New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Dyakovo]

Personally, I can't imagine that any cop has the time to stop every Hispanic in Arizona and ask for their papers...

Don't worry, Sheriff Arpaio is on the case.

The Federal Government has shirked their responsibility long enough, someone needs to act. Good for Sheriff Joe.

No they really haven't. And it is never time to give tacit approval to violate constitutional rights.

[Dyakovo]

I don't think you understand. I'm kinda giving up on explaining it. Here is one more last try: American citizens must now prove they are not illegal immigrants by having ID on them.

Why? Because you can't tell a legal american citizen from an illegal non citizen from a legal non citizen just by looking at them or asking them a few questions. This means that EVERYONE has to have ID on them at all times or risk being arrested.

You say that as if it's a problem.

It is. Do you carry papers proving your citizenship with you at all times?

[Dyakovo]

Do you ever accidentally leave home without it? Do you ever go swimming and not carry it on your swimming suit?

So what if I did? It would take me a few minutes to invite the officers to my home, and show them the identification I left there.

You are assuming you would be given that opportunity, not necessarily a valid assumption.

[Dyakovo]

No worries

I should perhaps state that I'm against this law as it is. While I have no problem requiring immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status (though I question the need for such a measure), I think the obligation placed on the police and the ability to sue the police for not enforcing federal immigration laws the full extent permitted by federal law is going way too far.

You realize I hope that if immigrants have to carry documents verifying their immigration status that you also must carry such documentation just to prove that you are neither an immigrant nor staying in the US illegally.

Do you always carry such documentation? Do you ever accidentally leave home without it? Do you ever go swimming and not carry it on your swimming suit?

Is it ever possible that you will lose your proof that you are a citizen even temporarily?

which falls back on the question "What is adequate proof of citizenship?"

The law specifies that pretty well: Arizona driver's license, Arizona non-operators license

One problem, those don't prove citizenship.

[Tekania]

I don't think you understand. I'm kinda giving up on explaining it. Here is one more last try: American citizens must now prove they are not illegal immigrants by having ID on them.

Why? Because you can't tell a legal american citizen from an illegal non citizen from a legal non citizen just by looking at them or asking them a few questions. This means that EVERYONE has to have ID on them at all times or risk being arrested.

You say that as if it's a problem.

It is. Do you carry papers proving your citizenship with you at all times?

I'm sure he thinks he does... Of course, ICE may beg to differ.... Though at least he'll manage to get the US Consulate to issue a temporary Visa with them after he's deported through a chain of random shit-holes, and then re-arrested trying to re-enter with a valid passport for attempted evasion of a deportation order.

[Dyakovo]

I would think they would have their driver's license on them.

Why? Are you always in your car? I don't have a drivers license and I don't own or drive a car.

Why would you expect everyone to have a drivers license on them?

If I am out of my house I have my wallet on my 99.9% of the time...

That 00.01% of the time that I don't have my license on me I am at the gym and have my membership card which also serves as a form of identification...

No excuse not to have any ID on you.

No excuse other than there is no reason why you should have to have ID with you.

[The REAL Glasers]

Under this law you still have every right not to carry an ID... In so doing you just must however accept the fact that the state has every right to detain you for a few hours to get citizenship verification from ICE in the course of a lawful stop...


Carrying an ID versus wasted time... you decide.

Well at least we agree with what this law does. You simply have no problem with it. I find that giving the cops the right to arrest anyone without an ID on them is pretty bad (and also probably unconstitutional). You don't.

ID or not, the law gives the cops the ability to assume your guilty before proving your innocence.

[Dyakovo]

actions of the person they are talking to "IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES". you pull a van over for speeding. inside you got a group of 10 people, three speak with a heavy accent but understands the officer, four don't speak English (one responds to the officer's English questions the other three has to have their friend translate the question to them) and 3 speak perfect English.

Which one(s) have the higher percentage to being illegal?

