Writerbuckeye wrote: 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.

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

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

Glory Days wrote:

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

which isnt happening with this new law.

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

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

which isnt happening with this new law.

Oh? It's not?

It says that if they suspect that you are here illegally you must verify that you are a citizen. No CITIZEN should be subject to that. No more presumption of innocence in this country? I don't have to prove to a cop that I don't have any warrants when I get pulled over, but I have to prove to them that I am a citizen?

I'll leave it there because if I go into a rant about cops and how much that they actually know about the law, I will have to ban myself.

MANAZE wrote: If you are who you say you are there should be no problems.

LJ wrote:

MANAZE wrote: If you are who you say you are there should be no problems.

Didn't know you had to prove your innocence in this country

MANAZE wrote: in a perfect world you guys are right. But America is being ruined by what is coming from Mexico. Their drugs are killing are people, there people are closing our hospitals because they use them and never pay a dime for their treament and then they take our jobs. If this is not the answer than what is?

Darkon wrote:

LJ wrote:

MANAZE wrote: If you are who you say you are there should be no problems.

Didn't know you had to prove your innocence in this country

Just wondering. How many times have you gone through immagrations when returning to the US?
I never feel innocent with the proper documents in hand. I get finger print checked and questioned extensively.

I am currently registering for the Global Entry program.

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

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

which isnt happening with this new law.

Oh? It's not?

It says that if they suspect that you are here illegally you must verify that you are a citizen. No CITIZEN should be subject to that. No more presumption of innocence in this country? I don't have to prove to a cop that I don't have any warrants when I get pulled over, but I have to prove to them that I am a citizen?

I'll leave it there because if I go into a rant about cops and how much that they actually know about the law, I will have to ban myself.

Glory Days wrote: i think you are misunderstanding the way this law is going to be used. its going to be handled the same way as warrants. the people effected by this law will more than likely have already committed a crime. for example, you break the law. you give the cop your name, he cant find a record of you anywhere. good reason to believe that you are an illegal citizen. or like the example i used earlier, cop pulls a semi trailer over. finds 50 people packed into the trailer. once again, good reason to believe they are illegal citizens.

and remember, its not up to the cops to inform you of all the things you do and dont have to do as a citizen. if they want to ask if you have any warrants, to see your ID, or if you are a citizen they can. if the citizen doesnt know he/she doesnt have to answer those questions, not the cops fault and its perfectly legal.

Darkon wrote:

LJ wrote:

MANAZE wrote: If you are who you say you are there should be no problems.

Didn't know you had to prove your innocence in this country

Just wondering. How many times have you gone through immagrations when returning to the US?
I never feel innocent with the proper documents in hand. I get finger print checked and questioned extensively.

I am currently registering for the Global Entry program.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Darkon wrote:

LJ wrote:

MANAZE wrote: If you are who you say you are there should be no problems.

Didn't know you had to prove your innocence in this country

Just wondering. How many times have you gone through immagrations when returning to the US?
I never feel innocent with the proper documents in hand. I get finger print checked and questioned extensively.

I am currently registering for the Global Entry program.

Entry to the country is a different matter entirely.

This is a matter of stopping citizens on the street and them having to prove that they belong.

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote: i think you are misunderstanding the way this law is going to be used. its going to be handled the same way as warrants. the people effected by this law will more than likely have already committed a crime. for example, you break the law. you give the cop your name, he cant find a record of you anywhere. good reason to believe that you are an illegal citizen. or like the example i used earlier, cop pulls a semi trailer over. finds 50 people packed into the trailer. once again, good reason to believe they are illegal citizens.

and remember, its not up to the cops to inform you of all the things you do and dont have to do as a citizen. if they want to ask if you have any warrants, to see your ID, or if you are a citizen they can. if the citizen doesnt know he/she doesnt have to answer those questions, not the cops fault and its perfectly legal.

I'm not misunderstanding anything, you are just giving an example of how the law can be used. It can also be used to stop a mexican looking american citizen and telling them that they need to provide documentation that they are citizens or else they will be detained.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Glory Days wrote: posted from earlier in the thread:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

I Wear Pants wrote: What is reasonable suspicion of being an alien though?

Is it anyone who looks Mexican, foreign, anyone that speaks Spanish?

Those things lead to broad generalizations that don't really help solve the problem. All it does is infringe upon the rights of citizens who deserve better.

LJ wrote:
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)

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote: posted from earlier in the thread:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

You mean a "Terry Stop"? Which I have mentioned myself many times this thread.

Reasonable Suspicion /= probable cause

Reasonable suspicion= Hey, they guy looks funny over there, I THINK he may be an illegal alien

Probable cause= I just saw that guy roll a joint, time to arrest him and check him out.

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.