Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

[quote name='JolietJake']Alright I'm through with Knoell, if he can't read then i understand, but if he refuses to read, that's his problem.[/QUOTE]

You are saying it gives them another reason to be racist, I dont speak for UncleBob but I believe we are saying then your problem lies with those particular people in law enforcement, not with the law.

Edit: Also I was saying that the police need to have detained them already to ask for ID or papers or else they can sue. You completely ignore this and say that the majority of cops will go make up excuses to ask hispanics for ID, like the cops dont have enough things to do, you really think they are a bunch of racists with a bunch of time on their hands?
 
[quote name='Knoell']because I have you blocked, I check up on you every so often when I see your posts[/quote]

You have responded directly to me a dozen or so times since then, seems you understand blocking someone as well as you understand math.

And also that clause is inserted to prevent certain parts of Arizona from becoming "sanctuary cities" not for the average citizen to sue.
Click to expand...

Gee knoell, and here I am judging laws by their most likely effects not just their stated intentions.

It has the effect of allowing any citizen to sue, among other things.

You are misinterpreting it
Click to expand...

You wish.

and how is an individual supposed to prove they arent doing their job unless the cops actually let an illegal go? And if they do let an illegal go they should be sued...
Click to expand...

They don't have to prove anything to bring a lawsuit knoell, the effect would be to clog the everliving fuck out of the courts even more so than the law would already do.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Page 11, Post 220 is still valid. Cops can walk up to somebody and ask for ID.[/QUOTE]

Oddly enough, your earlier post shows that Arkansas already had a "Stop and Identify" law on the record - before this bill was written.

Now, consider this - if an officer suspects you of violating Federal law (of which there is no state-enforced equivalent) within his/her jurisdiction, can he/she not already ask you to "Stop and Identify"? Most S&I laws are written in such a way that the officer has to have reasonable suspicion that you have acted in direct violation of the law - of which an illegal immigrant is (both before and after this Arizona bill passed) - so couldn't an officer have already asked an individual they suspected to be an illegal immigrant to stop and identify?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oddly enough, your earlier post shows that Arkansas already had a "Stop and Identify" law on the record - before this bill was written.

Now, consider this - if an officer suspects you of violating Federal law (of which there is no state-enforced equivalent) within his/her jurisdiction, can he/she not already ask you to "Stop and Identify"? Most S&I laws are written in such a way that the officer has to have reasonable suspicion that you have acted in direct violation of the law - of which an illegal immigrant is (both before and after this Arizona bill passed) - so couldn't an officer have already asked an individual they suspected to be an illegal immigrant to stop and identify?[/QUOTE]

Second verse same as the first?
 
[quote name='xycury']so what's the point of anyone getting upset over?

If cops could do that before, why weren't they doing it already?[/QUOTE]

Many were. Many do.

That's why much of this is about nothing. Before this law, cops could pull you over for "speeding" without proving you were speeding. Ask for ID and look you up in their system.

The pro-open borders lobby have whipped everyone up into a frenzy over nothing. Any time there is a bill passed, by any state, that gets tougher on illegal immigration - the race-baiters will put on a spectacular show.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Many were. Many do.

That's why much of this is about nothing. Before this law, cops could pull you over for "speeding" without proving you were speeding. Ask for ID and look you up in their system.

The pro-open borders lobby have whipped everyone up into a frenzy over nothing. Any time there is a bill passed, by any state, that gets tougher on illegal immigration - the race-baiters will put on a spectacular show.[/QUOTE]

Let's remove the racial component.

A cop in AZ walks up to anybody and ask for ID on suspicion that said anybody is an illegal.

Anybody hands over his or her ID. Cop tosses it into the sewer.

Cop arrests anybody on the spot for having no ID.

Cop sticks anybody in a jail cell and leaves him or her to rot for a few months.

Habeas corpus, right? Nope. Habeas corpus is only given to citizens.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Let's remove the racial component.

A cop in AZ walks up to anybody and ask for ID on suspicion that said anybody is an illegal.

Anybody hands over his or her ID. Cop tosses it into the sewer.

Cop arrests anybody on the spot for having no ID.

Cop sticks anybody in a jail cell and leaves him or her to rot for a few months.

Habeas corpus, right? Nope. Habeas corpus is only given to citizens.[/QUOTE]

The problem in this situation is with the cop, not with the law.

The President *could* have Biden go out and kill fifty men, then issue him a pardon.
The problem isn't the fact that the president can pardon people, the problem would be with the individual who has the power.
 
Except that before these cops were just being assholes, now they'll actively be hunting for people.

