RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

WolfeTone -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/20/2010 8:22:21 PM)

Well good then, throw them out. Thick as thieves here in AZ and everything has a Spanish option. If they want to come legally, very good, my parents and I did. 



slvemike4u -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/20/2010 8:27:10 PM)

Well good for you and your parents.....aren't you guys special.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/20/2010 8:35:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.

So stopping every 4th car regardless who is in it and asking for proof of citizenship would be okay?

A broader question - Which laws do you feel should be selectively enforced? There is a established law concerning the legal right to be in this country. Why shouldn't the law be enforced? Why this law versus others?



WolfeTone -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/20/2010 8:35:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well good for you and your parents.....aren't you guys special.

Excuse me mate? I see a lot of people making a commotion that ID would have to shown. Oh no. Imagine your passport reading "Northern Ireland" when traveling in Europe so all of your bags are checked to make sure you don't have a bomb, your parents are strip searched to make sure there is no detonator, and your electronics you just bought are taken apart to make sure they aren't packed with explosives. Or how about being home on holiday and soldiers shoving your arse up against a wall and detaining you for hours? Why? Making sure I'm not a terrorist of course!

Boo hoo if people have to show a driver's license or other ID.



popeye1250 -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/20/2010 8:39:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.
Popeye the failure of the Fed does not mean Arizona can violate the Constitution nor take us farther down an Orwellian rabbit hole.
smutmonger your use of "wetback" as far as I'm concerned excludes you from intelligent conversation....bye bye.
Yes jack the future will be very interesting.....if Arizona is any example very scary too.It is amazing that the same voices that scream unconstitutionality where health care if concerned are totally cool with this incursion of civil liberties....I guess the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is inviolate only when they feel threatened.
Pretty much on the mark Orpheus....how many more Sheriff Joe's will this stupid legislation turn into cult hero's for the incredibly dumb and stupid crowd.



Gee Mike, it 's kind of hard to tell a Kenyon and a Hawaiian apart come to think of it!
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
If I were in Arizona and the police asked me for my identification because I had out of state plates and I was near the border or anywhere else in the state I'd produce it! What's the problem? I wouldn't feel like my rights were being trampled on. "You want to see my Veteran's Administration i.d. too Officer?" I know a few police officers and *they need to know who people are* to do their jobs!
They can ask anyone for their i.d., I think that's already been settled in court.
And that border is out of control and needs to be militarized.



domiguy -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 6:35:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.

So stopping every 4th car regardless who is in it and asking for proof of citizenship would be okay?

A broader question - Which laws do you feel should be selectively enforced? There is a established law concerning the legal right to be in this country. Why shouldn't the law be enforced? Why this law versus others?


Wow....Obviously the conservative outlets where you choose to get your news do not do a very good job in educating you. You really need to get your ass back into school. You seem incapable of making a rational argument.

Mike was very clear...very clear, but you seem to dense to follow along. In order to stop someone regardless if it is during a "legal" road block you need to have "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. This means that they can't detain you on a "hunch." Racial profiling is a "hunch."

"Specific and articulable facts" (SAF) means that the police must have observed something about your behavior and character that links you with specific criminal activity. If the police detain you without SAF, the detention is illegal and whatever they obtain as a result of the detention (evidence or arrest) cannot be used against you in court.

Thanks for playing.

As usual, you were also incorrect about the administration not pressing charges against Goldman because they were complicit in their illegal activities.

Do you know anything?



domiguy -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 6:38:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250



Gee Mike, it 's kind of hard to tell a Kenyon and a Hawaiian apart come to think of it!
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
If I were in Arizona and the police asked me for my identification because I had out of state plates and I was near the border or anywhere else in the state I'd produce it! What's the problem? I wouldn't feel like my rights were being trampled on. "You want to see my Veteran's Administration i.d. too Officer?" I know a few police officers and *they need to know who people are* to do their jobs!
They can ask anyone for their i.d., I think that's already been settled in court.
And that border is out of control and needs to be militarized.


It has been settled in court. It is illegal.

The police will come after folks like yourself when it is finally established that it is a crime not to understand the constitutional law of the country that you live in.

