Glory Days wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

thats false. they still need a reason to stop you and ask about your citizenship.

That's why I don't understand the fuss. It's not like cops can't and don't already come up with lame excuses to stop/interact with someone if they think they're doing something shady. It will be no different in Arizona. Cops aren't just going to go up to every person on the street and say "Papers, please". It's really a non issue. If you are in the country legally, why would you be against the state enforcing federal law?

Because they shouldn't be able to ask me to prove I'm a citizen. You could use the same logic to argue against the 4th amendment. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if they look through your house? Because they shouldn't be able to.

Neither can be done without a reason for doing it

i'll repeat this since not everyone seems to get it.

[size=xx-large]Neither can be done without a reason for doing it[/size]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! If some cop comes up to you and asks for your "papers", you can tell him to go to hell. IF he then does anything else, like try to arrest you, WITHOUT reasonable suspicion that you are trying/in process/have committed a crime, it will get thrown out in court and then you sue the city, cops, etc. and make a ton of money. Same exact thing that happens now. IT IS NO DIFFERENT!!!!

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

thats false. they still need a reason to stop you and ask about your citizenship.

That's why I don't understand the fuss. It's not like cops can't and don't already come up with lame excuses to stop/interact with someone if they think they're doing something shady. It will be no different in Arizona. Cops aren't just going to go up to every person on the street and say "Papers, please". It's really a non issue. If you are in the country legally, why would you be against the state enforcing federal law?

Because they shouldn't be able to ask me to prove I'm a citizen. You could use the same logic to argue against the 4th amendment. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if they look through your house? Because they shouldn't be able to.

Neither can be done without a reason for doing it

i'll repeat this since not everyone seems to get it.

[size=xx-large]Neither can be done without a reason for doing it[/size]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! If some cop comes up to you and asks for your "papers", you can tell him to go to hell. IF he then does anything else, like try to arrest you, WITHOUT reasonable suspicion that you are trying/in process/have committed a crime, it will get thrown out in court and then you sue the city, cops, etc. and make a ton of money. Same exact thing that happens now. IT IS NO DIFFERENT!!!!

and if you voluntarily give up your "papers" that is on you for not knowing the law, not the cops. just like searching your car. a cop can ASK to search your car. you dont have to let him, but if you give permission, again, that is on you, not the cop.

It's not that hard of a concept. The law in Arizona will allow officers to check immigration status IF they have reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally after any lawful contact by police. The idea by the news media and other Hispanic groups, etc. that police will be kicking down doors and stopping any Latino looking person on the street is plain fear mongering. This should be a national law anyway. There should be no reason that law enforcement nationwide can not check a person's immigration status IF they have reason to believe they may be in the country illegally.

Okay, so there's 14 cars driving each 5mph over the speed limit. One has a hispanic male driving with two other hispanic males in the car. The cop pulls him over (he was breaking the law, afterall). Then gives reason to believe he's not a US citizen and demands proof. Same with those in the car.

He did have lawful contact. He did break the law. But, the discriminatory nature of the law will allow B.S. like this to take place.

There's no other way around it than to say that white/black people will be overlooked, while hispanic/Mexican/brown people will be required to do something different.

That is discrimination. And that is illegal. Sorry, equal protection requires you treat them the same.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk wrote: Okay, so there's 14 cars driving each 5mph over the speed limit. One has a hispanic male driving with two other hispanic males in the car. The cop pulls him over (he was breaking the law, afterall). Then gives reason to believe he's not a US citizen and demands proof. Same with those in the car.

He did have lawful contact. He did break the law. But, the discriminatory nature of the law will allow B.S. like this to take place.

There's no other way around it than to say that white/black people will be overlooked, while hispanic/Mexican/brown people will be required to do something different.

That is discrimination. And that is illegal. Sorry, equal protection requires you treat them the same.

Sykotyk

They could require proof of any of those that you listed that broke that law.

Al Bundy wrote:

Sykotyk wrote: Okay, so there's 14 cars driving each 5mph over the speed limit. One has a hispanic male driving with two other hispanic males in the car. The cop pulls him over (he was breaking the law, afterall). Then gives reason to believe he's not a US citizen and demands proof. Same with those in the car.

He did have lawful contact. He did break the law. But, the discriminatory nature of the law will allow B.S. like this to take place.

There's no other way around it than to say that white/black people will be overlooked, while hispanic/Mexican/brown people will be required to do something different.

That is discrimination. And that is illegal. Sorry, equal protection requires you treat them the same.

Sykotyk

They could require proof of any of those that you listed that broke that law.

Which is unconstitutional to require that.