But If they were already doing this as you say, then why do they need a new law?
 
So what you're saying is that the sword isn't the problem, but He-Man is because he has the power?

Sorry, i had to do it.:lol:
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Except that before these cops were just being assholes, now they'll actively be hunting for people.

But If they were already doing this as you say, then why do they need a new law?[/QUOTE]

So now the good cops can actually arrest criminals?

[quote name='JolietJake']So what you're saying is that the sword isn't the problem, but He-Man is because he has the power?

Sorry, i had to do it.:lol:[/QUOTE]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The problem in this situation is with the cop, not with the law.

The President *could* have Biden go out and kill fifty men, then issue him a pardon.
The problem isn't the fact that the president can pardon people, the problem would be with the individual who has the power.[/QUOTE]

Right. Habeas corpus is only for people who have indisputable proof of citizenship at all times on their person.

We need to put a microchip or something like that under a person's palm or forehead so we know exactly who he or she is and which country that person belongs to.
 
So it's alot to do about nothing?

fucking waste.....

Habeas corpus might need some additional items because we're not evaluating illegals as terrorists right? :lol:
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Right. Habeas corpus is only for people who have indisputable proof of citizenship at all times on their person.

We need to put a microchip or something like that under a person's palm or forehead so we know exactly who he or she is and which country that person belongs to.[/QUOTE]

This law requires immigrants to carry identification as well as allow cops to ask for it.

The latter may be redundant but the law still requires immigrants to carry identification.

If the person does not have identification, the law states the police must make a reasonable effort to establish the citizenship status of the individual being investigated.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Right. Habeas corpus is only for people who have indisputable proof of citizenship at all times on their person.

We need to put a microchip or something like that under a person's palm or forehead so we know exactly who he or she is and which country that person belongs to.[/QUOTE]
How about we just tattoo numbers on their flesh? Oh wait. Someone did that already. Now who was that?

hitler17_2.JPG


So you approve of microchipping OUR citizens or just illegals? If just the illegals, then welcome to Nazi America. While it WOULD help keep track of people, how would you get people to willingly allow themselves to be chipped? Scare tactics circa GWB after 9/11(shakes hands oooooo terrorists are in Iraq n Afghanistan, we gotta go to war)?

I'm pretty sure you'd have every civil rights group on the planet suing everyone over just the plan to do it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This law requires immigrants to carry identification as well as allow cops to ask for it.

The latter may be redundant but the law still requires immigrants to carry identification.[/QUOTE]

Two notes:

1.) The FEDERAL LAW requires that immigrants carry identification. The state law in question just mirrors the Federal Law in this regard.
2.) One of the issues I have with this - immigrants are required to carry identification - but what about a legal citizen who's parents, grandparents and great-grand parents were all US Citizens, but they just happen to be Hispanic. Should they be required to have ID as well? Because, what happens when they get stopped and they don't have ID?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Two notes:

1.) The FEDERAL LAW requires that immigrants carry identification. The state law in question just mirrors the Federal Law in this regard.
2.) One of the issues I have with this - immigrants are required to carry identification - but what about a legal citizen who's parents, grandparents and great-grand parents were all US Citizens, but they just happen to be Hispanic. Should they be required to have ID as well? Because, what happens when they get stopped and they don't have ID?[/QUOTE]

wouldn't they contact next of kin and provide that information?

We're talking about the very few that probably couldn't come up with any ID what so ever.... If your family is all dead, and you lost your ID... you'd have to provide say your SSN or Birth Cert from the government office.

It's just alot of time and resources that will be wasted. I don't see any "fault" besides that, which would say this is a push move to get something done differently about this.
 
[quote name='xycury']We're talking about the very few that probably couldn't come up with any ID what so ever.... If your family is all dead, and you lost your ID... you'd have to provide say your SSN or Birth Cert from the government office.[/QUOTE]

If I'm a legal citizen who's not doing anything illegal, then there is no reason for me to provide any kind of proof of identification to the government.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Two notes:

1.) The FEDERAL LAW requires that immigrants carry identification. The state law in question just mirrors the Federal Law in this regard.
2.) One of the issues I have with this - immigrants are required to carry identification - but what about a legal citizen who's parents, grandparents and great-grand parents were all US Citizens, but they just happen to be Hispanic. Should they be required to have ID as well? Because, what happens when they get stopped and they don't have ID?[/QUOTE]

The police have access to a database in which they can look up names, and identification.
They aren't going to throw you in the back of their car without looking up your name in that database, or making an effort to find out who you are.

