Arizona Immigration law

[Viva_La_Migra]

Arizona has taken a big step towards forcing the federal government to do something about illegal immigration. The question is, what will the administration do once the locals start enforcing the law? Will they turn away the police officers who try to turn over the people they arrest for being in Arizona illegally? Hope Sheriff Arpaio orders some more tents!:o

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/arizona-governor-signs-controversial-immigration/

[grandma]

Arizona has taken a big step towards forcing the federal government to do something about illegal immigration. The question is, what will the administration do once the locals start enforcing the law? Will they turn away the police officers who try to turn over the people they arrest for being in Arizona illegally? Hope Sheriff Arpaio orders some more tents!:o

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/arizona-governor-signs-controversial-immigration/

From the above link:


Hundreds of protesters gathered at the State Capitol complex Friday calling on Brewer to veto the legislation.
Demonstrators have been camped outside the Capitol since the measure passed out of the Legislature on Monday. Their numbers have grown steadily throughout the week, with buses
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/arizona-governor-signs-controversial-immigration/#) bringing protesters from as far away as Los Angeles.
About a dozen supporters of the measure also gathered.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I am real curious as to the deportment of the protesters,and how the Big 3 media will project them in the cameras & newsprint.
I am also curious as to who is paying their way; that can't be an inexpensive undertaking: busses from out of state !!
(Even our public schools are curtailing & critiquing which bus trips are necessary!!)
Hopefully, the city will be picking up some extra cash for meals & lodgings - I would suppose they have an `entertainment/hospitality tax' same as my locality !!

[Viva_La_Migra]

This (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/23/illegal-immigrants-crammed-u-haul-truck/) is one of the things the new Arizona law is trying to stop. People die during smuggling events like this. Libs seem okay with that, as long as they get enough voters.:mad:

[Steadygain]

I am real curious as to the deportment of the protesters,and how the Big 3 media will project them in the cameras & newsprint.

Well I hope I express something that truly satisfies your curiousity because I know how things that go unanswered can kind of knawl on you Grandma ~~ and I want you to have the best weekend possible.

The Big 3 Media will do their best to project them in such a way that they merit -- not only being deported ~ but all the more to be taken away in a way that shows the 'Authorities' are NOT laying back and letting a bunch of 'loud mouth losers' --- destroy the peace and violate the decency and integrity of the whole.

So it's good Grandma ~~ cause they'll be projected as renigade trouble makers getting what they deserve. ;)

I am also curious as to who is paying their way;
See that's the GREAT thing about women ~~ they think of so many details that most of us guys just don't take the time to really reflect on.

Ummmmmm -- the money was 'pooled' by the group before hand and all the more pushed them to stand the course.

that can't be an inexpensive undertaking: busses from out of state !!
Well look at the brightside sweet lady :D It will be like a double punishment for setting out to cause trouble.

(Even our public schools are curtailing & critiquing which bus trips are necessary!!)

Hopefully, the city will be picking up some extra cash for meals & lodgings - I would suppose they have an `entertainment/hospitality tax' same as my locality !!
All the more ~~ the intricate details that make you so wonderful.

That's the best way to look at it. Hey someone's going to reap some good out of this and they deserve whatever they get :) for providing rooms that are safe and comfortable -- providing meals that are tasty and satisfying. Maybe even some recreational activites thown in as well ~~ pool ~~ spa ~ gym.

Well I hope that helped !! Goodnight Grandma

[grandma]

The smugglers may just be going about this the wrong way. ( ..not addressing the death traps right now.) The smugglers should get a better clue of the border crossings & states that are empathetic to their goal - and then drive straight to the homes of the Celebrity's, the Politico's, even the student's, and, of course, the establishments of Higher Education; then drop the folks off how many ever at a time, keeping families together. They undoubtedly used all their savings to get a space reserved on the transport.
The originators of the trip could even have provided well prepared papers showing that the Citizens-of-another-country have been specifically invited by whom ever's place they are going to get off the bus at.
This certainly would protect the travelers; they would not have to go into hiding & try to find food, or worse, get tied up with a Gang or Pimps.
One or another of you, I'm sure, could write this up better so it reads as a plan. If you do it well enough, there is always the possibility of getting a Government Grant to fund the maps to the specific homes and the arranging of `those special papers' needed for entry into the estates scattered across the country. Some of them are only seasonal homes, which means there would be room for more of the travelers into one home.
However, there is a warning here, that that would be an injustice to the other good souls who are inviting them!! Each is entitled to the guest they have invited and not be deprived by the homes between them and the border.........
:)

[PessOptimist]

Here is a local news link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-bill-protesters-abrk.html

Awww, dont you guys know that everyone here in AZ is a racist bigot? Those supporters with hispanic sounding names are all plants or Tio Taco's. Any news of never ending lines of people trashing property near the border, running shootouts on I-10, drive by shootings at drop houses, property owners being threatened or shot/shot at are fabrications by the vast right wing conspiracy and faux news. Listen to what my congressional representative, Raul Grijalva, is saying. We are bad people, we just hate, hate, hate.

VLM, turn in your badge and resign. Change you name to Viva el Mujado.

Grandma, those people just happened to take a free bus to Phoenix. It was a coincidence. You are way too susspicious.

[Show-me]

Here is a local news link: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-bill-protesters-abrk.html

Awww, dont you guys know that everyone here in AZ is a racist bigot? Those supporters with hispanic sounding names are all plants or Tio Taco's. Any news of never ending lines of people trashing property near the border, running shootouts on I-10, drive by shootings at drop houses, property owners being threatened or shot/shot at are fabrications by the vast right wing conspiracy and faux news. Listen to what my congressional representative, Raul Grijalva, is saying. We are bad people, we just hate, hate, hate.

VLM, turn in your badge and resign. Change you name to Viva el Mujado.

Grandma, those people just happened to take a free bus to Phoenix. It was a coincidence. You are way too susspicious.


Rodriguez said he expected a lot of illegal immigrants to leave the state, but he didn't expect to move. "I'll just keep going on as normal," Rodriquez said. "I don't want to be afraid."


I guess the bill is working for Arizona.

[grandma]

Grandma, those people just happened to take a free bus to Phoenix. It was a coincidence. You are way too susspicious.

Golly! I wish we had free buses out here just as part of our local transportation system! Even just one, even just part of any one route!

Gas free, all service stations checked in at free, driver free!!
I don't know if there are toll roads on that route, but if so, that free bus would just run right past that Toll Booth as tho it had a `Toll Freeway' sticker on the windshield!

So free, that there is no indebtedness by one single person, nor group, to
any `untowardly' minded someone else, or group !!

Except that since the bus isn't owned by anyone, that would make it a likely easy target for stealing......
- now, with the bus disappeared, how those protesters gonna get back home to the state they left for the purpose of Agitating??? -

[PessOptimist]

Looks like a protest here in Phoenix

9108

9109

Must be teapartiers as there are Nazi symbols. Maybe it's just good ol citizens of the USA.

9110

9111

Maybe not

9112

Why, it's immigration law protesters.

This law would never have been introduced if the feds would enforce the laws on the books.

[James48843]

9113

[James48843]

Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling

PHOENIX – A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed.

He tells 3TV, “I don't think it's correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.”

3TV caught up with Abdon after he was released from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in central Phoenix. He and his wife, Jackie, are still upset about what happened to him.

Jackie tells 3TV, “It's still something awful to be targeted. I can't even imagine what he felt, people watching like he was some type of criminal.”

Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate.
Jackie explains, “I have his social security card as well and mine. He's legit. It's the first time it's ever happened.”

Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option.

http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

[James48843]

Your papers, please.

9114






Where is your card?
9115







Arizona - Is this what we have become?

9116

[James48843]

knv6nDZX1mc

[Show-me]

Lookie who is throwing around the Nazi Swastika's and inciting sedition.:worried:

They look violent and may hurt us or our property.

[grandma]

I am sorry this young man was treated as an illegal, even with the type of documents other US citizen truckers would normally carry. Hopefully, that couple will join the fight, then, to keep the trucker smugglers out of the country, to keep the drug runners out, and to be involved in educating their community of fellow citizens about responsibility toward the laws of this country.
My impression of the country of Mexico has long been one of lawlessness & toleration of it. Coming into the USA for safety would give one the impression of wanting to be law abiding. The long list of peoples from several nations waiting to be accepted legally shows there are those who Really do desire to be a total part of our communities.
Why would they, then, blame the law officials for the actions & behavior of the illegal alien from their former country? Why aren't they refusing aid to those who would crowd to the front of the line, who would give the hard-workers (ex: the truckers) a very bad name & be suspected of participating in illegal activities somewhere along the line?
This law that is being criminalized by the media - is it not mostly already on the books? Isn't this what I've been reading here on 'talk, that why was the state making a law where there was already a federal law? Obviously, because now the lawmen of that state feel they have some `down-home' backing and can enforce it; not be another Border Patrol employee who gets the shaft by his Federal Superiors.
Again, I am sorry that this trucker had such an experience. And I regret the over-zealousness of the tenders of the weight station. I also regret the deaths of Border Patrol men, the death of the Texas rancher who was a gentle quiet man, not even protecting his own land from the destruction caused by those trampling his land. I regret that teachers in the small schools along the border fear for their lives & those of the students because of threats received from the worst of those entering the US illegally.
And, I also regret that, seemingly, the legal citizens of this USA who are of a south of our border heritage don't feel gratitude toward God that they were born here, or that they made it through the long wait line for legal entry, whether they have completed the citizenry classes/testing yet or not. I think my greatest sadness, thought, comes from a seemingly fact, they still consider themselves as a `they', that they, seemingly, have not
joined together to counter the illegal impression, to separate themselves from those who flaunt the law. And lastly, what a great impression on the children, the youth, if these would stand For the law....the law in place when the illegals invaded.
P.S. Anyone of us could have been born in Romania, in China, in Russia; but God placed us here. For that I am grateful.

[Warrenlm]

Why do so many hispanic heritage individuals carry Mexican flags in these protests? Did the Irish carry flags of Ireland? Did the Norwegian immigrants carry flags of Norway?

[Buster]

v8PgndZ51B4

[nnuut]

Illegal immigration is a big problem all over the world, agreeably it is difficult to enforce the law of the land without CHECKING PEOPLES STATUS. If some of you have a better way of controlling this invasion of our country I'm sure any suggestions would be seriously considered, how else? Racial Profiling for Christ sake who are we looking for in Arizona illegal immigrants from Germany? I wish I knew the answer.:cool:

[Buster]

Illegal immigration is a big problem all over the world, for Christ sake who are we looking for in Arizona illegal immigrants from Germany? I wish I knew the answer.:cool:

No, that then would be Nazism:D

[nnuut]

Spanish parliament approves controversial immigration law
Spain's lower house of parliament has approved a controversial law that allows illegal immigrants to be held in detention centres for 60 days before being deported.

http://www.expatica.com/es/news/spanish-news/Spanish-parliament-approves-controversial-immigration-law_57691.html

Excerpt:
As for regulation of entry and residence, the LOE (and the follow-up post-1986 regulation) introduced the requirements of an entry visa as well as residence and work permits. This meant that the entry of foreigners was now subject to regulation (basically at border posts) while their access to the labour market was conditioned by the country’s economic conditions. Furthermore, the situation of foreigners in Spain was restricted by short-residence permits and the non-recognition of the right of family regrouping. While legal migrants had some of their rights restricted and others recognised, illegal migrants were given the bottom-line treatment of detention and expulsion. As a lawyer interviewed by Suárez Navaz (1997: 7) observed at the time, ‘[…] those immigrants [illegal immigrants] do not have a single right in Spain. The law anticipates any circumstance. Basically, the message is that if you are “illegal”, the state has only one responsibility: to deport you.'
Nonetheless, the tightening on the conditions of legality and illegality had its limits in Spain. These limits were imposed, initially, by rule of law and, more specifically, by the courts. The dubious constitutionality of the LOE gave rise to complaints being filed by early immigrants’ associations, different NGOs and Lawyers’ Colleges. They asked the ombudsman to intervene by lodging an appeal based on the unconstitutionality of the articles that affected the right of meeting and association, the internment prior to deportation and the legal prohibition against judges suspending the expulsion orders. As Aja (2006: 23) points out, the ensuing Constitutional Court (1987) ruling meant not only the suppression of these clauses but also the start of a progressive recognition of rights that the Constitution appeared to reserve exclusively for Spaniards. [more]
http://www.migrationeducation.org/48.0.html

[nnuut]

Mexico!:worried:

Mexico's immigration laws what is your reaction?
Recently Mexican President Calderon has been very outspoken, critical on U.S. Immigration law enforcement efforts and supports Amnesty for all illegal aliens from Mexico residing, working in this nation.

Contrary to popular belief, Mexico has very strict immigration laws which are enforced by every police agency in the country. The Bureau of Immigration can call upon any law enforcement officer to assist in their mission. Citizens from the United States traveling in Mexico without proper documents, work permits or non immigrant visas are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

The laws regarding foreign national visitors, immigrants, non-citizens are as clear and concise in Mexico as are our own U.S. laws which are considered unenforceable by many politicians in Washington, D.C.

* Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion (General Law on Population) in Spanish dated Abril 14 de 2000 Capitulo Quinto --Migracion Seccion 1

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress."

Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy."

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest."

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity.

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number.
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be Imprisoned. Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.

Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different is subject to fine and imprisonment.

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as Felons. Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison . Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population States…

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080304125357AAAIvdh

[Frixxxx]

I travel a lot and out of the country is where I go. Guess what, I take proper identification and I am asked for my "papers" all the time. I have been stopped on the streets in Mexico (Puerto Vallarta) and asked for my passport by a policeman. Annoying? yes. Legal? yes.:suspicious:

I do things "legally". It seems that this is accepted worldwide. In Europe, you actually surrender your passport in certain situations so that the country "knows" where you are and what you are doing".

Now, in America, it was determined that this could be done at just our ports of entry. Years have gone by and now that is no longer the case. So, to sum up US Code Title 8 Chapter 1 covers all the immigration knowledge you need.

Please, help Arizona, and all the other states enforce the laws that our Federal Government has forgotten!:suspicious:

[Warrenlm]

Now THAT thought is simply NOT PC! :) We have passed the tipping point.

Related:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Obama_seeks_to_reconnectyoung_people_AfricanAmerin s_Latinos_and_women_for_2010.html?showall

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

[Frixxxx]

Now THAT thought is simply NOT PC! :) We have passed the tipping point.
What are you referring to here?

[James48843]

Here is what I don't agree with:

I don't agree that any government authority can stop a U.S. citizen at will, demand identification papers, and then arrest or detain someone for not having the right papers on them.

That, my friends, is what the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment is all about.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

First of all, if there is no probable cause, then stopping is unconstitutional. A U.S. citizen has the right of free travel within and across state borders in this country. This ISN'T Mexico, or any other nation. This is the United States of America.

Yes, I believe in border security. If you really want border security in this country, then you better be prepared to pay for it, because it isn't going to happen with just 18,000 border patrol people.


9119


We have boosted the number of Border Patrol agents over the last decade, but that still is a drop in the bucket compared to what it would take to actually seal the border. So either get serious about closing the border, or stop complaining. I hazard to guess that those who want closed borders are also the same folks who complain a great deal about government spending as well. If we can maintain 545,000 U.S. Army soldiers, then we can, and should, maintain an adequate U.S. Border Patrol. But we aren't even close to that -adequate- now.



That said, those who are here already- you are not going to round them all up and deport them. It just isn't going to happen. Not the 12, or 15 million of them, depending on who is doing the counting. And many of those have ties which complicate the picture- illegal parents with U.S. born children. Are you going to boot mom and dad out, and let junior stay?


This is why comprehensive immegration reform is needed now.

They almost had a deal in the last Congress, before some went bananas over the possibility that we are going to let those 12/15 million stay. There really isn't choice- they ARE going to stay, at least a great number of them. So we need to have a way to make the eligible to become American Citizens, and we need to figure out how to expend the resources necessary to close and secure the border, if that is what you wish to do.


And will it just be the Mexican Border? Or also the Canadian Border? Because the Canadian Border is a lot longer, and a lot more difficult to secure than the Mexican border is.

Either you have to be prepared to spend the money it actually is going to take to secure the borders, or you're not. I'm talking big bucks when I say that. I don't know how many people it will take to do that. Obviously, with 18,000 agents now, there are still people getting in. So what will be the number of people it takes? 50,000? 500,000? Unless you are serious about hiring and maintaining a sufficient number to guard the border, then it really doesn't do any good to complain. If you ARE prepared to make that kind of deal, then you have to do it in a way that protects the rights of U.S. citizens-- no U.S. Citizen should be arrested or detained and made to prove his right to be here. THAT is what is in our Constitution. Arizona's law may very well imfringe upon that. The courts will decide.

Close the border? Are you ready to make that investment?


You decide.


GPO report on challenges to training and deploying the U.S. Border Patrol:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07997t.pdf

[72Zorad]

The interesting thing is when you're traveling in another country and they stop you and ask for your papers you don't say, "Hey, wait a minute! What did you stop me for? You don't have probably cause!"

You just show them your documents and give a sigh of relief when they move on.

Could be the Uzi's they carry <shrug>

[nnuut]

Here is what I don't agree with:

I don't agree that any government authority can stop a U.S. citizen at will, demand identification papers, and then arrest or detain someone for not having the right papers on them.

That, my friends, is what the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment is all about.



http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07997t.pdf


I agree with that, but everyone crossing the borders, applying for a job, sneaking over the fence, swimming across the Colorado River, everyone arrested or charged in violation of the law should have to IDENTIFY their self and prove their citizenship it's that simple, this is way too big of a problem to just do nothing! I'll Carry my birth certificate and my WIFE will carry her GREEN CARD like she is supposed to do NOW, by law!! :cool:

[fedgolfer]

I'm sure the big business that employ illegals in Arizona, just went all-Democrat on the mid-term election.

Commercial ag, factories, low-income based retail (WMT)... love the illegals and bank on 'em. Also considered the un-spoken growth sector in this economy.

I don't like 'em freeloading... just saying the big boyz don't agree with Arizona voters.

[Frixxxx]

That, my friends, is what the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment is all about.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Verification of citizenship seems reasonable to me. If we did that, then maybe the ILLEGAL Aliens might think twice before coming here, not be a burden on our health care, not milk welfare when they have kids here, and ensure that the US Constitution is adhered to in totality.

Amazing you throw out the 4th ammendment and DEMAND that it be followed, but when it comes to the 10th Ammendment, feel free to walk over that one making states pay for something their citizens didn't vote for?

One or the other James. For or against the Constitution? You can't pick and choose the parts for your liking.

[Show-me]

I'm sure the big business that employ illegals in Arizona, just went all-Democrat on the mid-term election.

Commercial ag, factories, low-income based retail (WMT)... love the illegals and bank on 'em. Also considered the un-spoken growth sector in this economy.

I don't like 'em freeloading... just saying the big boyz don't agree with Arizona voters.

Some the big bus. are gaming the Dem. Party.

[James48843]

The interesting thing is when you're traveling in another country and they stop you and ask for your papers you don't say, "Hey, wait a minute! What did you stop me for? You don't have probably cause!"

You just show them your documents and give a sigh of relief when they move on.

Could be the Uzi's they carry <shrug>

Other countries don't have the U.S. Constitution.

When we are there- we have to obey their laws.

When we are here, we should be able to exercise the rights given us in ours.

[James48843]

I agree with that, but everyone crossing the borders, applying for a job, sneaking over the fence, swimming across the Colorado River, everyone arrested or charged in violation of the law should have to IDENTIFY their self and prove their citizenship it's that simple, this is way to big of a problem to just do nothing! I'll Carry my birth certificate and my WIFE will carry her GREEN CARD like she is supposed to do NOW, by law!! :cool:

I agree- if you catch them in the act of crossing. In that case, what you really want to do, is create a zone in which anyone trespassing is subject to asking that question. But that would entail the government buying enough land to make such a zone. (or eminment domain to aquire it- still- requiring large expendatures to make such a purchase thru eminent domaine ).

Once you are outside of that zone, however, rights to freedom from stopping and asking, without probable cause, should prevail.

[fedgolfer]

Some the big bus. are gaming the Dem. Party.

That's an understatement... they've been gaming both sides since the 1800's.

[James48843]

Commercial ag, factories, low-income based retail (WMT)... love the illegals and bank on 'em. Also considered the un-spoken growth sector in this economy. .

Already illegal, and subject the employers to penalties if they do. That's what the law requiring verification by employers was all about. This is where you have real clout- IF that system is used properly- to verify employability.

Enforce that one, and you have a large part of the issue solved.

[fedgolfer]

Already illegal, and subject the employers to penalties if they do. That's what the law requiring verification by employers was all about. This is where you have real clout- IF that system is used properly- to verify employability.

Enforce that one, and you have a large part of the issue solved.

Exactly, I agree. But will they truly enforce. AZ, maybe. The rest of the country... no chance in the foreseable future.

[James48843]

Amazing you throw out the 4th ammendment and DEMAND that it be followed, but when it comes to the 10th Ammendment, feel free to walk over that one making states pay for something their citizens didn't vote for?

One or the other James. For or against the Constitution? You can't pick and choose the parts for your liking.

I'm for all of it.

If you think the 10th is violated by something, by all means, use the existing legal process set up by the Constitution to validate or invalidate the Constitutionality of the law. That would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which has already ruled in cases about stopping a person and demanding I.D.- it's called the Terry Stop rule. (Terry Vs. Ohio), and also is cited in Beck Vs. Ohio. You can't just stop someone, and detain them, without probable cause that a crime has been committed. 4th Amendment is pretty clear on that one. The Arizona case above- where a U.S. Citizen was detained, and had to get their wife to bring a birth certificate to come down to the ICE Station, is flat out a violation of the citizen's rights. We need to do better than that, and the new Arizona law is in the opposite direction. The Arizona law is ripe for getting thrown out on 4th Amendment grounds.


We'll have to see what falls out of the new Arizona law- but something tells me it's going to face a lot of challenges.

[FAB1]

Have know fear. Chicago Al is on way to AZ. He is going to start rioting in the streets, wants to earn his pink underwear at sherrif joes. lol

[XL-entLady]

This (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/23/illegal-immigrants-crammed-u-haul-truck/) is one of the things the new Arizona law is trying to stop. People die during smuggling events like this. Libs seem okay with that, as long as they get enough voters.:mad:
I'm a Lib (big shock to you, huh) and I support La Migra's mission and activities. Coyotes are the villians here, not the immigrants or the Liberals.

People who have such a problem with Mexican immigrants need to remember that without them the orchards and fields don't get picked, the homes don't get built, the hotel rooms don't get cleaned, and so on. We've got to figure out a way to get these important things done by legal immigrants, stop the people who are hiring illegals now, stop the coyote slave trade.

This is a much more complex problem than just building a Berlin Wall across Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

[Frixxxx]

I'm for all of it. If you think the 10th is violated by something, by all means, use the existing legal process set up by the Constitution to validate or invalidate the Constitutionality of the law. That would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Really James, your ignorance on that is astounding. You never really addressed it with the health care issue and now you will claim ignorance again. Apparently you are only interested in agenda building, rather than following the laws. Terry Stop law was for weapons searching after an alleged crime had been commited. The law allowed this "limited" search to ensure public safety and the safety of the officer.

How do you propose to rid the American society of people who are here illegally? How James? How can you do it legally? I'll look back in for your repsonse.

[James48843]

People who have such a problem with Mexican immigrants need to remember that without them the orchards and fields don't get picked, the homes don't get built, the hotel rooms don't get cleaned, and so on..


I have to disagree with you on that one Lady.

We don't need them to build our homes, pick our orchards and fields, or clean hotel rooms. There are many unemployed U.S. citizens who can and will do those jobs. It might not be done so cheap- but now we're talking what the VALUE of that work is to our society. Economics has a way of making the value paid to the wages earned. If only U.S. Citizens perform those tasks, it may cost a little bit more- but there will be no shortage of workers to do the job. Anyone will work- for the right price. Illegal aliens only depress labor market wages.

Enforce the law regarding who can work, and we'll solve two problems- illegal immigration, and unemployment of citizens.

[James48843]

How do you propose to rid the American society of people who are here illegally? How James? How can you do it legally? I'll look back in for your repsonse.

The way that is it going to be done.

By not having them be illegal anymore. You can't have mass deportations. It's not workable.

Giving them a "path to citizenship", as President Bush once proposed, and as this Congress is going to have to approve:

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/bush_rejects_mass_deportation_of_illegal_aliens/

[FAB1]

Why do so many hispanic heritage individuals carry Mexican flags in these protests? Did the Irish carry flags of Ireland? Did the Norwegian immigrants carry flags of Norway?

Maybe they are part of an invasion on the usa? Santa Anna got his @ss whooped. Get over it Mexico.

[XL-entLady]

I have to disagree with you on that one Lady.

We don't need them to build our homes, pick our orchards and fields, or clean hotel rooms. There are many unemployed U.S. citizens who can and will do those jobs. It might not be done so cheap- but now we're talking what the VALUE of that work is to our society. Economics has a way of making the value paid to the wages earned. If only U.S. Citizens perform those tasks, it may cost a little bit more- but there will be no shortage of workers to do the job. Anyone will work- for the right price. Illegal aliens only depress labor market wages.

Enforce the law regarding who can work, and we'll solve two problems- illegal immigration, and unemployment of citizens.
I agree. I wasn't saying that it is RIGHT. I was just saying that's the way it IS now. Illegal immigrants hold so many of those jobs that if we deported them all tomorrow (not going to happen, not workable, logistically impossible) food would rot in the fields, Holiday Inn would have dirty rooms, and the neighbor's new roof wouldn't go on.

Legal aliens doing those jobs, for minimum wage rather than all but slave labor, makes more taxpayers. That's a win, even in the Conservative's book, right? :o

[Buster]

Once upon a time ...

A beautiful fairy appeared one day to a destitute Mexican refugee outside an Arizona immigration office just inside the US border.

"Good man," the fairy said, "I've been sent here to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived in the United States with your wife and eight children."

The man told the fairy, "Well, where I come from we don't have good teeth, so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them."