Sykotyk wrote: Okay, so there's 14 cars driving each 5mph over the speed limit. One has a hispanic male driving with two other hispanic males in the car. The cop pulls him over (he was breaking the law, afterall). Then gives reason to believe he's not a US citizen and demands proof. Same with those in the car.

He did have lawful contact. He did break the law. But, the discriminatory nature of the law will allow B.S. like this to take place.

There's no other way around it than to say that white/black people will be overlooked, while hispanic/Mexican/brown people will be required to do something different.

That is discrimination. And that is illegal. Sorry, equal protection requires you treat them the same.

Sykotyk

That's not the discriminatory nature of the law, it's the discriminatory nature of the human being enforcing it. And it's no different from any other existing law- they're all capable of being abused at the enforcement level.
And it's not Arizonans' fault that most illegals there are in fact Mexicans or Central American Latinos.

Here's a great idea- for every Mexican questioned about immigration status, you pull aside a white grandma at the grocery store and question her also. See- "equal" protection, and what a big pile of BS that will create?

See, the whole problem with this law is the fact that it creates a back asswards system. See, the constitution affords us the right of the presumption of innocence. This law is putting the burden of proof on the citizen, to prove that they are in fact a citizen, not on the legal system, aka cops, to prove that they are not a citizen.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

Sykotyk wrote: Okay, so there's 14 cars driving each 5mph over the speed limit. One has a hispanic male driving with two other hispanic males in the car. The cop pulls him over (he was breaking the law, afterall). Then gives reason to believe he's not a US citizen and demands proof. Same with those in the car.

He did have lawful contact. He did break the law. But, the discriminatory nature of the law will allow B.S. like this to take place.

There's no other way around it than to say that white/black people will be overlooked, while hispanic/Mexican/brown people will be required to do something different.

That is discrimination. And that is illegal. Sorry, equal protection requires you treat them the same.

Sykotyk

They could require proof of any of those that you listed that broke that law.

Which is unconstitutional to require that.

Under that circumstance, the cop DID NOT have reason to believe those males were not legal residents. Just having a couple Hispanic looking people in a car is not reasonable suspicion. Will some cops still try to demand proof? Maybe. Will anything like that get thrown out in court? Yes. Look, let's be honest here. Some cops will try to stretch and outright break the law, just as they do now. T

The fact of the matter is, the outright VAST majority of illegal immigrants in this country are from Mexico and other Latino countries south of the border. It's going to be a fact of life that the majority of people suspected of being an illegal immigrant are going to be Hispanic. That does not make this law, or any other law, discriminatory. If the majority of people breaking a certain law are of a certain race, the cops aren't going to spend their time questioning middle aged white men. If that offends someone, too bad.

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

Sykotyk wrote: Okay, so there's 14 cars driving each 5mph over the speed limit. One has a hispanic male driving with two other hispanic males in the car. The cop pulls him over (he was breaking the law, afterall). Then gives reason to believe he's not a US citizen and demands proof. Same with those in the car.

He did have lawful contact. He did break the law. But, the discriminatory nature of the law will allow B.S. like this to take place.

There's no other way around it than to say that white/black people will be overlooked, while hispanic/Mexican/brown people will be required to do something different.

That is discrimination. And that is illegal. Sorry, equal protection requires you treat them the same.

Sykotyk

They could require proof of any of those that you listed that broke that law.

Which is unconstitutional to require that.

Under that circumstance, the cop DID NOT have reason to believe those males were not legal residents. Just having a couple Hispanic looking people in a car is not reasonable suspicion. Will some cops still try to demand proof? Maybe. Will anything like that get thrown out in court? Yes. Look, let's be honest here. Some cops will try to stretch and outright break the law, just as they do now. T

The fact of the matter is, the outright VAST majority of illegal immigrants in this country are from Mexico and other Latino countries south of the border. It's going to be a fact of life that the majority of people suspected of being an illegal immigrant are going to be Hispanic. That does not make this law, or any other law, discriminatory. If the majority of people breaking a certain law are of a certain race, the cops aren't going to spend their time questioning middle aged white men. If that offends someone, too bad.

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

LJ wrote: See, the whole problem with this law is the fact that it creates a back asswards system. See, the constitution affords us the right of the presumption of innocence. This law is putting the burden of proof on the citizen, to prove that they are in fact a citizen, not on the legal system, aka cops, to prove that they are not a citizen.

How is a cop supposed to prove someone isn't a citizen without asking for an ID or green card? If people want to not have laws like this, make it a FEDERAL law that NO ONE can get a license or state ID without a valid SS#/green card/other legal ID. Problem solved. If you aren't legally entitled to be in the country, then states need to stop giving them IDs.

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote: See, the whole problem with this law is the fact that it creates a back asswards system. See, the constitution affords us the right of the presumption of innocence. This law is putting the burden of proof on the citizen, to prove that they are in fact a citizen, not on the legal system, aka cops, to prove that they are not a citizen.