Till then, watch Howie and spread your ignorance with glee.



domiguy -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 6:44:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WolfeTone

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well good for you and your parents.....aren't you guys special.

Excuse me mate? I see a lot of people making a commotion that ID would have to shown. Oh no. Imagine your passport reading "Northern Ireland" when traveling in Europe so all of your bags are checked to make sure you don't have a bomb, your parents are strip searched to make sure there is no detonator, and your electronics you just bought are taken apart to make sure they aren't packed with explosives. Or how about being home on holiday and soldiers shoving your arse up against a wall and detaining you for hours? Why? Making sure I'm not a terrorist of course!

Boo hoo if people have to show a driver's license or other ID.




Imagine that you now live in a land where your passport reads "The United States of America" and none of the things that you mentioned above are legal here. Unless you are boarding a plane, where you will be subjected to certain searches and scans before you are allowed to board.

Boo hoo that you are unable to comprehend these facts. Many people have come to this Country to escape the very type of persecution that you have mentioned above.

Feel better?



Mercnbeth -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 7:07:35 AM)

quote:

In order to stop someone regardless if it is during a "legal" road block you need to have "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. This means that they can't detain you on a "hunch." Racial profiling is a "hunch."

Police in California have a "hunch"on a Friday night that people are driving and drinking. Regularly they have traffic stops pulling people over to verify that hunch.

The people here illegally are violating a law as are those driving drunk. Both are criminals, both should incur the legal consequences of their actions.

quote:

you were also incorrect about the administration not pressing charges against Goldman because they were complicit in their illegal activities.
Allowing your hijack - Obama was complicit, according this report Wall Street provided three of Obama's seven biggest sources of contributors for his presidential bid. In 2007 and 2008, Goldman Sachs employees and family members gave him $994,795, Citigroup Inc. $701,290, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. $695,132. he was paid handsomely to do so. A few hundred billion of tax payer money pay back in return for being elected and funding executive bonus plans.

I can't imagine anyone but a faithful, party apologist fool would find it difficult to appreciate the complicity in that action. Unless that is you - how do you explain it? Actually - I doubt you will, but feel free to insult the commentator when you don't have the ability to respond to the commentary.
quote:

Do you know anything?

DG -
I know when you post insult and attack the poster you are insecure personally and ignorant of the issues. I appreciate you providing the backup evidence of that fact. Thanks!



Louve00 -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 7:17:39 AM)

The bulk of us do not carry around our birth certificates, nor are we required to carry around our SS cards.  The people of color (particularly of brown color, in this instance) to show proof they are Americans just because they're walking around in Arizona, to me, is unconstitutional.  There are better ways of doing it than taking a step backwards.  IMO.



domiguy -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 7:21:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

In order to stop someone regardless if it is during a "legal" road block you need to have "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. This means that they can't detain you on a "hunch." Racial profiling is a "hunch."

Police in California have a "hunch"on a Friday night that people are driving and drinking. Regularly they have traffic stops pulling people over to verify that hunch.

The people here illegally are violating a law as are those driving drunk. Both are criminals, both should incur the legal consequences of their actions.



You really are not a very bright person. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone. You are not stopped at a road block "supposedly" due to any type of racial profiling, which would be illegal. The officers are there to determine if the driver is intoxicated. If there is not "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. (in this case driving while drunk) you are immediately released.

I will make this very easy for someone like yourself.

Can you look at me and determine that I am here illegally? If not, what gives you the right to detain me? You have to be able to prove that "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity.

Being Hispanic, alone, does not meet that test.


Lastly merc, the fact that Obama received political contributions from Goldman obviously was not enough to stop the charges from being brought forward.

I'm not beth...I have a brain and have the ability to question your non stop parade of flawed logic.


You should find a new hobby. This one isn't working out too well for you.




Mercnbeth -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 7:28:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

The bulk of us do not carry around our birth certificates, nor are we required to carry around our SS cards.  The people of color (particularly of brown color, in this instance) to show proof they are Americans just because they're walking around in Arizona, to me, is unconstitutional.  There are better ways of doing it than taking a step backwards.  IMO.