The fairy looked at the man's almost toothless grin and -- PING! -- he had a brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!

"What else?" asked the fairy, "Two more to go."

The refugee claimant now got bolder. "I need a big house with a three car garage in Annapolis on the water with eight bedrooms for my family and the rest of my relatives who still live in my country. I want to bring them all over here" --- and -- PING! -- in the distance there could be seen a beautiful mansion with a three car garage, a long driveway, a walkout patio with a BBQ in an upscale neighborhood overlooking the bay.

"One more wish", said the fairy, waving her wand.

" Yes, one more wish. I want to be like an American with American clothes instead of these torn clothes, and a baseball cap instead of this sombrero. And I want to have white skin like Americans" ---and --- PING! -- The man was transformed - wearing worn out jeans, a Baltimore Orioles T-shirt and a baseball cap. He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared from the horizon.

"What happened to my new teeth?" he wailed, "Where is my new house?"

The fairy said:
"Tough sh!t, Amigo, Now that you are a White American, you have to fend for yourself."

And she disappeared

[Minnow]

I'm for all of it.

If you think the 10th is violated by something, by all means, use the existing legal process set up by the Constitution to validate or invalidate the Constitutionality of the law. That would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which has already ruled in cases about stopping a person and demanding I.D.- it's called the Terry Stop rule. (Terry Vs. Ohio), and also is cited in Beck Vs. Ohio. You can't just stop someone, and detain them, without probable cause that a crime has been committed. 4th Amendment is pretty clear on that one. The Arizona case above- where a U.S. Citizen was detained, and had to get their wife to bring a birth certificate to come down to the ICE Station, is flat out a violation of the citizen's rights. We need to do better than that, and the new Arizona law is in the opposite direction. The Arizona law is ripe for getting thrown out on 4th Amendment grounds.


We'll have to see what falls out of the new Arizona law- but something tells me it's going to face a lot of challenges.


Note the highlighted area in your post above. Terry says no such thing. Probable cause is not the standard for stops nor detention.

[nnuut]

I agree- if you catch them in the act of crossing. In that case, what you really want to do, is create a zone in which anyone trespassing is subject to asking that question. But that would entail the government buying enough land to make such a zone. (or eminment domain to aquire it- still- requiring large expendatures to make such a purchase thru eminent domaine ).

Once you are outside of that zone, however, rights to freedom from stopping and asking, without probable cause, should prevail.

Those that are not Naturalized Citizens or Permanent Residents can apply for work permits that allows them to cross the border and work and this can be for a time period based on the duration of available approved work. If we need folks to pick the strawberries and work in construction that's fine and can be done just as it is now with the exception that they have to go through the proper channels. Other countries do this but limit the kind of work that they can do based on the available work force in their country, they prohibit Illegal immigrants from working and that's it. A friend of mine from the Shetland Islands got a visa to work in the USA she was a Dental Technician over in the homeland and it happened to be one of the types of work authorized for non citizens to do in the USA, that was back in the late 1970s, what happened to that law that protected our citizens and Permanent Residents from losing their jobs to foreigners? Let's not be stupid make them all register and do this thing legally.:cool:

[72Zorad]

Other countries don't have the U.S. Constitution.

When we are there- we have to obey their laws.

When we are here, we should be able to exercise the rights given us in ours.

A very valid point. When they stop me I'm still not thinking about the laws. I'm thinking "Holy smoke, that's an Uzi's slung over his shoulder! We are definitely not in Kansas anymore."

[XL-entLady]

... If we need folks to pick the strawberries and work in construction that's fine and can be done just as it is now with the exception that they have to go through the proper channels. ...:cool:
Woohoo! You and I are on the same page on this, my friend. That's a nice feeling. :D

If we could truly figure out a workable way to do this it would cut down on crime and human misery too. Coyotes and mules are animals, especially when they're human.

[Frixxxx]

The way that is it going to be done.

By not having them be illegal anymore. You can't have mass deportations. It's not workable.

Giving them a "path to citizenship", as President Bush once proposed, and as this Congress is going to have to approve:

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/bush_rejects_mass_deportation_of_illegal_aliens/
And that was useless as well. ENFORCE the laws on the books and this will disappear. Someone sooner or later will have to be the bad guy. Might as well be this administration.

Enforce, enforce, enforce!

I think the see-saw is broken:

Path-to-citizenship vs enforce the law....pick a side.

XL-entLady: people who cross the border illegally are aliens, not immigrants. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.:cool:

[James48843]

Note the highlighted area in your post above. Terry says no such thing. Probable cause is not the standard for stops nor detention.


From the Decision in Terry vs. Ohio:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

"We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=347)(1967); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=379&invol=89#96)(1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=610)(1961), or that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=294)(1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&invol=364#367)-368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct - necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat - which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. 17 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f17)
Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the warrant procedure and the requirement of probable cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first to focus upon [392 U.S. 1, 21] the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," for there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=523#534)-535, 536-537 (1967). And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. 18 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f18)The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances.

19 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f19)And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [392 U.S. 1, 22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=267&invol=132)(1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=379&invol=89#96)-97 (1964). 20 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f20)Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e. g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=253)(1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=361&invol=98)(1959). And simple "`good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be `secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97. "


Terry is about more than just whether or not a person can be patted down. It also includes the Court's citation about having to have cause for the stop in the first place.

Good faith on the part of the office is not enough. There has to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Terry, including the citation to Beck.

[nnuut]

Right!!
And another thing, the current law about Natural Born Citizens needs to be changed by the SUPREME COURT! Currently a person born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen even if their parents are ILLEGAL, if they are born while flying over the USA, they are Natural Born Citizens. This encourages ILLEGALS (You notice I didn't call then UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS) to sneak across the border and have their children free of charge in the emergency room and their child is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, then the child's parents can legally stay in the USA do to the citizenship of their child, they can also bring the Grand Parents of the child and whoever else. Just more on welfare rolls and a terrible burden to the American People!
It right should be for Legal Residents and Citizens only and not for folks just here on a visa or work permits. Legal is the word!:cool:

[Steadygain]

Woohoo! You and I are on the same page on this, my friend. That's a nice feeling.

Well I'm glad you two are finally getting along. :p

It's a difficult subject ~~ especially for AZ; as it has to be a highly susceptable state ~~ due to its location.

So I guess it largely boils down to the bottom line of US Citizens as well as everyone else. How do we distinquish the 'Free Loaders' from the ones willing and committed to work hard and do everything possible to earn a good life and fulfill the Dream that drives them to the USA.

Maybe we could use the Immigrants in a POSITIVE way ~ and carrry that over to all Americans ( Citizens or visitors or anyone in our borders for whatever reason).

Give them the opportunity to make the most out of their lives -- and for all those who Prove their Dedication and Committment GIVE them a Green Card after a working a full year -- maintaining a solid reputation. With this Green Card let them openly expect the benefits and rights of an American Citizen.

Then maybe we can come to see people for who and what they really are ~~ not as immigrants or foreigners ~~ but as people who display the ethics and morals and committment and dedication that make our Country Strong. If they don't Deport them.

[James48843]

Right!!
And another thing, the current law about Natural Born Citizens needs to be changed by the SUPREME COURT! Currently a person born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen even if their parents are ILLEGAL, if they are born while flying over the USA, they are Natural Born Citizens. This encourages ILLEGALS (You notice I didn't call then UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS) to sneak across the border and have their children free of charge in the emergency room and their child is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, then the child's parents can legally stay in the USA do to the citizenship of their child, they can also bring the Grand Parents of the child and whoever else. Just more on welfare rolls and a terrible burden to the American People!
It right should be for Legal Residents and Citizens only and not for folks just here on a visa or work permits. Legal is the word!:cool:

It's not a law. The Supreme Court can't change that one, Nnuut- you ought to know that one.

It's in the Constitution. Only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.

14th Amendment:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....

[WorkFE]

You can't just stop someone, and detain them, without probable cause that a crime has been committed. 4th Amendment is pretty clear on that one.

I can be stopped at anytime of day, usually weekends at night, when I approach DUI enforcement road blocks which happens frequently in our tristate area. License, registration and insurance please. Of course if my passenger had no form of ID and they detained them to check their citizenship that would p!$$ me off as well.

[XL-entLady]

Lady: people who cross the border illegally are aliens, not immigrants. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.:cool:
I thought illegal aliens were little grey folks with black almond eyes who violated the open container laws while in the upper atmosphere. :nuts:

Okay, "undocumented alien" then, how's that? ;)

[WorkFE]

We don't need them to build our homes, pick our orchards and fields, or clean hotel rooms. There are many unemployed U.S. citizens who can and will do those jobs. It might not be done so cheap- but now we're talking what the VALUE of that work is to our society. Economics has a way of making the value paid to the wages earned. If only U.S. Citizens perform those tasks, it may cost a little bit more- but there will be no shortage of workers to do the job. Anyone will work- for the right price. Illegal aliens only depress labor market wages.

Enforce the law regarding who can work, and we'll solve two problems- illegal immigration, and unemployment of citizens.

+1. Take away the cheap labor market will make the job more appealing to others.

[Minnow]

From the Decision in Terry vs. Ohio:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

"We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=347)(1967); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=379&invol=89#96)(1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=610)(1961), or that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=294)(1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&invol=364#367)-368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct - necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat - which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. 17 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f17)
Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the warrant procedure and the requirement of probable cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first to focus upon [392 U.S. 1, 21] the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," for there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=523#534)-535, 536-537 (1967). And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. 18 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f18)The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances.

19 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f19)And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [392 U.S. 1, 22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=267&invol=132)(1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=379&invol=89#96)-97 (1964). 20 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1#f20)Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e. g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=253)(1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=361&invol=98)(1959). And simple "`good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be `secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97. "


Terry is about more than just whether or not a person can be patted down. It also includes the Court's citation about having to have cause for the stop in the first place.

Good faith on the part of the office is not enough. There has to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Terry, including the citation to Beck.

It's called specific and articulable facts (you just didn't bold it in your citation -- but I put it in red)... in other words, a law enforcement officer is allowed to do his job and to protect himself and the public using common sense (not hunches), training and experience -- plus, he still has to be prepared to have his judgment in every situation put under scrutiny.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are not interchangeable terms -- don't confuse the issue.

[FAB1]

Show them the PATH back home to mexico. i think they know the way tho.

[Frixxxx]

I thought illegal aliens were little grey folks with black almond eyes who violated the open container laws while in the upper atmosphere. :nuts:That ther is down righ' funny, ma'am:laugh:


Okay, "undocumented alien" then, how's that? ;)
Zounds good to me!:cool:

[alevin]

State of Oregon practiced DUI inspection roadblocks a couple years while I was in grad school. They publicized when they were in effect-usually around holidays. To avoid what I considered "unreasonable" and unwarranted stops, I just stayed home or drove the back roads since I knew I wouldn't blow a breathalyzer even if I were stopped. The whole idea just made me mad! They knocked off with the roadblocks within a year or 2 after starting. I think there were court cases that stopped the practice as unconsititional.

[James48843]

It's called specific and articulable facts (you just didn't bold it in your citation -- but I put it in red)... in other words, a law enforcement officer is allowed to do his job and to protect himself and the public using common sense (not hunches), training and experience -- plus, he still has to be prepared to have his judgment in every situation put under scrutiny.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are not interchangeable terms -- don't confuse the issue.

Thanks- yes, that's what I meant to say.

[Frixxxx]

State of Oregon practiced DUI inspection roadblocks a couple years while I was in grad school. They publicized when they were in effect-usually around holidays. To avoid what I considered "unreasonable" and unwarranted stops, I just stayed home or drove the back roads since I knew I wouldn't blow a breathalyzer even if I were stopped. The whole idea just made me mad! They knocked off with the roadblocks within a year or 2 after starting. I think there were court cases that stopped the practice as unconsititional.
California does them ALL the time!

But then again, if you are on a road paid for by taxpayers, don't they have a right to "ensure" that people using the road are "legally" utilizing the resource?:laugh:

[James48843]

State of Oregon practiced DUI inspection roadblocks a couple years while I was in grad school. They publicized when they were in effect-usually around holidays. To avoid what I considered "unreasonable" and unwarranted stops, I just stayed home or drove the back roads since I knew I wouldn't blow a breathalyzer even if I were stopped. The whole idea just made me mad! They knocked off with the roadblocks within a year or 2 after starting. I think there were court cases that stopped the practice as unconsititional.

Source:
http://www.totaldui.com/breathalyzers/field-sobriety-tests/dui-checkpoints.aspx


DUI Checkpoint Controversy

Opponents of DUI checkpoints have cited the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure (http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/search_and_seizure.asp), or searches and seizures that occur without probable cause, to support the argument that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional.