Now whether or not they should have such a database is up for debate.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The police have access to a database in which they can look up names, and identification.
They aren't going to throw you in the back of their car without looking up your name in that database, or making an effort to find out who you are.

Now whether or not they should have such a database is up for debate.[/QUOTE]

So, if they stop me and I identify myself as "Barack H. Obama", they're just going to punch that name into their data base and identify me?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If I'm a legal citizen who's not doing anything illegal, then there is no reason for me to provide any kind of proof of identification to the government.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, that's not how law enforcement works in this country. Mistaken identity for the loss.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Unfortunately, that's not how law enforcement works in this country. Mistaken identity for the loss.[/QUOTE]

I agree, which is part of the problem I have with this law.

I, as a citizen, am innocent until proven guilty. I should not have to prove that I'm here legally to not be charged with a crime. It should be up to the accuser to prove that I'm guilty of being here illegally.
 
I actually agree with that. Which is why immigrants have to carry their papers around, because they're not citizens, and they don't have the luxury of 'innocent till proven guilty'.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']How about we just tattoo numbers on their flesh? Oh wait. Someone did that already. Now who was that?

hitler17_2.JPG


So you approve of microchipping OUR citizens or just illegals? If just the illegals, then welcome to Nazi America. While it WOULD help keep track of people, how would you get people to willingly allow themselves to be chipped? Scare tactics circa GWB after 9/11(shakes hands oooooo terrorists are in Iraq n Afghanistan, we gotta go to war)?

I'm pretty sure you'd have every civil rights group on the planet suing everyone over just the plan to do it.[/QUOTE]

At least you're trying. I thought everybody knew about the mark of the beast in Revelations.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If I'm a legal citizen who's not doing anything illegal, then there is no reason for me to provide any kind of proof of identification to the government.[/QUOTE]

agreed, that's called lawsuit if they do anything but that.

I thought this bill only added after a cop found another reason to investigate.

They will need to add some type of clause about ID...


This same case could be twisted around, driving drunk in someone else's car and trying to be that other person to get out of a ticket. Same issue. Not new.

This bill didn't do anything different or add any new problems that aren't already out there.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I actually agree with that. Which is why immigrants have to carry their papers around, because they're not citizens, and they don't have the luxury of 'innocent till proven guilty'.[/QUOTE]

No, immigrants have to carry identification because, if they don't, they're in violation of Federal Law. ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, if they stop me and I identify myself as "Barack H. Obama", they're just going to punch that name into their data base and identify me?[/QUOTE]

The police have ways of determining if you are lying, such as not being able to provide Barack H. Obamas address, birthday, and other information. Besides unless you are illegal or have warrants why would you lie?

The supreme court has justified police checks called terry stops since the 1960's in which the police can stop anyone who they consider suspicious, detain them, search them for weapons, and ask for ID.

This is why innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. Its not an infringement on our rights, and does not apply the same way in the streets as in the courtroom. This is why you can be held in jail for 24-72 hours depending on your charge. You were not proven guilty yet, but you are still being held.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I actually agree with that. Which is why immigrants have to carry their papers around, because they're not citizens, and they don't have the luxury of 'innocent till proven guilty'.[/QUOTE]

I think it's bullshit personally. Anyone here legally should get that luxury, or at the least have a driver's license or state ID suffice (maybe that is the law, my girlfriend is on a visa and doesn't carry anything around).

Silly to expect people to carry their passports, visas etc. everywhere. Shit is expensive to replace if lost, not to mention identity theft issues etc.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The police have ways of determining if you are lying, such as not being able to provide Barack H. Obamas address, birthday, and other information. Besides unless you are illegal or have warrants why would you lie?

The supreme court has justified police checks called terry stops since the 1960's in which the police can stop anyone who they consider suspicious, detain them, search them for weapons, and ask for ID.

This is why innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. Its not an infringement on our rights, and does not apply the same way in the streets as in the courtroom. This is why you can be held in jail for 24-72 hours depending on your charge. You were not proven guilty yet, but you are still being held.[/QUOTE]

Read the specifics of the case. It allows for continued observation and questioning. Not arresting or prolonged detainment.
 