You are now getting into another topic - the idea of a national ID card. Personally, that wouldn't bother me - currently I carry the card version of my passport, because I appreciate I could 'pass' as a Mexican. I've been stopped and asked to show ID's a number of times since being in CA. Similar to drinking and driving, I appreciate the attempt of law enforcement.

Of course there are many better ways. My personal preference would be to fine the employers of illegal workers $10,000 per employee the first time caught and $100k per along with arrest the second time.

However, the folks at corporations like Tyson Foods and those running corporate farms, put too much campaign money in the hands of politicians for that tactic to be implemented. Those entities have a much better chance of being 'bailed-out' than they do coming under scrutiny for hiring illegal workers to the detriment of US citizens. But, as comments on this thread indicate, as long as those benefiting are from the party supported, the bag money payments will be ignored.



domiguy -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 7:41:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

The bulk of us do not carry around our birth certificates, nor are we required to carry around our SS cards.  The people of color (particularly of brown color, in this instance) to show proof they are Americans just because they're walking around in Arizona, to me, is unconstitutional.  There are better ways of doing it than taking a step backwards.  IMO.

You are now getting into another topic - the idea of a national ID card. Personally, that wouldn't bother me - currently I carry the card version of my passport, because I appreciate I could 'pass' as a Mexican. I've been stopped and asked to show ID's a number of times since being in CA. Similar to drinking and driving, I appreciate the attempt of law enforcement.

Of course there are many better ways. My personal preference would be to fine the employers of illegal workers $10,000 per employee the first time caught and $100k per along with arrest the second time.

However, the folks at corporations like Tyson Foods and those running corporate farms, put too much campaign money in the hands of politicians for that tactic to be implemented. Those entities have a much better chance of being 'bailed-out' than they do coming under scrutiny for hiring illegal workers to the detriment of US citizens. But, as comments on this thread indicate, as long as those benefiting are from the party supported, the bag money payments will be ignored.


I would immediately ask the law enforcement officer why I was being detained. If no reason was given, I would mention that I am in a hurry and that I would be on my way. I guess am not some sort of stooge who enjoys submitting to the illegal activities of others.

I know my rights as a citizen of this country, it's something I take pride in.

Besides, you don't look like a Mexican...You are mostly black, right?



Louve00 -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 7:54:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


Of course there are many better ways. My personal preference would be to fine the employers of illegal workers $10,000 per employee the first time caught and $100k per along with arrest the second time.



Personally I would prefer this too.  As a matter of fact, while it may take profit away from those companies and I know how desperately some fight to preserve the "liberties" of those companies, if we used the "I-9" forms the IRS does provide us (and an employer should use) that would end alot of the incentive to cross the boarder in the first place, if you were to ask me.

(and on an aside note, the color of your skin in your avatar picture did cross my mind [;)] )



Mercnbeth -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 8:01:33 AM)

quote:

I would immediately ask the law enforcement officer why I was being detained. If no reason was given, I would mention that I am in a hurry and that I would be on my way. I guess am not some sort of stooge who enjoys submitting to the illegal activities of others.
Really; that gets you one your way faster than showing an ID?

The reason is a 'check point'; here its published in the newspapers, your jurisdiction may vary. In a hurry you either have to either have the ability to read and avoid the check point, or show ID and/or go through a process. Usually there are a group of "stooges" over on the side in handcuffs who didn't "submit" or weren't able to provide the necessary documents (they do also check license, registration, and insurance).

Appreciate that your perspective is that breaking some laws, because you don't like them is okay; following them makes you a "stooge". Thanks for distinguishing us further.

quote:

Besides, you don't look like a Mexican...

Irrelevant, traveling I've also been thought of as a Greek, Arab, and Spaniard too. Once a long time ago in Germany, I was pulled aside, profiled as an 'illegal' Italian worker which was a big problem for Germany at the time. Not violation of any law, and having the proper ID - I wasn't put off or bothered.