In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the infringement of Fourth Amendment rights caused by DUI checkpoints is overshadowed by the potential public benefit of getting dangerous, impaired drivers off the road. The court added that DUI checkpoints must follow certain guidelines to be legal:

Decisions must be made by supervisors, not arresting officers
Vehicles must be stopped only according to a predetermined formula
Public and officer safety are most important
Locations must be selected by policymakers, based on drunk driving statistics
Duration must be limited by concerns of effectiveness and intrusiveness
Clearly visible warning lights and signs must be displayed telling drivers
Drivers must be detained for the minimum amount of time possible
Advance publication of the place and time is required to increase its deterrent effect and minimize intrusiveness
Every state that allows DUI checkpoints must determine which regulations apply. The following states have ruled that, even with the above regulations, DUI checkpoints remain unconstitutional (Please note that laws may have changed since our last update):

Alaska (http://www.totaldui.com/state-laws/alaska/default.aspx)
Idaho (http://www.totaldui.com/state-laws/idaho/default.aspx)
Iowa (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/iowa/default.aspx)
Michigan (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/michigan/default.aspx)
Minnesota (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/minnesota/default.aspx)
Montana (http://www.totaldui.com/state-laws/montana/default.aspx)
Oregon (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/oregon/default.aspx)
Rhode Island (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/rhode-island/default.aspx)
Texas (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/texas/default.aspx)
Washington (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/washington/default.aspx)
Wisconsin (http://www.totaldui.com/lawyers/wisconsin/default.aspx)
Wyoming (http://www.totaldui.com/state-laws/wyoming/default.aspx)

[James48843]

Man Arrested for DUI While Driving Barbie Car (http://www.totaldui.com/blog/man-arrested-for-dui-while-driving-barbie-car/)

By Michael
When we say you can be arrested for DUI (http://www.totaldui.com/) while driving any motorized vehicle, we mean: You can be arrested for DUI while driving any motorized vehicle.
Don’t believe us? Try this story on:
The Scottish Daily Record is reporting that a man was arrested for drunk driving while operating a toy Barbie car.
Paul Hutton, a 40-year-old resident of Clacton-on-Sea in Essex, was tearing down the road in a child’s motorized Barbie car. He was going the vehicle’s top speed of 4 miles per hour when police stopped him along the road at night.
Police administered a Breathalyzer test (http://www.totaldui.com/breathalyzers/default.aspx) and booked Hutton for driving under the influence of alcohol. His blood-alcohol content was double the legal limit.
For his offense, Hutton was banned from driving (http://www.totaldui.com/overview/penalties/summary.aspx) a real car for three years. After the hearing where he learned of his fate, Hutton admitted that he was “a complete twit” for earning himself the driving ban.
“I was very surprised to get done for drink-driving,” he continued. “It is designed for three-to five-year-olds.”
Hutton had found the little pink electric car ten years previous, and had begun to customize it with his son only a few months ago, adding larger wheels to it. Still, he was candid that it was not the ideal vehicle for a full-sized adult.
“You have to be a contortionist to get in and then you can’t get out,” he said of the pint-sized pink ride. He had to drive it with his knees under his chin, and it moved more slowly than a mobility scooter, according to the article.
According to Hutton, he’d been drinking as he worked on the vehicle, and had not realized how much he’d had to drink.
“When it was done,” he said, “I couldn’t resist the temptation to take it out. I wanted to show my friend.”
Hutton had actually ignored a warning from the police. They told him not to drive the vehicle, but he went against their advice and drove it away from the scene, very slowly.
“I knew it was daft, but I didn’t realize it was a criminal thing to do,” he said.
His three year ban from driving was brought down because he had previously been convicted of DUI. Chairman of the bench in the case said “I’ve never seen the like of it in 15 years on the bench.”


9123

[alevin]

DUI roadblocks to me are presumption of guilt. not everyone on the road at 1am on a weekend has gone over their limit, maybe not even most. I've pulled into my parents house at 12 midnight or 1 after spending 16 hours on the road in ugly weather getting there. I'm not liable to tolerate a DUI stop just because.....

[nnuut]

It's not a law. The Supreme Court can't change that one, Nnuut- you ought to know that one.

It's in the Constitution. Only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.

14th Amendment:
OH! Sorry I was wrong, but what I said is right!:cool: Nitpicker!:laugh:

[James48843]

News Flash:

Illegal Green Alien apprehended in field, picking vegetables.






9124

[nnuut]

Anyone wearing that outfit should be locked UP anyway!! 9125

[Minnow]

Thanks- yes, that's what I meant to say.

Well then, do you care to retract the rant at post #25 of yours and the "news" story at post #11 purporting to back your position.

If your interpretation of the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Terry was wrong, then those supporting tangents are wrong as well (fruits of a poisonous tree, you know?).

[James48843]

Well then, do you care to retract the rant at post #25 of yours and the "news" story at post #11 purporting to back your position.

If your interpretation of the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Terry was wrong, then those supporting tangents are wrong as well (fruits of a poisonous tree, you know?).

Let me mull that over for a while.

I still think it's wrong to detain someone who is a U.S. citizen, and making them go get their birth certificate. I think the fact that he has a commerical driver's license, which he showed, should be enough to show identity.

I'll think about the Constitutional implications some more.

[WorkFE]

http://www.totaldui.com/blog/man-arrested-for-dui-while-driving-barbie-car/

This is obvious probable cause, at least in my book.

[72Zorad]

I don't think immigration or the lack if immigration is the problem or the solution.

Think about it. If we suddenly give all illegal aliens a path for immigration they come to America, bring their families, start picking strawberries or whatever. Then they get to pay taxes, social security, medicare.... Suddenly they find they can no longer afford to pick strawberries and support their families so they join the how many million already unemployed on the streets? So what happens, more illegal aliens, the work still needs done. The problem is these are the only people who can afford to work for these wages. They come here because of the dream of a better life, can't fault them for that. Unless you are 100% American Indian either you did the same or your ancestors. Even the Indians crossed the land bridge at some point looking for a better life but that's a different story.

The problem is at the current wage the only people who can take care of a family on these wages are the ones who don't have to pay taxes or for healthcare or whatever. I saw a show recently on sheep herders from South America. They legally come up here and spend months at a time, in the middle of nowhere, herding sheep then go back home. The show was on how they are underpaid. I don't know if it's true or not. For an American definitely but they never said what life costs in South America. That money isn't staying here. When I was in the Phillipines ('89) the average household income was just over $700/year. Imagine if it is the same in South America. This means they go back after 12 months with 12 times what the average person there makes in a year. We have a saying for that here. It's called hitting the lottery.
My point is more legal immigrants isn't going to change the fact that they need/want strawberry pickers for less than you can live on here and meet all of your societies obligations. It's the same problem with outsourcing manufacturing. We used to be one of the largest manufacturers in the world. Now we can pay someone in China $5.00/day and import it for less. Outsourcing is just 'illegal aliens' that never actually crossed the border. Don't think you aren't paying for their healthcare there. Just because that new hospital they built in China cost a fraction of what one here costs doesn't mean you didn't pay for it.
I do machining as a hobby. Try and find a really skilled machinist under the age of 60 in America. They are a dying breed. We now live in a society that produces nothing. Our entire countries economy is made up of the middle man who fills some non-vital role and skim from the profits so they can sit and chat on forums.:o I'll bet none of us are construction workers or plant workers....Can't type when you've got a nailgun or torque wrench in your hands.

[grandma]

I still think it's wrong to detain someone who is a U.S. citizen, and making them go get their birth certificate. I think the fact that he has a commerical driver's license, which he showed, should be enough to show identity.

In 2004 I was re-entering the US from British Columbia at Blaine, Washington, with my Driver's License ready, in hand. What ever the Border Officer had gone through before it was our turn, I don't know. I know he became quite irate that I did not have my passport in hand. He would not let me unwind myself in the seat so as to get the rest of my ID, the Fed employee badge, the Voter's registration card. My family members made sure I did not respond while - nor after- he delivered his rant - WHICH INCLUDED the fact the 9/11 folks had valid driver's licenses, that there had recently been a fellow arrested coming thru that check-point with the intention of more destruction, with a valid driver's license. The officer did eventually let us through, even without unloading the car, but I did sit through another near tongue-lashing by family for even attempting to speak!!
I have no doubt we were being profiled as he spoke, that none of us `fit the bill;' that the aforementioned fellow was arrested because of some degree of profiling; and that the Officer was remembering that NONE of the Airline Hijackers HAD been profiled...
Because of previous trips back & forth, it had not occurred to me I needed my passport, if only for ID, so it was still in Arkansas.

Yes, it is truly sad that the criminal elements have become so slick they
can produce most any ID they perceive is needed - even the birth certificate. I would say being a trucker would probably be one of the most suspect of all occupations if there is a suspicion of smuggling human cargo.

I still maintain, that young couple in Arizona need to get on the bandwagon to encourage the following of laws.
People that disagree with any of the Obama Administration policies are considered all sorts of worm derivatives, those protesters should be shut up, moved off the face of the earth - or least oo the USA.
But citizens of other countries can race through, destroying landowners properties, flaunt the laws of this same country with any degree of intensity and that is just fine: Have At It.
If this young couple doesn't agree with the latter, then they should stand up for the USA, it's laws. - or be considered part of the problem.

[Minnow]

Let me mull that over for a while.

I still think it's wrong to detain someone who is a U.S. citizen, and making them go get their birth certificate. I think the fact that he has a commerical driver's license, which he showed, should be enough to show identity.

I'll think about the Constitutional implications some more.

Yep, not really fair of me to put you on the spot like that.

If you've ever driven a truck, you know that only having your CDL is never enough when going through a weigh station or border patrol checkpoint (the "news" story doesn't make it terribly clear which one or if it was a "combined station" -- also the story was written in a definite anti-cop fashion -- big surprise). Your logs have to be maintained and your manifests, etc. have to jibe. Truck weights and drivers' time on the road are of commercial and safety interest to each state and they are of interest to law enforcement. Without getting into good crime fighting detail, showing a CDL and knowing your SSN just doesn't cut it when your logs and manifests are messed up. That would cause any reasonable cop to suspect something is up and probably put the driver in secondary (some checkpoints used to "secondary" every commercial vehicle). The article makes it seem as though his citizenship was in question. Well, just like in Terry when the cop was probably expecting implements of burglary and found a gun (could be construed as a burglary tool as well), when the cop suspicious of illegal activity with the truck suddenly found reason to doubt the driver's citizenship, that does not make the stop illegal or unconstitutional. By doing business, the company and the commercial driver consent to the weigh station and border patrol checkpoint stops. Not properly maintaining the logs is enough to rouse suspicion. Not having a secondary form of identification, or if the CDL was torn or appeared altered, etc., is enough to start a whole new line of questioning. Probably not enough to arrest the driver on, but enough to detain for further questioning. Who knows how it actually went down, but a person using common sense could see how this would happen in the real world and you can't really blame the station cop for doing his job.

There are enough laws on the books with regards to immigration, but not enough political willpower to let them be enforced as written. There are even municipalities that enacted statutes or make it unwritten "policy" to disallow officers to question persons about their citizenship (does that make sense?).

The Puerto Rican truck driver was lucky that they even accepted the birth certificate. There's a fairly extensive search to verify that (read expensive).

If you ever get pulled over by a veteran cop, I wouldn't recommend asking him what his probable cause for the stop was. If he's cool, he'll just chuckle... if he's not, well...

Bottom line: a cop doesn't have to have probable cause and, as long as he has articulable and reasonable facts to justify the "stop," is perfectly fine with the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court. Every citizen should be fine with that because that's what it takes to do the job right many, many times. Just like good cops know that not every citizen is up to something criminal.

[XL-entLady]

DUI roadblocks to me are presumption of guilt. not everyone on the road at 1am on a weekend has gone over their limit, maybe not even most. I've pulled into my parents house at 12 midnight or 1 after spending 16 hours on the road in ugly weather getting there. I'm not liable to tolerate a DUI stop just because.....
Utah is a state that still allows DUI roadblocks. I have an up-close and personal dislike for them. Picture this:

Spouse and I are travelling home from Salt Lake because I've just had heart surgery. It took hours longer than it should have to get the release paperwork done. So now it's after dark and there are deer and elk all over the road so what should have been a four hour trip is stretching out. It's not just my chest that's sore, it's all my appendages too because my IV kept blowing out. And everywhere that isn't bandaged is black and blue.

We top a hill out in the middle of nowhere and are greeted with a line of cars a half-mile long. It's a DUI roadblock. Spouse knows what kind of paperwork they are going to ask for and he has plenty of time to find it by the time we get up to where the highway patrolman is. Cop shines a flashlight in the drivers side of the car and starts his spiel about, "How are you tonight, sir, may I see your ...."

He get's that far before he shines the flashlight on me and says, "Holy sh!t!" Then he starts waving us around the rest of the cars that are still ahead of us in line. But that whole process added about an hour to a very uncomfortable ride.

Nope, I don't like DUI checks! :(

[XL-entLady]

...If you've ever driven a truck, you know that only having your CDL is never enough when going through a weigh station or border patrol checkpoint ...Your logs have to be maintained and your manifests, etc. have to jibe. Truck weights and drivers' time on the road are of commercial and safety interest to each state and they are of interest to law enforcement. ...Bottom line: a cop doesn't have to have probable cause and, as long as he has articulable and reasonable facts to justify the "stop," is perfectly fine with the 4th amendment and the Supreme Court. Every citizen should be fine with that because that's what it takes to do the job right many, many times. Just like good cops know that not every citizen is up to something criminal.
My spouse has a varied work history because he has chosen to follow me when I got transferred rather than doing it the "traditional" way. He has worked in a weigh station in two states and has serious law enforcement experience. He also has a CDL with all endorsements except passenger. That didn't help him when he met up with an officious person at a weigh station once.

