Arizona immigration law

[John200]

Why are these people playing the race card over this?

The law is the law.

If you don't legally belong in the country you need to leave.

If you do you have nothing to worry about.

Oh Heaven forbid we ruin your day by asking for your proof of citizenship after you commit a crime.

Let those idiots protest.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The law is way out of line. The cops get to stop anyone they want for whatever reason they want and demand proof of citizenship. Ihre Papiern, bitte?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Why are these people playing the race card over this?

Perhaps because the law itself is racially motivated.

The law is the law.

That is a poor justification for anything. An unjust law is an unjust law.

If you don't legally belong in the country you need to leave.

Not disputing that.

If you do you have nothing to worry about.

Unless you "look Mexican" and don't happen to have your ID on you when you go for a stroll. Then, the cops can stop you, hassle you for ID, and arrest you for being unable to prove you have a legal right to be here.

That, my friend, is unadulterated bullshit, and not how things should be done in America.

Oh Heaven forbid we ruin your day by asking for your proof of citizenship after you commit a crime.

You don't have to have committed a crime. The law gives police the ability to stop anyone, at any time, with or without cause, with or without a warrant, to request their ID.

Let those idiots protest.

They will. And get this law overturned.

 

[Adm_Hawthorne]

I'm half-Hispanic. During the summer when I have a tan, I look Hispanic. It terrifies me to think that I could go visit my friend in Arizona, walk out of his home to get the paper, be stopped by a cop, and get thrown in jail (or worse) because I can't prove I was born here because my wallet is in the house.

I get what they're trying to do. Illegal immigration is a strain on so many things for a state, but this isn't the way to do it.

In fact, this is pretty much what the Nazis were doing during WWII. What does it say for any state in the Union that they are expecting people to carry papers at all times? That's not how we should be running things.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Is there a legal requirement for the average person to show ID to a cop who asks for one? (Not if you're driving, just walking)

 

[Adm_Hawthorne]

Is there a legal requirement for the average person to show ID to a cop who asks for one? (Not if you're driving, just walking)

I think that would be on a state-by-state basis. In Texas, we are expected to show ID, and, if we don't, we can be marked up for impeding an investigation or some such BS depending on the situation.

Obviously, I live in Texas, so I'm completely unfamiliar with Arizona law. However, we do have a habit of following in the footsteps of our neighbors on these kinds of issues. So, I'm keeping my eye on this to see how it ends.

 

[1001001]

Why are these people playing the race card over this?

Perhaps because the law itself is racially motivated.

The law is the law.

That is a poor justification for anything. An unjust law is an unjust law.



Not disputing that.



Unless you "look Mexican" and don't happen to have your ID on you when you go for a stroll. Then, the cops can stop you, hassle you for ID, and arrest you for being unable to prove you have a legal right to be here.

That, my friend, is unadulterated bullshit, and not how things should be done in America.

Oh Heaven forbid we ruin your day by asking for your proof of citizenship after you commit a crime.

You don't have to have committed a crime. The law gives police the ability to stop anyone, at any time, with or without cause, with or without a warrant, to request their ID.

Let those idiots protest.

They will. And get this law overturned.

This.

 

[John Picard]

Is there a legal requirement for the average person to show ID to a cop who asks for one? (Not if you're driving, just walking)

http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

 

[Adm_Hawthorne]

Is there a legal requirement for the average person to show ID to a cop who asks for one? (Not if you're driving, just walking)

http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

But, isn't that the Supreme Court for Nevada only? I mean, that wouldn't necessarily apply to Arizona, would it? (I realize I'm showing my political ignorance here.)

 

[John Picard]

Is there a legal requirement for the average person to show ID to a cop who asks for one? (Not if you're driving, just walking)

http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

But, isn't that the Supreme Court for Nevada only? I mean, that wouldn't necessarily apply to Arizona, would it? (I realize I'm showing my political ignorance here.)

Click on the link, but yes, it is the US Supreme Court upholding the Constitutionality of a State law.

 

[Adm_Hawthorne]

In that case, I'm going to just super glue my driver's license to my chest so I never leave home without it.

 

[John200]

Why do people worry about getting kicked out of a country that they are legally a part of?

Not going to happen people.

I need to produce my id if a cop says so ,why are they different?

If your illegal you shouldn't be entitled to anything.

And I've heard what the law entails ,and they just can't hassle you for no reason.

From what I hear Arizona needs to do something about this being a border state.

And Mexico is not known for having the nicest people.

