immigration problem in one stroke of the pen!

You're on to me! lol

LJ wrote:

believer wrote:

girevik wrote: $100.00 says this law gets shot down by the supreme court on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

Anyone want to bet and find out who is on the side of the racists?

I'm sure SCOTUS will fall back on the "commerce clause" to usurp states-rights again so this wouldn't be a fair bet....race notwithstanding.

If it went to the supreme court it would probably get shot down because it violates a previous ruling they had in the Hiibel case. The Supreme Court ruled that all you have to provide as ID is your name and the cops cannot require anything more. The dissenting opinions weren't even that you should have to show your ID, they were that they felt that being required to provide your name is a slippery slope.

who said they are asking for ID with this law in Arizona? if they stop somebody, run their name and nothing comes up, or they give a fake name that doesnt match the description they then can ask more questions or for even an ID because it would be relevant to the investigation to determine if this person is in fact a legal citizen.

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

believer wrote:

girevik wrote: $100.00 says this law gets shot down by the supreme court on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

Anyone want to bet and find out who is on the side of the racists?

I'm sure SCOTUS will fall back on the "commerce clause" to usurp states-rights again so this wouldn't be a fair bet....race notwithstanding.

If it went to the supreme court it would probably get shot down because it violates a previous ruling they had in the Hiibel case. The Supreme Court ruled that all you have to provide as ID is your name and the cops cannot require anything more. The dissenting opinions weren't even that you should have to show your ID, they were that they felt that being required to provide your name is a slippery slope.

who said they are asking for ID with this law in Arizona? if they stop somebody, run their name and nothing comes up, or they give a fake name that doesnt match the description they then can ask more questions or for even an ID because it would be relevant to the investigation to determine if this person is in fact a legal citizen.

The law states that they must provide proof of citizenship. To think that cops are not going to overstep the bounds of the Hiiber decision is extremely naive thinking.

Thing is, every lawyer I talk to has agreed with me, while every cop I have talked to disagrees with me. Obviously there is a divide in the powers that be over what our rights in this country truly are. The split decision in the Hiiber case wasn't even that they should have to show an ID or not, the dissenting opinions were that you should not have to identify yourself on a Terry stop because it could be a slippery slope

dwccrew wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: The federal government says it's okay for law enforcement to walk up and ask anyone to PROVE they are an American Citizen?

Sykotyk wrote: How is it constitutional to be stopped by police and asked to prove your citizenship only because 'they don't think you're a citizen'?

You're innocent until proven guilty. Reasonable suspicion cannot be 'because you look Mexican'. There's no where in this law that Arizona can't just use it as a blanket requirement that everybody must prove at all times they're a citizen and any lack of proof will get you in trouble.

I love how conservatives wave the constitution around ad nauseum, yet when there's a law that goes along with their belief system.... the constitution conveniently gets tucked away. The ends do not justify the means. Maybe in a dictatorship. But that's not where we live.

Sykotyk

Are you guys serious? Someone has to have committed some sort of violation, they can't just pull someone over and ask them to provide papers. Good God some people lack common sense and rationality. This bill doesn't put anyone's rights at jeopardy the way I interpret it. Now if law enforcement abuses it, that's a different story, but if they were going to profile, they would do it without this bill, so that point is moot.

bigkahuna wrote: I'd be fine with some type of boarder. Really what's stopping Arizona from putting a fence up or something like that?

I still think that even though you have to be detained to be asked to prove your citizenship, it's going to undoubtably lead to profiling. If you see me walking down the street, and you want to know bad enough, you'll find something to arrest me for(I "Look" Hispanic).

Like I said, why aren't the Northern Border states doing this as well? Probably because you can't tell between a typical American Citizen and Canadian.

This is EXTREME I know, but I'm going to use this comparison. In WWII, we put Japanese Americans in internment camps, why not the German Americans?

My guess is that the northern states aren't doing it because Canadiens aren't coming over the border illegally and putting a financial drain on the local economies. Just a thought....

You really think that there aren't illegal Canadians in this country? or other than Hispanics? Which one of us lacks common sense?

BigK,

Do you think there are enough Canadians (millions and millions) to put a financial strain on the states/areas that they sneak into?

bigkahuna wrote: You really think that there aren't illegal Canadians in this country? or other than Hispanics? Which one of us lacks common sense?

yeah, there are like 5. whats your point?