He and a co-worker were hauling a piece of federal machinery as an overweight load interstate in a marked federal low-boy with federal plates. He'd got all the overweight permits ahead of time just to try to make the trip smoother, even though he wouldn't technically need them (federal stuff gets a pass). Well, because the weigh station person who wrote the permits had never done them for a federal vehicle before they weren't done exactly like the New Mexico weigh station person thought they should be. Spouse and co-worker were held for eight hours while the mess was sorted out. And wow, did that screw up their travel paperwork!

So a cop doesn't even have to have reasonable facts to justify stop and detainment stuff sometimes. :laugh:

[Minnow]

My spouse has a varied work history because he has chosen to follow me when I got transferred rather than doing it the "traditional" way. He has worked in a weigh station in two states and has serious law enforcement experience. He also has a CDL with all endorsements except passenger. That didn't help him when he met up with an officious person at a weigh station once.

He and a co-worker were hauling a piece of federal machinery as an overweight load interstate in a marked federal low-boy with federal plates. He'd got all the overweight permits ahead of time just to try to make the trip smoother, even though he wouldn't technically need them (federal stuff gets a pass). Well, because the weigh station person who wrote the permits had never done them for a federal vehicle before they weren't done exactly like the New Mexico weigh station person thought they should be. Spouse and co-worker were held for eight hours while the mess was sorted out. And wow, did that screw up their travel paperwork!

So a cop doesn't even have to have reasonable facts to justify stop and detainment stuff sometimes. :laugh:

You're right about that... sometimes those administrative "stops" are more arduous and take longer than the criminal stops. Sometimes that line between bureaucracy and law enforcement gets blurred on both sides.

[FAB1]

"Chicago Al" and Bloomberg are all upset that AZ want to enforce the LAW. what?

Look out AZ cuz vALdez eez coming! He is going to use a little civil disobedience to get AZ back in line. the clock is ticking, or is it the Glocks are clicking?

[XL-entLady]

AL[/B]dez eez coming! He is going to use a little civil disobedience to get AZ back in line. the clock is ticking, or is it the Glocks are clicking?
Oh that is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start.:rolleyes::laugh:

[Buster]

So..DUI Roadblocks are a nuisance and a pain in the a$$ you say..right?

Well not to put any one's personal issues or problems down or disrespect them, but let's look at the other side of the coin for a moment...shall we?

Hypothetically speaking..

You are driving down a dark highway late in the night or early in the wee hours of the morning coming home from Grandmother's house...You have with you your beloved family, spouse, and a litter of kids sleeping in the backs seat with their seat belts on...Suddenly as you crest a hill unable to see the other side..a DRUNK SOB happens to be speeding towards your car in your lane at a 100 MPH and slams right smack dab into you and kills you and your beloved family in an instant of sparks and flames...Poof, all gone!...All because a normally posted Roadblock was taken down because people complained that they had to be stopped and checked out, wasting their precious few minutes and so motorist leaving a local saloon 3 miles up the road now drive home or to hell with no fear of being checked out for being full of barley pop...


No... I'll take the little inconvenience of being asked a few legal questions and producing proof of insurance and a drivers license out of a few minutes of my life..At least I'll feel assured this stretch of road will be free of drunks driving.


BTW..this was not made up..this did happened to some very dear friends of mine..Try going to a funeral set for 5, that would not have happened, had the DUI roadblock been left in place...

[alevin]

Buster, my brother and his family were hit head on in broad daylight on a rural country road. The guy was uninsured, swiped 2 other vehicles before hitting my brother. Broad daylight. Brother was out of work for 2 months. the other guy didn't pay for that. $25K in medical bills my brother ate, the other guy's insurance didn't pay for that. The guy was a repeat offender, too. Brother's wife was injured, the 2 young children were badly shaken, not physically injured, they were in back seat. The'd have all died if hadn't been in the heavy old 70's boat brother inherited from grandmother. Engine compartment came in and smashed brother's knee.

My brother was incredibly fortunate, his employer kept him on as janitor when he couldn't bend down or bend over to do diesel mechanic work. for months. Brother=sole wage earner in his family, wife disabled, unable to drive or work, 2 young children. Yes, how effective were the DUI stops for that?

[Viva_La_Migra]

Wow, this was a busy thread the last few days! It took me a while to get caught up.

The guy mistakenly arrested and turned over to ICE was an unfortunate incident. If I'm not mistaken, the Arizona law hasn't even gone into effect yet, so I think someone may have jumped the gun.

Immigration Officers don't need probable cause to stop someone and determine alienage. The Arizona law will not require probable cause either. It will require reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard. The Arizona law mirrors federal law, but authorizes state and local police to challenge citizenship on someone they have stopped for other reasons and reasonably suspect that they are not in the country legally.

For those that think the law will be overturned, because immigration is in the purview of the federal government, remember that the FBI investigates bank robberies. So does local and state law enforcement. Local cops don't ignore bank robberies as a federal issue, because there are state laws that make robbing banks a state crime in addition to a federal crime. The other thing to remember is that local law enforcement is already authorized to enforce immigration law under section 287g of the Immigration & Nationality Act, as amended. What the state did in passing the law, was prevent local city councils from setting up "Sanctuary Cities" within the state.

As you can imagine, I disagree with giving legal status to illegal immigrants. That is rewarding criminal conduct. You don't let a bank robber keep the money he stole from the bank, so why would you give legal status to someone who entered the country illegally, except for political expedience? We might not be able to deport everyone who is here illegally, but we sure haven't tried yet!

What I would do, though, is allow people to apply for temporary work visas, so that they can legally live and work in the United States, but have no path to citizenship. Every year or two, they have to return to their home countries and apply for new work visas. If anyone was convicted of ANY crime (felony or misdemeanor) while they are here, they are deported and are NEVER given another visa of any type to return. NO CHAIN MIGRATION EITHER! If you fall in love with a foreign born person and want to marry and immigrate that person here, that's great, but no other family members, except maybe for under age children of the potential spouse. No mom, dad, brother, sister, cousin, uncle, aunt, grandma, grandpa, etc.

There is much I would like to change with the current law. For example, I would change the law with respect to "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants by taking out the word knowingly from the law. I have to pay my share of the tax burden. I am held responsible for my tax form, even if I have someone else prepare it for me. The same should be true for hiring illegal immigrants. Businesses should be held accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Period. They should be required to use e-verify and/or hire an expert to determine citizenship of job applicants. If they hire someone here illegally, they should pay a fine and/or go to jail. THAT will almost guarantee no illegal immigrants are hired, especially if it is enforced!

Another problem with the removal system is overcrowding of our detention facilities. Immigration Judges take WAY too long to hear removal cases. Federal judges in the District courts in many districts refuse to issue orders of removal on people who commit aggravated felonies and are prosecuted federally, even though they have the authority to do so under the law. As a result, we fill up bed space with people that could have been ordered removed as part of their federal criminal sentence.

I could go on, but it's time for some Jack Daniels!:D Later!

[Buster]

Buster, my brother and his family were hit head on in broad daylight on a rural country road. The guy was uninsured, swiped 2 other vehicles before hitting my brother. Broad daylight. Brother was out of work for 2 months. the other guy didn't pay for that. $25K in medical bills my brother ate, the other guy's insurance didn't pay for that. The guy was a repeat offender, too. Brother's wife was injured, the 2 young children were badly shaken, not physically injured, they were in back seat. The'd have all died if hadn't been in the heavy old 70's boat brother inherited from grandmother. Engine compartment came in and smashed brother's knee.

My brother was incredibly fortunate, his employer kept him on as janitor when he couldn't bend down or bend over to do diesel mechanic work. for months. Brother=sole wage earner in his family, wife disabled, unable to drive or work, 2 young children. Yes, how effective were the DUI stops for that?
I'm very sorry for your brother's circumstances..I'm not sure I understand entirely what you are trying to say..or is it to just take a stand in argument?..If the latter is the case I won't reply to anymore irrational emotion driven contrary discussion on the subject....

Was this guy drunk also in broad daylight?..If so, it is a pity that he was still driving after repeat offenses as you say (what repeat offenses though, you didn't say?) had they been DUI's, then I blame the liberal bleeding heart system for letting him loose..but aside from that, Statistically it is proven that MOST DUIs and Drunk driving occurs late at night after the bars close..so to be logistically responsible and prudent, Police know NIGHT TIME is the best time to catch the majority of these maggots (ever hear the expression from a cop?.."the only people on the road after midnight are Cops and Drunks")..But as you certainly will admit, there is always exceptions and we, or the Law can't cover them all...Like getting hit by lightening..we try to avoid it, but sometimes it just catches the unlucky few outside in the open in broad daylight...nothing anyone can do about bad luck unfortunately...So to keep most of these drunkin animals off the roads, random sobriety roadblock check points are needed IMO, even if they only catch one...that's one less to hurt anyone else's family such as yours.

Sincerely, I hope the best for your brother and his family and that the worst is behind them..





NOTE TO LADY:..sorry for the off topic about DUI roadblocks on this thread...But Since Off topic discussions are now being allowed in other threads (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=8332)right now unchecked, I figured it'd be alright here too.

[alevin]

Buster, the guy WAS drunk, broad daylight. And yes, was a repeater on DUIs. It took brother and family many months to recover-physically, emotionally, financially. It was a few years ago, I drove all the way down to ABQ to help out for a week, take brother to the neurosurgeon appt (3o miles away) since SIL doesn't drive and brother couldn't drive himself anywhere at the time.

My point is unreasonable searches. Drunks wont hurt anyone but themselves or another drunk, if its only drunks out that time of night, right? but if there are other people out that time of night for their own personal reasons, minding their p's and q's, and not driving erratically, then roadblocks impacting them are in effect a presumption of guilt and an unreasonable search. JMO. I guess I'm libertarian that way. But so are several western states I've lived in.

[Buster]

Buster, the guy WAS drunk, broad daylight. And yes, was a repeater on DUIs. It took brother and family many months to recover-physically, emotionally, financially. It was a few years ago, I drove all the way down to ABQ to help out for a week, take brother to the neurosurgeon appt (3o miles away) since SIL doesn't drive and brother couldn't drive himself anywhere at the time.

My point is unreasonable searches. Drunks wont hurt anyone but themselves or another drunk, if its only drunks out that time of night, right? but if there are other people out that time of night for their own personal reasons, minding their p's and q's, and not driving erratically, then roadblocks impacting them are in effect a presumption of guilt and an unreasonable search. JMO. I guess I'm libertarian that way. But so are several western states I've lived in.
I understand everything you said..I too will admit; I usually come home late at night from a date and get stopped at one of these Roadblocks..I grumble under my breath of course and call the cops a pain..But when they come to my window, get a sniff and then after a few polite and grateful "Yes sirs", I'm on my way again..no harm no foul...and I feel the road is safer...at least for the moment....Lastly I'll repeat what a cop told me while arresting me for a DUI.."Most likely, ONLY COPS and Drunks on the road at this time of night"...Yes, those sober people that are out there too coming home from dates, night-shift at work or going to work, etc...The cop can't tell who's who until they are inspected..I don't think they are unreasonable inspections....So being reasonably patient isn't asking a lot for the sake of safer roads and for the duty of the officers.

[alevin]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on constitutionality. DUI Roadblocks haven't gone to the supreme court yet but at least one state has backed down.

Back to the main topic. Here's something I thought would show up in some fashion sooner or later regarding the new law....although the viewpoint about guest worker program hurting the U.S. surprised me a little.



You Don't Speak for Me! is a group of concerned Americans of Hispanic/Latino heritage, some first or second generation, others recent legal immigrants, who believe illegal immigration harms America and a guest worker amnesty will do the same.

http://www.dontspeakforme.org/principles.html

[James48843]

Rachel Maddow has an interesting twist on the Arizona law-

She says it was written by...well, you decide:


ilKUxWbGQj4

And here is another video about Senator Russell Pearce:
Caution- disturbing video:

Bi9izfNXxzo


I don't know what to think - I am just posting it because it's out there in cyberspace.

[XL-entLady]

...NOTE TO LADY:..sorry for the off topic about DUI roadblocks on this thread...But Since Off topic discussions are now being allowed in other threads (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=8332)right now unchecked, I figured it'd be alright here too.
Hey, no worries there from me. First of all, you'll notice I chimed right in when this AZ law thread hit the bend in the road that went to "is it unreasonable?" http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=268360&postcount=75 I think that the DUI roadblock thread drift is appropriate to the main subject because detainment is at the heart of what we're talking about here.

And secondly, I'm not the Thread Subject Police. :toung: There are set rules on this MB (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=56257&postcount=1) And as long as people are treating each other with respect and are not posting material that is grossly inappropriate, then I'm just another MB member enjoying where the conversation takes us and chiming in when I have something to say. :) Which is often.:laugh:

[nasa1974]

There is nothing wrong with immigration. As everyone is talking about it is the illegal immigrants that cost this country huge dollars. Maybe our politicians need to enforce some easy changes.

Get ride of "If you speak English press one" and "If you speak Spanish press two". All information should be in English only. If you are not willing to learn how to speak, read or write the language get out. Most everybody that immigrated here in the 1800's and 1900's made the effort.

