Not sure what you were going after here. When a legal stop is made and said person cant varify they are legal then it goes to the next step:shrug: I kinda thought we discussed that. If the point of this is to say that there are "advocacy groups" out there that will claim profiling in every case then I am just shocked:0002 . If you want to agrue whether a stop is made legally then we may have something to talk about, just as we have to do in most other stops made around the country where the accused decide on the court route. But to use that as a ruse to discount the law is pretty intellectually weak. Good read though, backed up what I have been saying.
Not sure what you were going after here. When a legal stop is made and said person cant varify they are legal then it goes to the next step:shrug: I kinda thought we discussed that. If the point of this is to say that there are "advocacy groups" out there that will claim profiling in every case then I am just shocked:0002 . If you want to agrue whether a stop is made legally then we may have something to talk about, just as we have to do in most other stops made around the country where the accused decide on the court route. But to use that as a ruse to discount the law is pretty intellectually weak. Good read though, backed up what I have been saying.
what is the problem with requiring them to have an id, no legit id, you get deported, makes sense to me
those of us here legally are already forced to carry our papers...
to drive,to vote,to write a check,to set up a cable t.v. account.....this idea that "show me some proof of identity/citizenship" will destroy that process is liberal bullshit.....
looks like this decision allows illegals some immunity from having to follow the laws that legal citizens must obey... certainly regarding the breaking of our immigration law....
make no mistake...this is the first move toward geting democrats a new voting block...
it`s political...and flies in the face of what 70 % of americans want....
they`d better do as much damage as they can now....november will be judgement day...
Last edited:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
....and why are they being detained? They will be able to be detained due to their skin color.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
The federal government should do something including bringing our troops home to defend our borders.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Excuse me? This law is a vehicle to discrimination If you choose to ignore it that is up to you.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Thats what this is all about. This law will allow cops to ask for papers without any other reason to stop the individual. That is my understanding. I have no problem with them pulling someone over for speeding and then asking for papers. I'll read the whole thing later. Maybe i'm wrong.
you are amazing...you spout shit without having even rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter....
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency?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?"
"lawful contact," defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status....the cop has to be engaged in detention because the person has violated some other law.....i.e. a traffic stop...
the law indicates that if someone produces a valid az. driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. ...there's no reasonable suspicion....
we`re all required to supply i.d. in that instance...is producing a valid driver`s license a hardship?...if it is,it`s a hardship for every swinging dick in this forum...
you just can`t stop "brown skinned people" and check them for their immigration status...and any idiot knows that many mexicans look anglo anyway...
so much ignorance...:facepalm:
Last edited:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Listen asshole, I said I would read it in its complete form this evening. That was my understanding of the law. Once again you have trouble reading what someone has stated.
What law isn't a vehicle to discrimination. Let's do away with all laws because the person enforcing them may make a mistake or intentionally abuse their power. Hmmmm sounds like a sound plan to me.
Btw I guess I have given you to much credit if you don't understand that when you are pulled over that you are not under arrest but simply being detained for a perceived offense.
You obviously have concerns with how the law is enforced buti will say again you have offered zero to validate why the law is bad itself.
The bottom line is rather simple. It's just two basic principles:
The Constitution Stands.
Bigotry loses.
The Constitution Stands.
Bigotry loses.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I would hope you were not refering to me, but if that was aimed at me then it is sad that you get that from what I have statedm
So this is where we end up? You provide nothing but rhetoric and boogie man fears and when none of it works you break out the racist card. Lol, I am actually disappointed in myself for expecting anything else.
just the first legal skirmish. An Appeal is certain.
Democrats think they won it, but it will hurt them politically as it stirs up the opponents (a majority), who will get more fiercely vocal and organized, and those Democratic politicians will be forced to defend their (minority) positions in public again.
and some poor law by the judge in this case will hurt it on appeal.
the judge transmuted the concept of Federal laws preempting local laws to federal law enforcement actions being preempted. AZ isn't preempting any federal laws, just getting them enforced.
The judge spoke of the burden on the federal agencies, but she heard, and ignored, plenty testimony to the contrary. Here's one, starting at #40.
The judge then invokes and mis-applies an old case on this subject from 1941, all the while not mentioning the more recent decisions:
Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court wrote:
"we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns"
and 5th circuit appeals, in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987): "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation's immigration laws."
Democrats think they won it, but it will hurt them politically as it stirs up the opponents (a majority), who will get more fiercely vocal and organized, and those Democratic politicians will be forced to defend their (minority) positions in public again.
and some poor law by the judge in this case will hurt it on appeal.
the judge transmuted the concept of Federal laws preempting local laws to federal law enforcement actions being preempted. AZ isn't preempting any federal laws, just getting them enforced.
The judge spoke of the burden on the federal agencies, but she heard, and ignored, plenty testimony to the contrary. Here's one, starting at #40.
The judge then invokes and mis-applies an old case on this subject from 1941, all the while not mentioning the more recent decisions:
Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court wrote:
"we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns"
and 5th circuit appeals, in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987): "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation's immigration laws."
Please Miss Know it All,
Where in the Constitution does it State that anyone has the right to break the law when entering and staying in the United States?
Food for thought: Are these "undocumented individuals" really crossing the border, or did the border actually cross them in the creation of what we now know as The United States?
What actually is considered "America?" Isn't that actually a continent, and not the United States? Aren't there a lot of other people, other than, um, "Americans" that live on the contininent of America, and in places other than The United States?
Who is, or what is, "an American?"
People throw the "ignorance" term around in this thread and others, and I wonder in type how many people have a fucking clue about the actual history of why they are where they are right now.
Sidebar: Why does the law mention the word "papers?" when talking about proof of citizenship? How many of you have any PAPERS? How many of you have to carry PAPERS around with you IN CASE you are held for a crime? This does not mean a common stop. It means held for a crime. And the police are going to be sued for not conducting this kind of verification business, or they can be sued?
Wow... everything is cool, unless you are a person of (ONE) color or a police officer in Arizona. I mean seriously, what's the problem? All of us have to carry a drivers license when we drive, right?
What actually is considered "America?" Isn't that actually a continent, and not the United States? Aren't there a lot of other people, other than, um, "Americans" that live on the contininent of America, and in places other than The United States?
Who is, or what is, "an American?"
People throw the "ignorance" term around in this thread and others, and I wonder in type how many people have a fucking clue about the actual history of why they are where they are right now.
Sidebar: Why does the law mention the word "papers?" when talking about proof of citizenship? How many of you have any PAPERS? How many of you have to carry PAPERS around with you IN CASE you are held for a crime? This does not mean a common stop. It means held for a crime. And the police are going to be sued for not conducting this kind of verification business, or they can be sued?
Wow... everything is cool, unless you are a person of (ONE) color or a police officer in Arizona. I mean seriously, what's the problem? All of us have to carry a drivers license when we drive, right?