How is a cop supposed to prove someone isn't a citizen without asking for an ID or green card? If people want to not have laws like this, make it a FEDERAL law that NO ONE can get a license or state ID without a valid SS#/green card/other legal ID. Problem solved. If you aren't legally entitled to be in the country, then states need to stop giving them IDs.

That's their problem. The Supreme Court has rules that all you need to give them is a name. I don't have to prove my innocence to anyone, they have to prove my guilt. I believe you were a person arguing for the right for people to have those protests at funerals, but you are willing to give up the presumption of innocence to get rid of a few illegals? Please. The Constitution is not there to just use it for arguments when you see fit then ignore it when it doesn't agree with what you want.

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

Tell us, then old wise one, what do you suggest these states do? The federal government will not enforce/secure the border. Arizona is getting literally overrun with illegal HISPANIC immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. They aren't coming from Canada to Arizona. The state passes a law that allows officers to check immigration status under lawful suspicion and then remand these individuals to the federal government. Arizona is not going to be deporting anyone. People, like yourself, boohoo the law as unconstitutional. So, I suppose we should just let them continue to pore over the border? What is your grand solution?

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote: See, the whole problem with this law is the fact that it creates a back asswards system. See, the constitution affords us the right of the presumption of innocence. This law is putting the burden of proof on the citizen, to prove that they are in fact a citizen, not on the legal system, aka cops, to prove that they are not a citizen.

How is a cop supposed to prove someone isn't a citizen without asking for an ID or green card? If people want to not have laws like this, make it a FEDERAL law that NO ONE can get a license or state ID without a valid SS#/green card/other legal ID. Problem solved. If you aren't legally entitled to be in the country, then states need to stop giving them IDs.

That's their problem. The Supreme Court has rules that all you need to give them is a name. I don't have to prove my innocence to anyone, they have to prove my guilt. I believe you were a person arguing for the right for people to have those protests at funerals, but you are willing to give up the presumption of innocence to get rid of a few illegals? Please. The Constitution is not there to just use it for arguments when you see fit then ignore it when it doesn't agree with what you want.

When you get pulled over, the very first thing the cops ask for, and you are required to give, is an ID. How is asking, if reasonable suspicion exists, for a green card any different?

tk421 wrote:

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

Tell us, then old wise one, what do you suggest these states do? The federal government will not enforce/secure the border. Arizona is getting literally overrun with illegal HISPANIC immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. They aren't coming from Canada to Arizona. The state passes a law that allows officers to check immigration status under lawful suspicion and then remand these individuals to the federal government. Arizona is not going to be deporting anyone. People, like yourself, boohoo the law as unconstitutional. So, I suppose we should just let them continue to pore over the border? What is your grand solution?

I don't have a solution, my WHOLE point this whole time is calling out the people who want to use the constitution when they see it to fit their argument, then ignore it when it doesn't fit what they want. That's called being hypocritical.

At the same time though, this IS NOT the answer. You should not have to prove your citizenship status to anyone. That is going down the wrong road.

How many more stories are we going to see like this if nothing done about the illegal immigrant problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizona.deputy.shot/index.html

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote: See, the whole problem with this law is the fact that it creates a back asswards system. See, the constitution affords us the right of the presumption of innocence. This law is putting the burden of proof on the citizen, to prove that they are in fact a citizen, not on the legal system, aka cops, to prove that they are not a citizen.

How is a cop supposed to prove someone isn't a citizen without asking for an ID or green card? If people want to not have laws like this, make it a FEDERAL law that NO ONE can get a license or state ID without a valid SS#/green card/other legal ID. Problem solved. If you aren't legally entitled to be in the country, then states need to stop giving them IDs.

That's their problem. The Supreme Court has rules that all you need to give them is a name. I don't have to prove my innocence to anyone, they have to prove my guilt. I believe you were a person arguing for the right for people to have those protests at funerals, but you are willing to give up the presumption of innocence to get rid of a few illegals? Please. The Constitution is not there to just use it for arguments when you see fit then ignore it when it doesn't agree with what you want.

When you get pulled over, the very first thing the cops ask for, and you are required to give, is an ID. How is asking, if reasonable suspicion exists, for a green card any different?

You have to give your name if they pull you over for only suspicion. If you are pulled over for probable cause, you have to give your ID up, but not on suspicion. How is asking any different? Because the Supreme Court already ruled that you don't have to give them shit besides your name.