Get rid of the law that allows non American women to give birth here and their child immediately becomes an American citizen.

Just my opinion.

Force field up and flame retardant suit on. :nuts:

[James48843]

Opinion piece this morning in the New York Times:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/breathing-while-undocumented/?hp

[nnuut]

I do believe that up to 2007 we from the USA could travel to Mexico, the Caribbean etc. without a passport. The law was changed, now a passport is required if you leave the USA and I suppose it's the same requirement coming into the states? This tells me that foreigners entering must have a passport or equivalent NOW, and it must be checked when entering the USA. Isn't that the law, if the law is broken what are the authorities SUPPOSED/REQUIRED to do?:nuts:

What is the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?

By Suzanne Barbezat (http://gomexico.about.com/bio/Suzanne-Barbezat-18839.htm), About.com Guide


See More About:

western hemisphere travel initiative (http://gomexico.about.com/lr/western_hemisphere_travel_initiative/406850/1/)
mexico entry requirements (http://gomexico.about.com/lr/mexico_entry_requirements/406850/2/)
mexico travel documents (http://gomexico.about.com/lr/mexico_travel_documents/406850/3/)
Question: What is the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Answer: The WHTI, or Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, is part of the US government's response to 9/11. The goal of the WHTI is to strengthen border security and facilitate entry for US citizens and legitimate international visitors to the United States.
For many years, US and Canadian citizens were not required to present a passport to enter the United States. With the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, all citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda will be required to present a passport or other accepted document that establishes the bearer's identity and nationality in order to enter or depart the United States from within the Western Hemisphere.
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is being rolled out in phases.

Timeline for implementation of WHTI
January 23, 2007
All persons, including US citizens, traveling by air between the United States and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda are required to present a valid passport to enter (or re-enter) the United States.

January 31, 2008
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ended the practice of accepting oral declarations of citizenship and identity alone at land and sea ports of entry.

June 1, 2009
Passport or other WHTI-compliant document (http://gomexico.about.com/od/entryrequirements/qt/travel_documents.htm) (such as a passport card (http://gomexico.about.com/od/entryrequirements/f/pass_card.htm) or trusted traveler card) is required for entry into the United States, including travel by land and sea. [more]
http://gomexico.about.com/od/entryrequirements/f/whti.htm

[Warrenlm]

James48843 article: "Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into."

Oh, the exaggeration. Why do supposedly educated people get influenced by an author such as this? Say, I heard a new term yesterday to replace "illegal immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants" and "future amnesty applicants". The new term is "unregistered Democrats". :)

nnuut, do you have a graphic for the tipping point? :)

[nnuut]

And here is another video about Senator Russell Pearce:
Caution- disturbing video:

I don't know what to think - I am just posting it because it's out there in cyberspace.


These people are a danger to our country, and are following in the footsteps of you know who.
Socialists!! 9134

[XL-entLady]

...
Get ride of "If you speak English press one" and "If you speak Spanish press two". All information should be in English only. If you are not willing to learn how to speak, read or write the language get out. Most everybody that immigrated here in the 1800's and 1900's made the effort.

...

Except in New Mexico, where it is written into the State's Constitution that it is a bilingual state and things will be done in both Spanish and English.

They wanted to honor their heritage. Because the USA took that land as part of the war settlement. You know, "we have the right to claim this land from the savages because God is on our side" stuff.

[nnuut]

Oh, the exaggeration. Why do supposedly educated people get influenced by an author such as this? Say, I heard a new term yesterday to replace "illegal immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants" and "future amnesty applicants". The new term is "unregistered Democrats". :)

nnuut, do you have a graphic for the tipping point? :)
YES!!:laugh:
9135

[Warrenlm]

...
Get ride of "If you speak English press one" and "If you speak Spanish press two".
Button One will become Button Two and Button Two will become Button One. Then Button Two can be eliminated. Really. Which states will be like Quebec...resentful about the subjugation of their language?

Get rid of the law that allows non American women to give birth here and their child immediately becomes an American citizen.
The "citizenship birthright" is here to stay. We can't even save Button One/Two.

Just my opinion.
Moi aussi.

:nuts:
Noted my comments in blue.

[Warrenlm]

...Because the USA took that land as part of the war settlement. You know, "we have the right to claim this land from the savages because God is on our side" stuff.

There you go with that reparations stuff. You know our civil war military leaders needed hands on experience. And, isn't it bad enough that our big corporations have already had to suffer from nationalization in latin america, and the resulting impact on our rich tycoons? They're still trying to regain their total control there as well as here. Besides, wasn't France in the action somewhere?:D How many generations are required to pay for perceived wrongs? Two? Three? Four? Five? Six? Seven? Eight? Nine?

[FAB1]

reported that protesters in AZ have smeared swasktiskas on Capitol with refried beans. the Bean Party? Or howabout, Beanbaggers?

[coolhand]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208382473306238.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Arizona's new immigration law shows what happens when a state on the front lines of a failed immigration policy reaches the bursting point. What you get is a blunt instrument that produces lawsuits, more political polarization (if that's possible) and the risk of hostility between the local police and the public.

[Frixxxx]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208382473306238.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion


Last line is the best:
But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's. :suspicious:

[coolhand]

Last line is the best:
But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's. :suspicious:

I agree. It really sums up the whole situation. It's the failure and/or lack of enforcement of Federal laws by ALL political parties going back many years, if not decades.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Oh, the exaggeration. Why do supposedly educated people get influenced by an author such as this? Say, I heard a new term yesterday to replace "illegal immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants" and "future amnesty applicants". The new term is "unregistered Democrats". :)

nnuut, do you have a graphic for the tipping point? :)
I prefer the term, Criminal Aliens. ALL people who enter our country illegally are criminals. They have committed a crime. Specifically, Title 8 United States Code, Section 1325. It can be charged as a felony, misdemeanor, or it can be dealt with administratively through removal proceedings. No matter how you look at it, anyone who supports illegal immigrants is supporting criminals.

[James48843]

Viva- question for you-

I've heard the number "12 million" as the number of illegal immegrants (or undocumented aliens, or whatever.).


Of those-

What percentage do you think entered illegally, vs. what percentage are people that came across the border legally, but did not leave when their visa expired, or whatever was legal for them to enter?

I would think more are of the 'expired' kind, than of the illegally crossed the border kind.

What do you think?

[XL-entLady]

Except in New Mexico, where it is written into the State's Constitution that it is a bilingual state and things will be done in both Spanish and English.

They wanted to honor their heritage. Because the USA took that land as part of the war settlement. You know, "we have the right to claim this land from the savages because God is on our side" stuff.


There you go with that reparations stuff. You know our civil war military leaders needed hands on experience. And, isn't it bad enough that our big corporations have already had to suffer from nationalization in latin america, and the resulting impact on our rich tycoons? They're still trying to regain their total control there as well as here. Besides, wasn't France in the action somewhere?:D How many generations are required to pay for perceived wrongs? Two? Three? Four? Five? Six? Seven? Eight? Nine?
Hey, buddy, all I meant was that New Mexico isn't ever going to be an 'English only' state. Because the State Constitution wants to honor their heritage. I don't know where you came up with the idea that I want somebody to pay for perceived wrongs. I'm the one who is always telling people that just because their grandfather broke his leg it does not give them the right to limp! So that was a pretty big conclusion you jumped to. :notrust:

[Viva_La_Migra]

Viva- question for you-

I've heard the number "12 million" as the number of illegal immegrants (or undocumented aliens, or whatever.).


Of those-

What percentage do you think entered illegally, vs. what percentage are people that came across the border legally, but did not leave when their visa expired, or whatever was legal for them to enter?

I would think more are of the 'expired' kind, than of the illegally crossed the border kind.

What do you think?
That is a good question. The fact is we don't know for sure how many people have overstayed their visas. The system for verifying departure is imperfect at best. Visitors and other nonimmigrants are supposed to turn in paperwork to Customs and Border Protection on their departure from the United States, but that isn't enforced on the land borders. Except for occasional "southbound" operations targeting illicit drug profits being taken to Mexico, CBP Officers don't inspect people going into Mexico. Therefore, it's difficult to determine whether a nonimmigrant has departed the U.S. after their visa has expired.

That said, I don't believe there are more overstays than illegal crossers in the U.S. Even though the verification system is imperfect, we do know that most nonimmigrants do return home on or before their authorized stay ends. What we don't know for sure is how many people have entered illegally.

[Minnow]

Except in New Mexico, where it is written into the State's Constitution that it is a bilingual state and things will be done in both Spanish and English.

They wanted to honor their heritage. Because the USA took that land as part of the war settlement. You know, "we have the right to claim this land from the savages because God is on our side" stuff.

Maybe you should have put: "They wanted to honor their Spanish heritage." Most of the early spanish-speaking settlers in New Mexico were of Spanish descent -- not Mexican.

The articles of the treaty dealing with land grants upon which some still live were struck down by the U.S. government because they were granted by another sovreign ... but most were honored and allowed to be passed down from generation to generation -- those horrible land grabbing colonial Americans!:rolleyes:. Want to know which side of the U.S.-Mexican wars these folks fought on? It's usually a matter of pride among alot of New Mexicans that can trace their Spanish lineage. They still consider themselves Americans through and through and rightfully so... most just chuckle (some get irate) if you think they're "Mexican." Sort of like people tracing their Irish heritage or whatever.

[Minnow]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on constitutionality. DUI Roadblocks haven't gone to the supreme court yet but at least one state has backed down.


Yes they have and, except in unrelated matters, certiorari was denied. That generally means that no opinion was expressed and they will leave the matter up to the state to decide. Therefore, some states have them, others don't. The federal government is allowed to run the border patrol checkpoints, and if there was an unconstitutional element, it would have nothing to do with the 4th amendment.

[Minnow]

Let me mull that over for a while.

I still think it's wrong to detain someone who is a U.S. citizen, and making them go get their birth certificate. I think the fact that he has a commerical driver's license, which he showed, should be enough to show identity.

I'll think about the Constitutional implications some more.

While you are mulling this over, why would you still be posting opinion pieces and Rachel Maddow videos? Are you keeping an open mind? I hope so.

It's really a simple concept because the law says it is a crime for a non-citizen to be in the U.S. without permission from the U.S. Government. Police officers are allowed to question, detain and arrest for crimes... period.

If your reasoning or opinion takes you on tangents away from those last two sentences, it is faulty. If you believe otherwise, your logic is flawed and must be re-examined. Period.

[XL-entLady]

Maybe you should have put: "They wanted to honor their Spanish heritage." Most of the early spanish-speaking settlers in New Mexico were of Spanish descent -- not Mexican.

The articles of the treaty dealing with land grants upon which some still live were struck down by the U.S. government because they were granted by another sovreign ... but most were honored and allowed to be passed down from generation to generation -- those horrible land grabbing colonial Americans!:rolleyes:. Want to know which side of the U.S.-Mexican wars these folks fought on? It's usually a matter of pride among alot of New Mexicans that can trace their Spanish lineage. They still consider themselves Americans through and through and rightfully so... most just chuckle (some get irate) if you think they're "Mexican." Sort of like people tracing their Irish heritage or whatever.
Ah. That is an important distinction indeed. Mexican Spanish is a very different language than Cathtilian Thpanith. ;):toung:

[Viva_La_Migra]

Ah. That is an important distinction indeed. Mexican Spanish is a very different language than Cathtilian Thpanith. ;):toung:
Are you actually making fun of how Spanish people speak their native tongue? Who says liberals are nothing but sensitive, compassionate, and tolerant people?;)

[XL-entLady]

Are you actually making fun of how Spanish people speak their native tongue? Who says liberals are nothing but sensitive, compassionate, and tolerant people?;)
Nope, Viva, I'm not making fun. :o

I have a dearly loved cousin who speaks Castilian Spanish and an even more dearly loved little granddaughter who speaks with a lisp. And they get a real kick out of trading the Spanish and English words for things. It's a hoot to listen to them and it's having the added advantage of making my granddaughter bilingual. :)

[Viva_La_Migra]

Is anyone surprised that the Attorney General (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/27/lawsuits-set-fly-arizona-officials-defend-new-immigration-law/?test=latestnews) who refused to prosecute the new Black Panthers for voter intimidation is now considering suing Arizona over their immigration law? :mad:

[FAB1]

More States need to pass the similar laws, keep up the pressure, drive the libs completely crazy! Shouldnt be to hard, they are half-nuts anyway.

[Show-me]

They are here illegally and should follow the law and if they will not follow the law and the federal .gov will not actively enforce the existing laws, then States with risk should enact what ever law they need to to insure the State, its finances, and its people are protected.

Simple solution, create data base with photo of person matched to SSN, nothing more, and allow employers to access it to verify citizen workers. If I am a 6' 6" crusty old guy on the screen and the new potently employee looks like he 5' 5" and is from Gutalmala........................ NEXT!!!

[alevin]

Ah. That is an important distinction indeed. Mexican Spanish is a very different language than Cathtilian Thpanith. ;):toung:

I learned about the lisp many many years ago. And about Spanish Land-Grant southwesterners about 25 years ago-from a coworker who are one. Took great pride in educating me about the difference between land-grant Spanish and Mexican.