The Urban Institute, a research group in Washington, D.C., estimates between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live in the United States.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3415/10425/

As 2006:
Mexico-6,570,000
El Salvador-510,000
Guatemala-430,000
Philippines-280,000
Honduras-280,000
India-270,000
Korea-250,000
Brazil-210,000
China-190,000
Vietnam-160,000
Total is 79% of all illegal immigrants.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf

bigkahuna wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: The federal government says it's okay for law enforcement to walk up and ask anyone to PROVE they are an American Citizen?

Sykotyk wrote: How is it constitutional to be stopped by police and asked to prove your citizenship only because 'they don't think you're a citizen'?

You're innocent until proven guilty. Reasonable suspicion cannot be 'because you look Mexican'. There's no where in this law that Arizona can't just use it as a blanket requirement that everybody must prove at all times they're a citizen and any lack of proof will get you in trouble.

I love how conservatives wave the constitution around ad nauseum, yet when there's a law that goes along with their belief system.... the constitution conveniently gets tucked away. The ends do not justify the means. Maybe in a dictatorship. But that's not where we live.

Sykotyk

Are you guys serious? Someone has to have committed some sort of violation, they can't just pull someone over and ask them to provide papers. Good God some people lack common sense and rationality. This bill doesn't put anyone's rights at jeopardy the way I interpret it. Now if law enforcement abuses it, that's a different story, but if they were going to profile, they would do it without this bill, so that point is moot.

bigkahuna wrote: I'd be fine with some type of boarder. Really what's stopping Arizona from putting a fence up or something like that?

I still think that even though you have to be detained to be asked to prove your citizenship, it's going to undoubtably lead to profiling. If you see me walking down the street, and you want to know bad enough, you'll find something to arrest me for(I "Look" Hispanic).

Like I said, why aren't the Northern Border states doing this as well? Probably because you can't tell between a typical American Citizen and Canadian.

This is EXTREME I know, but I'm going to use this comparison. In WWII, we put Japanese Americans in internment camps, why not the German Americans?

My guess is that the northern states aren't doing it because Canadiens aren't coming over the border illegally and putting a financial drain on the local economies. Just a thought....

You really think that there aren't illegal Canadians in this country? or other than Hispanics? Which one of us lacks common sense?

Not nearly enough to cause a financial drain like the illegals coming from the south.

CenterBHSFan wrote: BigK,

Do you think there are enough Canadians (millions and millions) to put a financial strain on the states/areas that they sneak into?

Boom

Glory Days wrote:

bigkahuna wrote: You really think that there aren't illegal Canadians in this country? or other than Hispanics? Which one of us lacks common sense?

yeah, there are like 5. whats your point?

The Urban Institute, a research group in Washington, D.C., estimates between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live in the United States.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3415/10425/

As 2006:
Mexico-6,570,000
El Salvador-510,000
Guatemala-430,000
Philippines-280,000
Honduras-280,000
India-270,000
Korea-250,000
Brazil-210,000
China-190,000
Vietnam-160,000
Total is 79% of all illegal immigrants.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf

And boom.

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

believer wrote:

girevik wrote: $100.00 says this law gets shot down by the supreme court on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

Anyone want to bet and find out who is on the side of the racists?

I'm sure SCOTUS will fall back on the "commerce clause" to usurp states-rights again so this wouldn't be a fair bet....race notwithstanding.

If it went to the supreme court it would probably get shot down because it violates a previous ruling they had in the Hiibel case. The Supreme Court ruled that all you have to provide as ID is your name and the cops cannot require anything more. The dissenting opinions weren't even that you should have to show your ID, they were that they felt that being required to provide your name is a slippery slope.

who said they are asking for ID with this law in Arizona? if they stop somebody, run their name and nothing comes up, or they give a fake name that doesnt match the description they then can ask more questions or for even an ID because it would be relevant to the investigation to determine if this person is in fact a legal citizen.

The law states that they must provide proof of citizenship. To think that cops are not going to overstep the bounds of the Hiiber decision is extremely naive thinking.

Thing is, every lawyer I talk to has agreed with me, while every cop I have talked to disagrees with me. Obviously there is a divide in the powers that be over what our rights in this country truly are. The split decision in the Hiiber case wasn't even that they should have to show an ID or not, the dissenting opinions were that you should not have to identify yourself on a Terry stop because it could be a slippery slope

Cops tend to only care about rights when they don't get in their way.