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

Tell us, then old wise one, what do you suggest these states do? The federal government will not enforce/secure the border. Arizona is getting literally overrun with illegal HISPANIC immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. They aren't coming from Canada to Arizona. The state passes a law that allows officers to check immigration status under lawful suspicion and then remand these individuals to the federal government. Arizona is not going to be deporting anyone. People, like yourself, boohoo the law as unconstitutional. So, I suppose we should just let them continue to pore over the border? What is your grand solution?

I don't have a solution, my WHOLE point this whole time is calling out the people who want to use the constitution when they see it to fit their argument, then ignore it when it doesn't fit what they want. That's called being hypocritical.

At the same time though, this IS NOT the answer. You should not have to prove your citizenship status to anyone. That is going down the wrong road.

Then what's the solution? How does anyone figure out who is allowed to be in the country? The federal government issues green cards for a reason. If no one ever has a need to show them to anyone, what the hell is the point of having them in the first place?

tk421 wrote:

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

Tell us, then old wise one, what do you suggest these states do? The federal government will not enforce/secure the border. Arizona is getting literally overrun with illegal HISPANIC immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. They aren't coming from Canada to Arizona. The state passes a law that allows officers to check immigration status under lawful suspicion and then remand these individuals to the federal government. Arizona is not going to be deporting anyone. People, like yourself, boohoo the law as unconstitutional. So, I suppose we should just let them continue to pore over the border? What is your grand solution?

How is this going to stop them from coming over?

This doesn't fix anything but causes more problems.

Al Bundy wrote: How many more stories are we going to see like this if nothing done about the illegal immigrant problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizona.deputy.shot/index.html

How many more stories are we going to see like this if nothing is done about the citizen problem?

http://wcco.com/local/officer.shooting.suspect.2.1670907.html

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

Tell us, then old wise one, what do you suggest these states do? The federal government will not enforce/secure the border. Arizona is getting literally overrun with illegal HISPANIC immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. They aren't coming from Canada to Arizona. The state passes a law that allows officers to check immigration status under lawful suspicion and then remand these individuals to the federal government. Arizona is not going to be deporting anyone. People, like yourself, boohoo the law as unconstitutional. So, I suppose we should just let them continue to pore over the border? What is your grand solution?

I don't have a solution, my WHOLE point this whole time is calling out the people who want to use the constitution when they see it to fit their argument, then ignore it when it doesn't fit what they want. That's called being hypocritical.

At the same time though, this IS NOT the answer. You should not have to prove your citizenship status to anyone. That is going down the wrong road.

Then what's the solution? How does anyone figure out who is allowed to be in the country? The federal government issues green cards for a reason. If no one ever has a need to show them to anyone, what the hell is the point of having them in the first place?

You can contract that right away. So fine employers who employ illegals more, even jail them. Crack down on fake ID places. So on and so on.

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote:

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

Tell us, then old wise one, what do you suggest these states do? The federal government will not enforce/secure the border. Arizona is getting literally overrun with illegal HISPANIC immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. They aren't coming from Canada to Arizona. The state passes a law that allows officers to check immigration status under lawful suspicion and then remand these individuals to the federal government. Arizona is not going to be deporting anyone. People, like yourself, boohoo the law as unconstitutional. So, I suppose we should just let them continue to pore over the border? What is your grand solution?

How is this going to stop them from coming over?

This doesn't fix anything but causes more problems.

You don't think that once word gets out that anyone suspected of being illegal can now be checked and sent to ICE to be deported will have an effect? So, let's just open up the gates? The federal government has already proven that it will not do a damn thing about it. Hell, let them all come over then.

I think jail time for knowingly hiring illegals would go a lot further to stop the problem then fines or this bill.

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote:

So we have no more presumption of innocence in this country?

Tell us, then old wise one, what do you suggest these states do? The federal government will not enforce/secure the border. Arizona is getting literally overrun with illegal HISPANIC immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. They aren't coming from Canada to Arizona. The state passes a law that allows officers to check immigration status under lawful suspicion and then remand these individuals to the federal government. Arizona is not going to be deporting anyone. People, like yourself, boohoo the law as unconstitutional. So, I suppose we should just let them continue to pore over the border? What is your grand solution?

How is this going to stop them from coming over?

This doesn't fix anything but causes more problems.

You don't think that once word gets out that anyone suspected of being illegal can now be checked and sent to ICE to be deported will have an effect? So, let's just open up the gates? The federal government has already proven that it will not do a damn thing about it. Hell, let them all come over then.

Terrible straw man. That's like leaving your whole shopping cart when the cashier won't accept 1 coupon.

You can contract that right away. So fine employers who employ illegals more, even jail them. Crack down on fake ID places. So on and so on.

Uh huh, how likely is it that the federal government would ever do that? I have a better chance of getting struck by lightening. In the mean time, let's not worry about securing the border.