Reading Milagro Bean Field War Trilogy contributed to the education along the way somwhere too.

[CountryBoy]

What America is Michael Gerson living in?

No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers. We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license.

Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny.

Has Michael Gerson never experienced any of those situations? And by the way, has he read the Arizona law? Does he know that it specifically states that in any encounter with police, when a person produces a valid Arizona driver's license (or, for non-drivers, other forms of ID listed in the law), that person is immediately presumed to be in the United States legally? Given all the situations listed above, can anyone argue that being asked to produce a driver's license, if one is in some sort of encounter with police in which police are acting lawfully (that is also specified by the new law) is overly burdensome? Being asked to produce identification is a burden that falls on everyone.

That is simply a fact of life today. Many of the situations in which we are asked to produce ID are the result of laws passed by our representatives, Democrats and Republicans, that are, overall, good things. But they require Americans to produce their papers, in the form of a driver's license, quite frequently. If Americans responded with "Go to hell" and "See you in court" each time they were asked to produce their license, both hell and court would be very crowded.

P.S. -- All the discussion above relates to people who are American citizens. In addition to the situations requiring a driver's license, some people might not know that since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens who are in the United States permanently to carry on their person, at all times, the official documents proving that they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That has been the law for 70 years, and the new Arizona law does not change it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/What-America-is-Michael-Gerson-living-in-92301779.html

Racist or Law?

[James48843]

Do you think THEY will be stopped, and made to prove that they are in this country legally?

Do you think for a minute that the officer wouldn't come up with some "reasonable suspicion"?



9163

[Steadygain]

They are here illegally and should follow the law!

Hmmm somehow that doesn't sound right. :rolleyes:

Seems to me ~~ if they are illegally here ~~ they should have freedoms way beyond the rest of us. I mean they ~~ of all people ~~ should NOT have to worry about any laws.

It's kind of like before I came to know GOD on a deeply intimate and all emcompassing level -- I use to be able to do some things and not have to deal with strong and unshakable convictions -- well NO MORE -- and it's not that I live to avoid 'Convictions' :sick: but I know life is way better living the way you should.

But maybe ~ and I sense that 82.7% of the MB (and visitors) agree with this. But maybe we should grant the illegals 'immunity' simply because they are here illegally and let them do whatever they want.

Better yet -- give them T shirts that say 'Don't Worry -- Be Happy'.

OK -- well there are my magical thoughts for today ;)


Hey and the picture James just posted -- that's what illegals look like -- which all the more supports my case.

[CountryBoy]

Do you think THEY will be stopped, and made to prove that they are in this country legally?

Do you think for a minute that the officer wouldn't come up with some "reasonable suspicion"?



9163


EDIT: Disregard above comment. I should've said, what does this have to do with the POV of the article? We either have laws or we don't. If we don't, we can just add anarchist to the list.

[Frixxxx]

Do you think THEY will be stopped, and made to prove that they are in this country legally?

Do you think for a minute that the officer wouldn't come up with some "reasonable suspicion"?


Next time I see them crossing the Rio Grande to come watch a soccer match, I'll notify the authorities.:mad:

Really James? I am starting to question the requirements to be a moderator.:suspicious:

[Viva_La_Migra]

Do you think THEY will be stopped, and made to prove that they are in this country legally?

Do you think for a minute that the officer wouldn't come up with some "reasonable suspicion"?




9163

I've processed better looking women for removal from the United States, so yes, they may be asked to prove they are in the United States legally if the officer has reason to believe they are not here legally. Not all of us think with the wrong head...all of the time!:D

If you've paid attention to some of my posts, you'd know that I have escorted deportees to the Philippines, Barbados, Jamaica, the British Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Belize. My coworkers have taken deportees to England, Canada, France, Germany, Uganda, Spain, Denmark, Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Greece, Nigeria...ALL OVER THE WORLD! This isn't a "latino" issue!

[Steadygain]

I've processed better looking women for removal from the United States,

Really :nuts: WOW -- I picked the wrong job ;)

so yes, they may be asked to prove they are in the United States legally if the officer has reason to believe they are not here legally. Not all of us think with the wrong head...all of the time!:D

If you've paid attention to some of my posts, you'd know that I have escorted deportees to the Philippines, Barbados, Jamaica, the British Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Belize. My coworkers have taken deportees to England, Canada, France, Germany, Uganda, Spain, Denmark, Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Greece, Nigeria...ALL OVER THE WORLD! This isn't a "latino" issue!

Well I believe it should be MANDATORY -- Goverment Paid (since you're Federal Employees)

That anytime anyone like you (or your coworkers) go to:
Philippines, Barbados, Jamaica, the British Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Belize. England, France, Germany, Uganda, Spain, Denmark, Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Greece, Nigeria...ALL OVER THE WORLD!

That you be required to take 2 full days to relax; blend in and get to know the area better.

I took Canada out -- but all the rest -- I believe if you're going to take anyone there -- you need to really take some time to appreciate all they have to offer.

[Viva_La_Migra]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/28/sanctuary-cities-fight-arizonas-new-immigration-law-offering-sanctuary/

They may call themselves "sanctuary cities," but very few of them are offering sanctuary to the illegal immigrants in Arizona who now face possible arrest and deportation.

Typical liberal response.

"So I go down the streets,
Down to my good friend's house
I said "Look man I'm outdoors you know,
Can I stay with you maybe a couple days?"
He said "Let me go and ask my wife"
He come out of the house,
I could see it in his face
I know that was no
He said "I don't know man, ah she kinda funny, you know"
1 Bourbon, 1 Scotch, 1 Beer-George Thorogood

[Show-me]

I've processed better looking women for removal from the United States, so yes, they may be asked to prove they are in the United States legally if the officer has reason to believe they are not here legally. Not all of us think with the wrong head...all of the time!:D

Breaks your heart some times. :)

[Show-me]

I want a card check or citizen check system at these protests. I want to make sure that only citizens are allowed free speech and the freedom to assemble and not the criminals that are here illegally. Not much to ask that the law be enforced.

[Frixxxx]

Knowing that a number of ACTUAL CITIZENS would have to stop and get checked BY THE GOV'T...isn't that directly from...

At least in 1984, everyone was required to perform a job. :mad:

Oh wait, requiring me to have healthcare and forcing me to claim it on my taxes is OK though.....
Isn't that an illegal search and seizure?:cool:

[Frixxxx]

At least having healthcare is a benefit for a citizen. How does a citizen who went out into the Arizona sun in shorts/tanktop with no pockets benefit when he/she has to pull an ID or go to the pokie?

If we lose tax-exempt status for a BENEFIT...well, I can think of many worse things. However I think a flat tax and NO tax exemptions is the way to go.

The immigration bru-hah is a legitimate concern though. State/local gov'ts who deal directly with the consequences have been forced to pick up the slack from a Federal Gov't that can't or won't do what its supposed to do...protect our borders.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
If I have to show that I am a citizen to ensure that my tax dollars support my country, my country's resources, my country's economic system, my Country's sovereignty...WOW, puts all those other little things like "Where's your ID?" items into perspective.

The title of this thread needs to change from Arizona Immigration Law to Arizona's answer to the LACK of enforcement of Federal Law. No immigrants rights were violated during the course of enactment. Asking someone for an ID is not a Constitutional issue, it is a safety issue.

[Warrenlm]

Can you just visualize the effect of setting up simple checkpoints on all pedestrian routes leading to the approved protest area? Just like they have in DC for certain neighborhoods to screen for residents. Just like they have on roads to catch DUI drivers. No recording of pedestrian's names. But gee, what an impact. :) Might be a more civil demonstration?

Of course, it's possible all the illegal immigrants already have driver's licenses, perhaps originally obtained in Virginia and then transferred. And don't forget the benefit cards.

[alevin]

If I have to show that I am a citizen to ensure that my tax dollars support my country, my country's resources, my country's economic system, my Country's sovereignty...WOW, puts all those other little things like "Where's your ID?" items into perspective.

The title of this thread needs to change from Arizona Immigration Law to Arizona's answer to the LACK of enforcement of Federal Law. No immigrants rights were violated during the course of enactment. Asking someone for an ID is not a Constitutional issue, it is a safety issue.

I can just imagine how many passports would start being lost/stolen if we all had to start carrying them around routinely about our everyday business, for the "just in case". Black market major uptrend. I really don't want to be carrying mine around routinely, that's for sure. I have to carry it when out of the country, but that's to protect me, who am not a citizen of those other countries, and to help me get back home.

as a citizen of this country who does a lot of within-country travel, I don't want to have to worry about crossing state borders and not having "acceptable" proof of citizenship on me, would make me feel like I was an alien in my own country.

One of those Constitutional bennies we have as citizens, to not have to worry about internal travel barriers-only if outside the country trying to get back in at a border checkpoint. Which is expected and a given.

[nnuut]

You have to be Joking, we are being invaded by the same criminals that are at war with the Country of Mexico. Phoenix is 2nd in the world for kidnapping just behind Bogotá Columbia. This requires drastic actions and we are not talking about the financial drain on the economy. I can carry my ID and my wife will carry her GREEN CARD that she is supposed to carry with her everywhere NOW by LAW of the land.:sick:

[alevin]

Green cards have always been required, and do need to be carried. I said U.S. citizens have never been required to carry passports internally, unlike South Africa.

I know about Mexi mafia. I wrote last year about a rural new property owner in my area down the road from a friend of mine, the new owner whose buildings can't be seen from the road and who has guards at his gate with auto-weapons-

my own local LEO didn't know about it til I told him and county LE hadn't said anything to him about it, and he'd just had a meeting with them.. I still don't want to be carrying my passport around with me casually or routinely to cross state borders. Arizona is not accepting other states DLs as id, only their own. I''ll just stay away from AZ til the feds start doing better job of border enforcement. Freedom of internal travel=US citizen right. -if we go under martial law, that's another matter. We're not there yet.

[nnuut]

I'll carry whatever it takes to properly ID the real CITIZENS, nothing is wrong with that we get carded all of the time, show your ID to prove you are who you claim to be. Buy a bottle of wine, use a credit card, get a speeding ticket, cross the California border and you have to prove you are not carrying any unauthorized plants fruits veggies! That has to be unreasonable search and they will take them if you have any? Profiling?:o

[James48843]

It is a sad, sad day indeed when our nation becomes a place where everyone is carryiNG id and subject to stop and be questioned by "the authorities'.


sad, sad day.

[burrocrat]

It is a sad, sad day indeed when our nation becomes a place where everyone is carryiNG id and subject to stop and be questioned by "the authorities'.


sad, sad day.

well, how else are we supposed to tell if they are eligible for the free health care, link the med records to cut costs, etc.? or does all it take being just a warm body, and present?

what's to worry about, we all been tagged and bagged long ago, do you need a card with chip to sign onto computer at work, get access to your area or floor? how far does our expectation of privacy really go?

i used to think the goose and gander thing was fair, until i realized i was getting goosed, and others were gander-ing at their share of the value of my productivity.

sad day indeed.

[PessOptimist]

I find it very interesting that Law Enforcement Officers at all levels are coming out for or against the law. Strictly along party lines. I guess they no longer have to take an oath about upholding the law.

I am also finding the growing CA initiative to break contracts and refuse to use anything produced in AZ to be kind of amusing. I hope they all like rationing electricity. My only regret is that four of the nine generators at Hoover Dam are on the NV side of the river.

[Show-me]

Uhhmmm...aren't you for LESS GOVERNMENT?

And for the Constitutional rights against random search and siezure...The 4th Amendment?

Knowing that a number of ACTUAL CITIZENS would have to stop and get checked BY THE GOV'T...isn't that directly from...

So the answer is to let them continue to break the law?

I am for less government, but I am for showing proof of citizenship. How is that more government? It is enforcement of law.

[Show-me]

It is a sad, sad day indeed when our nation becomes a place where everyone is carryiNG id and subject to stop and be questioned by "the authorities'.


sad, sad day.

You work for the government, got a ID? Have to show it? What's the problem?

[Show-me]

I have to wear and show my ID at all times while at work. No big deal at all, I wear it around my neck. Got dog tags, got military ID, got ID to see a R rated movie? No big deal unless you are committing a crime.

[nnuut]

This is SAD when some of the citizens don't have the Cajones to protect their own country in the name of WHAT, inconvenience? I know plenty of immigrants and every one of them think that if your going to immigrate to this country you should do it the right way, they are from TEXAS, SPAIN, ITALY, HONDURAS, CHILE, COLUMBIA, BRITON and more! The Same thing that's happening here is happening in their home countries and they HATE IT!!:cool:

[XL-entLady]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2VSGEWzEW0

AZ governor says that she doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like but AZ-POST (Police Officers' Standards and Training) will put down the description and the law will be enforced without discriminatory points to it.

Spouse has some serious law enforcement experience, including being a past chairman of the Utah-Arizona Law Enforcement Training Advisory Council. His words when he heard this clip? "That's an absurd task."

[CountryBoy]

Poll: Most Ariz. voters support state's immigration law

Nearly two-thirds of Arizona voters say they favor tough immigration rules signed into law last week by Gov. Jan Brewer, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released today.