BigK just got blown out of his shorts.

I have to say, I've heard more WRONG information about this law over the past week than just about anything else in a long time.

There seems to be a penchant by those who disagree with it to keep repeating the lie that cops can just ask anyone for proof of their identity on a whim -- when, in fact, there has to have been an intervening act that brought the person to the attention of the police, first (like a traffic violation).

I think it's because those who oppose this REALLY want to call it racist and are trying every which way they can to make it fit that view.

This law isn't about race, folks, it's about economics and security.

Writerbuckeye wrote: BigK just got blown out of his shorts.

I have to say, I've heard more WRONG information about this law over the past week than just about anything else in a long time.

There seems to be a penchant by those who disagree with it to keep repeating the lie that cops can just ask anyone for proof of their identity on a whim -- when, in fact, there has to have been an intervening act that brought the person to the attention of the police, first (like a traffic violation).

I think it's because those who oppose this REALLY want to call it racist and are trying every which way they can to make it fit that view.

This law isn't about race, folks, it's about economics and security.

I suggest you read up on what a "Terry Stop" is and what "Stop and Identify" is. They CAN just stop someone and ask them to ID themselves if the cop feels they are suspicious on breaking ANY law. It's called "reasonable suspicion". The Supreme Court ruled in the 1960's that a cop does not have to have probable cause to stop you, only reasonable suspicion.

My main point still stands.

If you want to debate whether cops should have this power -- that's fodder for a whole 'nother topic.

Writerbuckeye wrote: My main point still stands.

If you want to debate whether cops should have this power -- that's fodder for a whole 'nother topic.

First off, your point doesn't still stand because your point was wrong. The cop can stop and identify you for being scraggly looking and wandering around oddly. They can stop and identify you for staring at them, all these things things fall under "reasonable suspicion". Your example, a traffic violation, is considered "probable cause". If the cops see a large group of people loitering around where illegals have been caught before, "reasonable suspicion" applies and they can "stop and identify".

Now, to your second point, no one is debating whether or not cops should have this (and using "this" is ambiguous, I hvae no idea what point you are referring to) power, all I am doing is stating the facts that the Supreme Court has already ruled that
1. A cop can stop someone merely because the cop thinks someone looks suspicious. (Terry v Ohio)
2. A cop can require someone to identify themselves (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada)
3. Giving your name satisfies this and no further proof needs to be given. A cop cannot REQUIRE any form of physical identification (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412)

And let us not forget that the dissenting opinions in the Hiibel case were that the suspect during a "Terry Stop (1)" should not be required to identify themselves.

This law is not giving AZ police any more authority than they already had when it comes to stopping people for suspicion of ... whatever.

That is my point.

What I've been hearing in the media is a lot of hyperventilating that this is going to allow police to just pull folks over for no reason whatsoever and demand they provide proof of citizenship. It's been portrayed by some as akin to Nazi Germany where people were supposed to be able to provide their "papers" whenever one of the Gestapo requested it.

That's not the case here.

Will someone have to provide proof they are here legally if they get stopped by police suspicious for some other reason? Maybe. But folks who are not citizens of this country are required by federal law to carry identifying papers with them, anyway.

I have no problem with this law and until the feds start doing their job where the border is concerned, I won't be surprised to see other states follow Arizona's lead on this.

Writerbuckeye wrote: This law is not giving AZ police any more authority than they already had when it comes to stopping people for suspicion of ... whatever.

That is my point.

What I've been hearing in the media is a lot of hyperventilating that this is going to allow police to just pull folks over for no reason whatsoever and demand they provide proof of citizenship. It's been portrayed by some as akin to Nazi Germany where people were supposed to be able to provide their "papers" whenever one of the Gestapo requested it.

That's not the case here.

Will someone have to provide proof they are here legally if they get stopped by police suspicious for some other reason? Maybe. But folks who are not citizens of this country are required by federal law to carry identifying papers with them, anyway.

I have no problem with this law and until the feds start doing their job where the border is concerned, I won't be surprised to see other states follow Arizona's lead on this.

Sucks when something you support is ridiculously compared to something that would have happened in Nazi Germany, doesn't it?

Writerbuckeye wrote: This law is not giving AZ police any more authority than they already had when it comes to stopping people for suspicion of ... whatever.

That is my point.