I can't change whatever prejudice and bigotry goes into the process. I accept that people are ignorant and appreciate when they disclose that fact so I know how to respond to them. So it doesn't come under consideration when showing my ID. I keep it simple for them and within their ability to understand.
quote:

You are mostly black, right?

Not "mostly" only one grandparent. Simple enough?



slvemike4u -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 8:03:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.

So stopping every 4th car regardless who is in it and asking for proof of citizenship would be okay?

A broader question - Which laws do you feel should be selectively enforced? There is a established law concerning the legal right to be in this country. Why shouldn't the law be enforced? Why this law versus others?
Merc you are kidding right....to the first question ...unequivically YES.The protection is in the randomness.
To the second part ...it's not a question of whether or not you enforce the law...it's a question of how you enforce the law.If in the legal course of doing their jobs LEO's were to ascertain someone is here illegally...than the proper thing to do would be to enforce the law.LEO's stopping without probable cause,save a Hispanic look,and ascertaining immigration status is a violation of the constitution.Being forced to prove one did not break the las...as opposed to authorities being forced to prove one did break the law is to set the Constitution on its ear.



slvemike4u -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 8:13:21 AM)

Merc let's just put the sobriety checkpoint thing to bed once and for all(as I now see you have constructed your whole argument along these lines)I don't know how they run these stops in California....but in New York and North Carolina you approach the officer say good evening ,he says hi and ask's an innocuous question or two ...engaging you in a brief conversation...but giving him a chance to determine if  there is "probable cause"(these words are important Merc)if there is you will be asked to produce your license and quite possibly wind up blowing into a field test kit.
But first protection...randomness of the stop.....second protection    the need to ascertain "probable cause".
These steps are missing in Arizona's proposed law...therefor Un-Constitutional.



twistedreality -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 8:37:05 AM)

I have no problem with this. I am tired of criminals having more rights than the law abiding citizens.I am tired of the financial drain put on our schools due to the free lunches, free breakfasts and other resources required for illegals. My relatives came to this country legally. They learned the language, so that they could contribute to this melting pot of experiences. In a time when so many legal residents are out of work and the national debt is at an all time high, we must reign in these expenses. What does it cost to print government documents in so many languages?

I get stopped often, under similar circumstances. I appreciate that the law is there to protect my rights and priveledges and protect me from those who prey on us and our system.Come here legally, and with the intent of being an American and I will bend over backwards to help you.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 8:40:30 AM)

quote:

Lastly merc, the fact that Obama received political contributions from Goldman obviously was not enough to stop the charges from being brought forward.

I see real progress here DG! No longer are you arguing that Obama wasn't complicit, you are only representing that, so far, he, along with members of Congress from both political parties, are unindited co-conspirators.

quote:

Merc let's just put the sobriety checkpoint thing to bed once and for all


Mike,
I use the sobriety checkpoint as an example not as a guide or template for legal residence status.

Use appropriate randomness and/or innocuous questions in another form. Better yet - include status confirmation as part of routine policy and practice for other matters of government; licenses, housing permits, building permits, etc. In other words put up 'checkpoints' at already established 'road blocks' and apply them to every applicant.

quote:

To the second part ...it's not a question of whether or not you enforce the law...it's a question of how you enforce the law.
No Mike - it is the law. Method of enforcing all laws is subject to methods of enforcement; which is why I don't believe in a 'one true way' enforcement policy. Put the enforcement at all opportunities, especially those where entitlement benefits earmarked for US citizens are being stolen by illegal residents.

Although I believe the best way would be at the employer side of the equation, I understand the pragmatic reality - it won't happen.



thompsonx -> RE: The State Senate in Arizona passes new immigration law (4/21/2010 8:41:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Passage of the new law would allow,amongst other unsavory things, authorities to demand proof of entry into the United States from anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

It depends who the "authorities" are? ICE can do it without new law. Can security guard do it? Some authorities should be able to do it. For example Social Security administrators, IRS and so on. Police on street perhaps not, but if somebody has been arrested for another crime, a police department should do it (it is not the case in sanctuary cities).



Just how would you proove you are a citizen?
Your birth certificate is text and perhaps a tiny foot print.
Your passport and drivers license are based on your birth certificate.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875