I think the point people are missing with this issue is that it allows people to be profiled. Profiling should be only used in airports! Damn terrorists!
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']This made me laugh out loud. So true.[/QUOTE]

Ten or so pages ago, I posted a video of a cop asking a cameraman shooting B roll for his ID. Yet Knoell et al continue to post how cops can't stop and ask for ID unless that person is committing another obvious crime.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Ten or so pages ago, I posted a video of a cop asking a cameraman shooting B roll for his ID. Yet Knoell et al continue to post how cops can't stop and ask for ID unless that person is committing another obvious crime.[/QUOTE]

Yet again I respond to you and ask you if the cameraman ever did have to provide that id? and you never answer because you know the law was enforced correctly after the initial mistake. douchbag
 
I guarantee you that if you were to pool together play-by-plays of arguments with troy, Knoell, and IATCG, you'd find that every one of their responses absolutely fails to stay on topic and moves the discussion further and further away from every beginning point with startling predictability. I'm amazed some of you guys are putting up with them when their entire tactic revolves around nothing more than blurring the discussion into stupid vapid tangents.

The other half of the crew is about half and half (Unclebob, thrustbucket), and even though that's too much, it's far the lesser of two evils.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Read the specifics of the case. It allows for continued observation and questioning. Not arresting or prolonged detainment.[/QUOTE]

I am arguing that the police stopping suspicious looking activity, detaining the individual, searching the individual for weapons, and asking for ID from the individual has been approved by the supreme court for a long time. I was just clarifying that "innocent until proven guilty" does not completely apply to the streets as it does in the courtroom. Do you disagree?

Now the separate issue of whether or not police have a right to arrest you if you dont have ID has not been to the supreme court yet, so it has not been found constitutional or unconstitutional. The only thing we can go on now is the words of the Arizona law until they are challenged. The law does not say if you don't have an ID then you are going to jail, as there are a number of ways the police have to confirm check your citizen identity and the law requires them to reasonably attempt to find out said persons status.

Stop quoting me out of context.
 
[quote name='Strell']I guarantee you that if you were to pool together play-by-plays of arguments with troy, Knoell, and IATCG, you'd find that every one of their responses absolutely fails to stay on topic and moves the discussion further and further away from every beginning point with startling predictability. I'm amazed some of you guys are putting up with them when their entire tactic revolves around nothing more than blurring the discussion into stupid vapid tangents.

The other half of the crew is about half and half (Unclebob, thrustbucket), and even though that's too much, it's far the lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]

Huh, nice on topic comment....

How are we off topic again? Oh thats right we are talking about the arizona law, oh wait isnt that the title of the topic? dumbass
 
[quote name='Knoell']Huh, nice on topic comment....

How are we off topic again? Oh thats right we are talking about the arizona law, oh wait isnt that the title of the topic? dumbass[/QUOTE]

Anger. The first step of cognitive dissonance. I think hes starting to break. Next comes depression.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']Please keep the personal attacks out of the discussion.[/QUOTE]

You erase my post but not Strells?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Ten or so pages ago, I posted a video of a cop asking a cameraman shooting B roll for his ID. Yet Knoell et al continue to post how cops can't stop and ask for ID unless that person is committing another obvious crime.[/QUOTE]

I asked you if the guy ended up providing ID, and you did not answer because you know that after the initial mistake the law was followed. Not to mention in Arizona the camerman can sue if the police did force him to present ID.
 
He is describing your posting style. You just engaged in name calling by calling foc a douchebag. If you can't see that difference, you can't see that difference.

By the way Knoell, in another thread (I think that Teens Cinco de Mayo thread) I called you a douchebag too. I see my post is still alive and well ;)

inb4omgmodsarebiasagainstknoell
 
[quote name='IRHari']He is describing your posting style. You just engaged in name calling by calling foc a douchebag. If you can't see that difference, you can't see that difference.

By the way Knoell, in another thread (I think that Teens Cinco de Mayo thread) I called you a douchebag too. I see my post is still alive and well ;)

inb4omgmodsarebiasagainstknoell[/QUOTE]

Oh well, I really don't care, I just find that if you are going to ban vulgar words against people, then you should also ban personal attacks that are on the same level.
 
I think he has a point though. For example, in the Teens Cinco de Mayo thread you wound up dragging the convo towards a religion in school debate.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think he has a point though. For example, in the Teens Cinco de Mayo thread you wound up dragging the convo towards a religion in school debate.[/QUOTE]

We both just got deleted....

Thats off topic not personal attacks, and I don't believe I was the one to start with the religion talk, I think I remember someone bringing up a muslim girl not being allowed to wear her headdress thing. That is the nature of a debate, it drifts from area to area touching on certain topics. Theres only so much you can talk about one incident before you have to bring other incidents in to compare, which ironically leads to more debate.
 
Wow clearly you don't understand. When I said 'he has a point', his point was that you are great at continuing to steer away from the original topic.

Yeah mods just shit all over a couple of good posts. Ah well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top