What I've been hearing in the media is a lot of hyperventilating that this is going to allow police to just pull folks over for no reason whatsoever and demand they provide proof of citizenship. It's been portrayed by some as akin to Nazi Germany where people were supposed to be able to provide their "papers" whenever one of the Gestapo requested it.

That's not the case here.

Will someone have to provide proof they are here legally if they get stopped by police suspicious for some other reason? Maybe. But folks who are not citizens of this country are required by federal law to carry identifying papers with them, anyway.

I have no problem with this law and until the feds start doing their job where the border is concerned, I won't be surprised to see other states follow Arizona's lead on this.

The problem lies in the fact that U.S. Citizens are protected under the constitution. If a cop were to stop me in Arizona and tell me to prove my citizenship to him, I would tell him my name and nothing more. It's up to them to prove that I am not a citizen.

It's just like when you get pulled over. Are you required to prove to the cops that you don't have a warrant or else you will be arrested? Or is the cop required to prove that you do have warrants in order to arrest you?

I find it so hypocritical that people who are all for "our rights" and scream "look at the constitution" are all for trampling over those 2 concepts as long as it gets rid of a few damn illegals

Writerbuckeye wrote: Will someone have to provide proof they are here legally if they get stopped by police suspicious for some other reason? Maybe. But folks who are not citizens of this country are required by federal law to carry identifying papers with them, anyway.

I'm not overly concerned about non citizens. It's the citizens I'm worried about and they are not required to carry papers. And they shouldn't be.

LJ wrote: I find it so hypocritical that people who are all for "our rights" and scream "look at the constitution" are all for trampling over those 2 concepts as long as it gets rid of a few damn illegals

exactly

This law really needed to go to the Supreme Court before it takes affect. If it now makes it a crime to be here illegally in the state of Ari, what becomes reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop at that point?

So many problems with this law where it tramples all over our rights as citizens yet people are like "yay, get rid of them damn illegals!"

I'm just glad I won't have to worry about the government checking my records to make sure I've purchased the mandated health insurance covera.....oh...really? Never mind.

FatHobbit wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Will someone have to provide proof they are here legally if they get stopped by police suspicious for some other reason? Maybe. But folks who are not citizens of this country are required by federal law to carry identifying papers with them, anyway.

I'm not overly concerned about non citizens. It's the citizens I'm worried about and they are not required to carry papers. And they shouldn't be.

This. They are already criminals, I am not worried about that at all (I mean as long as they are treated decently) I am worried about OUR rights as CITIZENS being violated.

I'll be very curious to see how many Arizona folks come forward to say they've been unduly harassed because of this law. Until that happens, all this speculation about "harm" to citizens is just that -- speculation.

Not unlike all the angst over the Patriot Act when it went into effect and the monitoring system the NY Times "exposed" where we were listening in on some overseas calls.

To my knowledge not ONE American had their rights violated by either one of these things, even though they were the next step toward Nazism according to those who opposed them.

Any citizen who has to provide ID to prove that they are a citizen has had their rights violated.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I'll be very curious to see how many Arizona folks come forward to say they've been unduly harassed because of this law. Until that happens, all this speculation about "harm" to citizens is just that -- speculation.

Not unlike all the angst over the Patriot Act when it went into effect and the monitoring system the NY Times "exposed" where we were listening in on some overseas calls.

To my knowledge not ONE American had their rights violated by either one of these things, even though they were the next step toward Nazism according to those who opposed them.

I can't take you serious if you can't see that there are incredible things wrong with the Patriot act.

So how have you been harmed?

Writerbuckeye wrote: So how have you been harmed?

We aren't talked about the Patriot Act, we are talking about violations to actual past Supreme Court Rulings with the Arizona Law. The first time a police officer requires a Citizen to provide proof that they are indeed a citizen, their rights have been violated for no reason. Why are you deflecting?

I'm not.

Nobody has been harmed, as yet. As I said above, all of this is conjecture right now based on individual biases and interpretations of existing law.

He made a blanket challenge to me regarding the Patriot Act and I asked how he'd been harmed. It was a logical response to his statement.

I read a LOT of hyperbole about both laws on here but see NOTHING in the way of proof that anyone has actually had their rights violated or been harmed in some other way.

Do I like all aspects of both these pieces of legislation? Nope. I dislike most of it. However, I see the point of allowing these activities, within very specific parameters, to deal with very specific and difficult issues.

I do not, however, see the sky falling -- which has been the tenor of some of these posts.