So you believe that LEOs should use racial profiling?

what did I say to indicate Racial profiling?

A cop walking the beat is "IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES".

[South Qantar]

Abolish welfare --> Open borders.

[New Chalcedon]

Abolish welfare --> Open borders.

Please, cut the3 crap. Europe has significantly less anti-immigrant hostility, and a much more generous welfare system. If welfare was what these people were after, they'd go to Europe - getting across the Atlantic isn't that hard, these days.

[Farnhamia]

Abolish welfare --> Open borders.

Please, cut the3 crap. Europe has significantly less anti-immigrant hostility, and a much more generous welfare system. If welfare was what these people were after, they'd go to Europe - getting across the Atlantic isn't that hard, these days.

Mexicans are lazy. Everyone knows that.

[Natapoc]

Under this law you still have every right not to carry an ID... In so doing you just must however accept the fact that the state has every right to detain you for a few hours to get citizenship verification from ICE in the course of a lawful stop...


Carrying an ID versus wasted time... you decide.

Well at least we agree with what this law does. You simply have no problem with it. I find that giving the cops the right to arrest anyone without an ID on them is pretty bad (and also probably unconstitutional). You don't.

ID or not, the law gives the cops the ability to assume your guilty before proving your innocence.

Which is one of the few reasons why I mentioned it is probably unconstitutional.

[Delator]

How about one big continuous line of elctrified fences and watch towers with infrared sensors and undergound sensors and mines as well. Coast to coast.

The Great Wall didn't stop China from being invaded, and the Berlin Wall didn't stop defections...

...but a border fence is supposed to stop immigration?

[The Black Forrest]

How about one big continuous line of elctrified fences and watch towers with infrared sensors and undergound sensors and mines as well. Coast to coast.

The Great Wall didn't stop China from being invaded, and the Berlin Wall didn't stop defections...

...but a border fence is supposed to stop immigration?

Ahh but it will probably give a nice payout to political cronies that will "help" build it.....

[Farnhamia]

How about one big continuous line of elctrified fences and watch towers with infrared sensors and undergound sensors and mines as well. Coast to coast.

The Great Wall didn't stop China from being invaded, and the Berlin Wall didn't stop defections...

...but a border fence is supposed to stop immigration?

Ahh but it will probably give a nice payout to political cronies that will "help" build it.....

And there really aren't many Mexicans in China, so in that context it worked very well.

[Nordicus]

I find that giving the cops the right to arrest anyone without an ID on them is pretty bad (and also probably unconstitutional).

Methinks you need to read up on the law. Cops can already arrest anyone without even having to charge them with a crime; they just normally can't hold them very long in such a circumstance.

I know some of you will hate that I'm using Wikipedia as my source for this, but tough. Look it up if you don't trust Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_cor ... ted_States

It should be noted that the privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest. If one believes the arrest is without legal merit, and subsequently, refuses to come quietly, he is still guilty of resisting arrest, which can sometimes be a crime in and of itself, even if the initial arrest itself was illegal, depending on the state.

In any such case I would be billing the state for any lost time pursuant to their detainment of me, I'm sure they can simply deduct it from the officers pay.

Not likely, if they release you in a timely fashion (by the government's standards, not yours), then such suits seem to have a remarkably low success rate.

No, the suit comes after their failure to pay... In which case I'll simply get a civil judgement against the municipality in question after they have been refered to collections of course.

Yeah... have a nice time with that, if such a situation ever does come to pass. I don't think I've ever heard of someone in such a situation (that is, released from arrest in a timely fashion) be remunerated.

[Trotskylvania]

*puts on German accent*

Papers please?

Basically this.

I think anyone without bullet-shaped hole in their head can recognize that the most fascist thing in the world is asking people for their papers to prove that they belong anywhere. Funny that these people are the first to condemn Obama as "fascist".

[Gravlen]

Do you ever accidentally leave home without it? Do you ever go swimming and not carry it on your swimming suit?