It is a fucked up place bottom line.

*waiting for the racist chants*

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Why do people worry about getting kicked out of a country that they are legally a part of?

People are worried about being hassled by police despite being legal residents (even citizens) of this country. That's a perfectly valid complaint.

Not going to happen people.

No one said it would.

I need to produce my id if a cop says so ,why are they different?

I would not make such a blanket statement. Do you really think it's okay for a cop to randomly stop you and demand to see your ID, under threat of arrest?

If your illegal you shouldn't be entitled to anything.

Once again, a red herring. No one said anything about protecting illegal immigrants. My foremost concern is legal residents and citizens of the US being hassled by the police under a regimen of racial profiling, which was not prohibited by this law.

And I've heard what the law entails ,and they just can't hassle you for no reason.

Actually, they can. Show me a cop that can't trump up a reason, no matter how thin, to "justify" it.

From what I hear Arizona needs to do something about this being a border state.

States have no jurisdiction to enforce federal immigration laws. It's also no excuse to allow harassment of lawful residents.

And Mexico is not known for having the nicest people.

What does this have to do with anything?

It is a fucked up place bottom line.

Or this?

*waiting for the racist chants*

I don't think you're a racist, just that you completely misunderstand why people are opposed to this law.

 

[John200]

That is a poor justification for anything. An unjust law is an unjust law.

I was talking about being in a country illegally when I said that.

Or do you think that is an unjust law?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

That is a poor justification for anything. An unjust law is an unjust law.

I was talking about being in a country illegally when I said that.

Or do you think that is an unjust law?

You were not specific enough. It is unjust to attempt to address a criminal activity (illegal immigration) by violating the rights of citizens (demanding ID with no pretext whatsoever, under threat of arrest).

For that matter, immigration without documentation isn't even illegal under Arizona law, it's illegal under federal law, and the federal government has never held that states must enforce immigration law, or even that they are permitted to.

 

[Gertch]

Perhaps because the law itself is racially motivated.

How?

Unless you "look Mexican" and don't happen to have your ID on you when you go for a stroll. Then, the cops can stop you, hassle you for ID, and arrest you for being unable to prove you have a legal right to be here.

The law requires individuals over the age of 18 to carry their "registration" documents with them at all times. INA Section 264(e) reads
"(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."

Must be another bad law.

That, my friend, is unadulterated bullshit, and not how things should be done in America.

That can be said for a lot of things going on right now.

You don't have to have committed a crime. The law gives police the ability to stop anyone, at any time, with or without cause, with or without a warrant, to request their ID.

DING DING DING wrong answer

Contrary to the hysterical charges of racism being leveled at the statute, it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance.

Numerous places to find this info if you care to look for yourself. http://is.gd/bNgKG

From some news stories it looks like more states are looking into doing this. Except Mass of course. The loony Progressives in our legislature shot down a measure to require proof of legality before getting public assistance. So the plunder continues. But we're working on it, we're working on it.

 

[John Picard]

That is a poor justification for anything. An unjust law is an unjust law.

I was talking about being in a country illegally when I said that.

Or do you think that is an unjust law?

You were not specific enough. It is unjust to attempt to address a criminal activity (illegal immigration) by violating the rights of citizens (demanding ID with no pretext whatsoever, under threat of arrest).

For that matter, immigration without documentation isn't even illegal under Arizona law, it's illegal under federal law, and the federal government has never held that states must enforce immigration law, or even that they are permitted to.

Long story short, without addressing some of what I believe you're poorly misguided on, Robert, is that the States are sick of the Federal Government *NOT* securing the border and *NOT* arresting illegals. So, they (the States) pass a law that garners attention that neither a Senator nor Representative wants during an election year.

Harry Reid was all set to bury Immigration Reform but has had to change gears because, as the citizens see it, the Federal Government has failed in its #1 responsibility, which is protecting the citizenry. It's easy for people thousands of miles away to say there aren't any problems at the border, and anyone who believes that is a damned fool.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Perhaps because the law itself is racially motivated.

How?

There are two angles to the problem of illegal immigration: the immigrants themselves, and the businesses that employ them.

Curiously enough, we primarily seem to target illegal immigrants--who usually don't speak English, aren't white, are poor, and have virtually no legal resources. And yet, we seem to give the businesses that employ them a pass. Where's the push for hefty fines, thorough investigations, revocation of charters? The perception seems to be that it's the Mexicans who are the problem, while the employers who give them a reason to be here fly under the radar.