So what if I did? It would take me a few minutes to invite the officers to my home, and show them the identification I left there.

You are assuming you would be given that opportunity, not necessarily a valid assumption.

If it isn't, your problem wouldn't be the requirement tocarry ID, but the need for law enforcement reform.

[Gravlen]

*puts on German accent*

Papers please?

Basically this.

I think anyone without bullet-shaped hole in their head can recognize that the most fascist thing in the world is asking people for their papers to prove that they belong anywhere. Funny that these people are the first to condemn Obama as "fascist".

I lack bullet shaped holes, and I don't see how asking people for their papers is fascist...

[Tekania]

Do you ever accidentally leave home without it? Do you ever go swimming and not carry it on your swimming suit?

So what if I did? It would take me a few minutes to invite the officers to my home, and show them the identification I left there.

You are assuming you would be given that opportunity, not necessarily a valid assumption.

If it isn't, your problem wouldn't be the requirement tocarry ID, but the need for law enforcement reform.

Which is my major point. Immigration is presently not subject to judicial review, as such, those under accusation of being illegal immigrants pending the acquirement of documents proving such status are not afforded representation or indeed in many cases even the opportunity to contact people who may be able to bring said documents or contract said representation (assuming one could afford it, which is a whole other issue), and as such are exposed to the whims of enforcement and administrative officers all with absolutely no legal recourse or review to the process.As such, I will not in any form support the exposure of more people to a flawed enforcement system untill such system is made subject to review by the judiciary and provides the same equal rights as before any other enforcement arm of the government, which includes right to counsel, right to visitation, and right to aid in your own defense along with presumption of innocence.

[Nort Eurasia]

Now what we need to do is support legislation that will help the local "Neighborhood Watch" to report any foreign invaders.

Foreign invaders, of course, being anyone who looks vaguely Hispanic or Arabic.

Racial Profiling lulz

[Gift-of-god]

what did I say to indicate Racial profiling?

actions of the person they are talking to "IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES". you pull a van over for speeding. inside you got a group of 10 people, three speak with a heavy accent but understands the officer, four don't speak English (one responds to the officer's English questions the other three has to have their friend translate the question to them) and 3 speak perfect English.

Which one(s) have the higher percentage to being illegal?

My mistake. You seem to be basing it on language rather than race. However, I wonder why you think that speaking a different language is indicative of being an illegal alien.

[Gift-of-god]

Racial profiling, can be of help, how many white illeagals are there?

Racial profiling is also unconstitutional, due to the whole racism thing.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

This is exactly what the law does... Reasonable Suspicion is a defined legal standard in the U.S. Any discussion of it being a "racist" phrase is just another instance of the left lying to get their way.

And the grounds for reasonable suspicion, for this law, are appearing to be Latino.
...
Spanish has been continuously spoken in Arizona for longer than English has. So, people speaking with a Hispanic accent would be speaking in a local accent. But let's face it, Hispanophones would be asked for proof of citizenship.

Other than the hype from the pro-immigration groups, what part of the law targets Hispanics? A third of all Arizonans are Hispanic, so I'd say any claim of reasonable suspicion based on appearance or language would be disregarded, especially since reasonable suspicion is a defined legal standard that requires a criminal act.

[Muravyets]

Sigh. This is an example of too much information. Or perhaps too much editing.

Your first version of this was reasonable - you claimed to be attacking my arguments, and I was willing to countenance that possibility. In that case, your inference would simply have been a by-blow, unintended.
But to deny the inference? This merely shows your unwillingness to accept what you yourself have done. In this case, I have no choicebut to consider it plainly untruthful.

Yeah, denying the inference. If I want to call you a racist, I'll do so, flat out with no gray areas. Nothing to infer. If I say that your argument is supporting racism and that if people don't like being connected to racism, they should avoid supporting racist laws, then that's what I mean. Again, no gray areas. Just what I said. Period.