So, yeah, what other conclusion am I to draw?

Contrary to the hysterical charges of racism being leveled at the statute, it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance.

Numerous places to find this info if you care to look for yourself. http://is.gd/bNgKG

Thank you for the link. The information I had was wrong so I retract what I said about police hassling you for "no reason."

From some news stories it looks like more states are looking into doing this. Except Mass of course. The loony Progressives in our legislature shot down a measure to require proof of legality before getting public assistance. So the plunder continues. But we're working on it, we're working on it.

Calling it "plunder" is certainly hyperbole. The plunderers would be the businesses that exploit these people to pad their bottom line.

I was talking about being in a country illegally when I said that.

Or do you think that is an unjust law?

You were not specific enough. It is unjust to attempt to address a criminal activity (illegal immigration) by violating the rights of citizens (demanding ID with no pretext whatsoever, under threat of arrest).

For that matter, immigration without documentation isn't even illegal under Arizona law, it's illegal under federal law, and the federal government has never held that states must enforce immigration law, or even that they are permitted to.

Long story short, without addressing some of what I believe you're poorly misguided on, Robert, is that the States are sick of the Federal Government *NOT* securing the border and *NOT* arresting illegals. So, they (the States) pass a law that garners attention that neither a Senator nor Representative wants during an election year.

I don't think passing an unconstitutional (in terms of jurisdiction) law is the right way to go about this, but I hope it does draw more attention to the issue.

Harry Reid was all set to bury Immigration Reform but has had to change gears because, as the citizens see it, the Federal Government has failed in its #1 responsibility, which is protecting the citizenry. It's easy for people thousands of miles away to say there aren't any problems at the border, and anyone who believes that is a damned fool.

You say that as if there are no illegal immigrants elsewhere. There are over a million in the greater NYC area, and even when I lived in Indiana, I knew of quite a few illegal immigrants. They're everywhere, not just at the borders, so to act like no one north of Texas knows anything about the situation is ridiculous.

It does seem that some of the things I had read about this law were untrue, and for that I apologize. I still don't think it's a good idea and doubt that it's Constitutional, however I do agree that illegal immigration is a real problem we need to address. But part of addressing it is also disincentivizing employers from hiring illegals--make the fines so high and the enforcement so strict it's just not worth it. With no jobs, the illegals will go home, because there will be no work. Our recent recession has already borne that out, with a number of immigrants going home for lack of work here.

 

[John Picard]

I shake my head at the idiots who protest giving workers seasonal work visas. Mexicans have historically (meaning as far back as the 1920's) crossed the border to work farms and then return home. Reagan wanted to do this and the Democrats screamed bloody murder. What did we get? Blanket amnesty. Yeah, that solves the problem.

Bush #43 tried the work visa idea again, and guess who screamed bloody murder about it? Believe it or not, these people only want to work and return home, they don't want to live here. I know, because I've talked with LEGAL immigrants who were here to attend school, one of whom was looking forward to her return to Mexico where she planned to work as an English teacher. She explained that if the people there had money, which is Mexico is held up by the upper class, then they could make it a better place. The money those people send back is used to buy things which *TADA* benefit American companies.

I also shake my head at the ignorance of people when they bitch that the immigrants are "sending US Dollars out of the country". Guess what? That money eventually comes back. Try learning something instead of playing your fantasy football bullshit and filling out your stupid March Madness brackets.

 

[Gertch]

There are two angles to the problem of illegal immigration: the immigrants themselves, and the businesses that employ them.

Curiously enough, we primarily seem to target illegal immigrants--who usually don't speak English, aren't white, are poor, and have virtually no legal resources. And yet, we seem to give the businesses that employ them a pass. Where's the push for hefty fines, thorough investigations, revocation of charters? The perception seems to be that it's the Mexicans who are the problem, while the employers who give them a reason to be here fly under the radar.

So, yeah, what other conclusion am I to draw?

I can certainly agree both need to be dealt with. Businesses are fined but very infrequently. The fines need to be heavy and repeat offenders even shut down.

Being from Mass I hear of illegals from every corner of the globe so I don't equate Hispanic with illegal aliens. I can see where those in Arizona might because of their proximity to the border.

Calling it "plunder" is certainly hyperbole. The plunderers would be the businesses that exploit these people to pad their bottom line.

Perhaps. But that is what these give-a-way programs are doing. Plus having just read The Law by Frederic Bastiat that word is in the front of my mind.