The law, which allows police officers to request that people show documentation proving their immigration status, has caused an uproar. President Obama condemned the law at a town hall meeting in Iowa this week. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona.

The poll also finds that 57% of Arizona voters favor an immigration policy that welcomes all immigrants except "national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system," according to the poll. Seventy-six percent say it's more important to gain control of the border than to legalize the status of undocumented workers.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/poll-most-az-voters-support-states-immigration-law/1

Hey, the AZ folks have spoken. Our Manchurian president is fighting with the will of the citizens of this country again.

It's simple, we have laws on the books that the Feds refuse to enforce and the citizens of AZ are sick and tired of being invaded, by illegal aliens, they are criminals. Of course the folks that call them undocumented immigrants, also consider the atrocity the 9/11 hijackers did, just a "man made disasters" now. Talking about PC running amok.

Oh and about showing an ID. Didn't the HC Bill require that we show proof of our purchasing his socialized medicine, by having a medical card/some proof of participation or get fined/thrown in jail?

Progs your hypocritical slip is showing big time. Ya can't have it both ways. We show ID everywhere. Most folks, at least at hospitals, must show proof of citizenship, either birth certificate or passport, before they are hired. That should be a requirement for all jobs. "wink, wink"

[CountryBoy]

Next time I see them crossing the Rio Grande to come watch a soccer match, I'll notify the authorities.:mad:

Really James? I am starting to question the requirements to be a moderator.:suspicious:

I've questioned the requirements for being a moderator several months ago. SHow me was man enough to stop being a mod, but Prog boy lurks in the shadows, constanting stirring the Rahm with his know-it-all attitude, just tromps around where ever he wants to go, avoids the gist of the debate or question and runs and hides like a little girl when called out. Rules don't apply to the Progs :mad:

[CountryBoy]

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT…

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET

1 - A JOB,

2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE,

3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,

4 - WELFARE,

5 - FOOD STAMPS,

6 - CREDIT CARDS,

7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,

8 - FREE EDUCATION,

9 - FREE HEALTH CARE,

10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON

11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE

12 - AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT

Befroe you Progs go apoplectic, there is no way that I want the United States of America to even consider such horrible treatment or measures, that the above countries do to people who cross their borders illegally, See Venezula and Cuba for example, workers paradise and praised/touted here as a much better place to live than America.

All I ask, is that the people respect our laws and follow them. I guess for some that is really asking too much and for those that feel that they can't respect our laws, then how do they expect for folks to have any respect for them and their beliefs? The immigrants that have come here legally, don't like the illegal aliens, because it is a black eye to those that followed the law.

[Minnow]

It is a sad, sad day indeed when our nation becomes a place where everyone is carryiNG id and subject to stop and be questioned by "the authorities'.


sad, sad day.

Thought you were gonna keep an open mind and go read the Constitution again? Guess not. Or maybe you just read the 4th amendment and decided I was right but wanted to bait someone else into an aspect of your argument.

As far as carrying id ... hmmm I guess show-me and every other person with common sense on this thread addressed that just fine. If you want the benefits, there has to be some way to identify who gets them. I can't see where the Constitution guaranteed the rights or benefits of citizenship to non-citizens -- maybe I'm missing something.

But maybe you just want a political argument and your derisive "the authorities" placed in quotations was bait. Fine... how's about 10,000 Japanese a day start pouring over the Canadian border and into Michigan and taking american autoworker jobs and doing them for fractions of union wages... 'cuz their country got ran into the ground by a corrupt/inept government. Wonder if you would change your tune about the need to enforce the immigration laws then?

[Minnow]

AZ governor says that she doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like but AZ-POST (Police Officers' Standards and Training) will put down the description and the law will be enforced without discriminatory points to it.

Spouse has some serious law enforcement experience, including being a past chairman of the Utah-Arizona Law Enforcement Training Advisory Council. His words when he heard this clip? "That's an absurd task."

Your spouse is right... leave it to a politician to screw things up.

[Steadygain]

The law, which allows police officers to request that people show documentation proving their immigration status, has caused an uproar.

I'll tell you -- this is the craziest thing I could ever imagine. They are police officers and therefore they fully have the right to ask anyone for this kind of documentation.

This is simply the all time bull rahm to date. Would be like people being in an uproar because sales people have a right to look at their ID to verify their age.

President Obama condemned the law at a town hall meeting in Iowa this week.

Then he had better come up with a far better plan. Like implants under the skin -- so all the police officers have to do is a quick scan -- without asking any questions.



I've questioned the requirements for being a moderator several months ago.

I'd say the requirements are pretty obvious with Nnutt, James, Lady, Show-me, Rod and all the others I've known. Spaf and Griffin too.

You have to be someone with very solid integrity ~ that consistently interacts with others and does their best to give everyone a fair chance. I think the MODS are great.

SHow me was man enough to stop being a mod,

Well I'll be darned !! Here my comment about grinding him into fine dust :laugh: -- I thought that was a Moderator talking.

Show-me you're every bit as much a man being one again.

but Prog boy lurks in the shadows, constanting stirring the Rahm with his know-it-all attitude, just tromps around where ever he wants to go,

Yeah I've got to admit -- I've been kind of shocked by some of the recent posts.

I mean there is a big difference between being witty and somewhat amuzing (entertaining) and down right annoying.

avoids the gist of the debate or question and runs and hides like a little girl when called out.

Oooh man !!! That's Great -- :cheesy:

Ladies -- please take no offense ;)

Rules don't apply to the Progs :mad:

Well I've got another name for em -- there is nothing 'progressive' about most of the rahm I'm seeing.

Well gotta run -- got a few waiting

[nnuut]

Gordon Brown: I understand immigration fears

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8651476.stm

[nnuut]

OK, let's be nice to each other!!:nuts:

[CountryBoy]

Then he had better come up with a far better plan. Like implants under the skin -- so all the police officers have to do is a quick scan -- without asking any questions.



Well I've got another name for em -- there is nothing 'progressive' about most of the rahm I'm seeing.

Well gotta run -- got a few waiting

I must've of missed the implants under the skin becoming law and you must have missed my post of all the places and times, that we as Legal American Citizens must show id as a normal part of life. Dang those pesky facts, but ya don't have to acknowlege them. Your implants under the skin seems to work for you.

Also, If you find me annoying , just hit the ignore button, I'm sure others have and it'll make your life must better, not having to listen to someone using his right of free speech.

That'll be nice and easy for ya.

[nnuut]

A good listen on what's happening in Briton!~Immigration, IT's a problem!

BNP 'will shut Britain's doors'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8650000/8650909.stm

[nnuut]

The Day the Immigrants Left

Synopsis


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00r3qyw_303_170.jpg (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00r3qyw_640_360.jpg) Evan Davis presents a programme exploring the effects of immigration in the UK by focusing on Wisbech, a town in Cambridgeshire.
Since 2004 this once prosperous market town has received up to 9,000 immigrants seeking work - the majority from Eastern Europe. But with nearly 2,000 locals unemployed and claiming benefits, many of them blame the foreign workers for their predicament.
To test if the town needs so many foreign workers, immigrant employees are temporarily removed from their jobs, and the work given to the local unemployed. Now the town's British workers have a chance to prove they can do it.
Eleven British unemployed workers are recruited to go into a range of different Wisbech workplaces including a potato company, an asparagus farm, an Indian restaurant and a building site run by a local landlord.
Moving beyond the workplace, Evan Davis investigates how the town's local public services, such as schools and the NHS, are coping with the demands of the new arrivals.
As the British unemployed workers get to grips with their new jobs, this documentary examines the facts and dispels the myths around the subject of immigration. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r3qyw

[alevin]

Poll: Most Ariz. voters support state's immigration law

Nearly two-thirds of Arizona voters say they favor tough immigration rules signed into law last week by Gov. Jan Brewer, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released today.

The law, which allows police officers to request that people show documentation proving their immigration status, has caused an uproar. President Obama condemned the law at a town hall meeting in Iowa this week. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona.

The poll also finds that 57% of Arizona voters favor an immigration policy that welcomes all immigrants except "national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system," according to the poll. Seventy-six percent say it's more important to gain control of the border than to legalize the status of undocumented workers.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/poll-most-az-voters-support-states-immigration-law/1

Hey, the AZ folks have spoken. Our Manchurian president is fighting with the will of the citizens of this country again.

It's simple, we have laws on the books that the Feds refuse to enforce and the citizens of AZ are sick and tired of being invaded, by illegal aliens, they are criminals. Of course the folks that call them undocumented immigrants, also consider the atrocity the 9/11 hijackers did, just a "man made disasters" now. Talking about PC running amok.

Oh and about showing an ID. Didn't the HC Bill require that we show proof of our purchasing his socialized medicine, by having a medical card/some proof of participation or get fined/thrown in jail?

Progs your hypocritical slip is showing big time. Ya can't have it both ways. We show ID everywhere. Most folks, at least at hospitals, must show proof of citizenship, either birth certificate or passport, before they are hired. That should be a requirement for all jobs. "wink, wink"

CB, I don't recall anyone saying shouldn't have to show proof of citizenship (or green card), before getting hired for a job. I personally believe employers need to be held accountable to best of their ability.

I'm talking about getting pulled over on the road somewhere for something simple like busted taillight, failure to signal right turn, going 5 miles over the limit-and suddenly having proof of citizenship demanded or getting thrown in jail. If you're in AZ, having an Ohio DL or a credit card wouldn't cut it. You'd get thrown in jail til somebody arrived from Ohio with the right papers. Doesn't matter if your ancestors celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

I said earlier that yes, AZ needs to do something to help themselves since the feds are so underfunded and unsupported at sealing the border, that it's all in the way the state law is implemented.

[CountryBoy]

OK, let's be nice to each other!!:nuts:

Sorry nnuut,

I'll watch what I say and who I say it to or about. I'll try to stay to the facts, like laws and such.

CB

[Frixxxx]

I said earlier that yes, AZ needs to do something to help themselves since the feds are so underfunded and unsupported at sealing the border, that it's all in the way the state law is implemented.
Wait, the federal government has laws it can't fund or support? Wait, you can't support or fund? So the answer is not to enforce but to ignore. So does that mean I don't HAVE to get healthcare? They can't enforce it?

Am I missing something in this discussion?

[nnuut]

Sorry nnuut,

I'll watch what I say and who I say it to or about. I'll try to stay to the facts, like laws and such.

CB
It's normal during a heated discussion when party's disagree, we just have to respect each others opinion, I know that's a hard one, but most of us have been on the Board a long time and we are all good people. It's hard being a COP!:cool::D 9187

[grandma]

The Day the Immigrants Left

Synopsis
... documentary examines the facts and dispels the myths around the subject of immigration. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r3qyw

this link no longer available -.


Watch/Listen again availability You can watch or listen to the vast majority of programmes via the Programmes website within 7 days of their broadcast on BBC TV or Radio. Unfortunately, certain programming, is subject to rights restrictions. For further information on programme availability, frequently asked questions and an active messageboard community please refer to BBC iPlayer Help (http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/)

[alevin]

You know what Frixxx, yes there are federal AGENCIES and PROGRAMS that Congress and the Pres don't fund or limit funding for-which inhibits ability to ENFORCE the laws the agencies are tasked with carrying out (the programs are there to implement the laws). surprise surprise. More border enforcement is needed, I totally agree. the impact of illegals on municipal, county and state services and financing is evident in this state too, just not as bad as in AZ.

There'll be a lot of people who pay the fine on HC, it'll be cheaper for them than buying the insurance. Heck, younger members of my family are likely to be in that crowd once they figure it out (and become old enough to leave home). I am in a state of suspended animation on longterm impacts of HC bill, we won't see full impact for some time yet thanks to the phase-in.

[CountryBoy]

CB, I don't recall anyone saying shouldn't have to show proof of citizenship (or green card), before getting hired for a job. I personally believe employers need to be held accountable to best of their ability.

I'm talking about getting pulled over on the road somewhere for something simple like busted taillight, failure to signal right turn, going 5 miles over the limit-and suddenly having proof of citizenship demanded or getting thrown in jail. If you're in AZ, having an Ohio DL or a credit card wouldn't cut it. You'd get thrown in jail til somebody arrived from Ohio with the right papers. Doesn't matter if your ancestors celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

I said earlier that yes, AZ needs to do something to help themselves since the feds are so underfunded and unsupported at sealing the border, that it's all in the way the state law is implemented.

Alevin,

I was trying to strictly stick to the facts that a law had been passed that the folks in AZ seemed to want. I also personally believe employers who hire illegals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am very Law and Order, regardless of whom or what you are. It should apply evenly to everyone. We currently have laws on the books that should have solved this problem, but the authorities, for decades, for various reasons, have ignored them or turned a blind eye.

Now it has apparently gotten to the point where the citizens of one state, are tired of being taken advantage of by what I call criminals, those people that break the laws.

I didn’t realize the new AZ law would result in me being thrown in jail for something simple like busted taillight, failure to signal right turn, going 5 miles over the limit-and suddenly having proof of citizenship demanded or getting thrown in jail and that my Ohio DL or a credit card wouldn't cut it. You'd get thrown in jail til somebody arrived from Ohio with the right papers.

What does the law say are the proper papers, so I can carry them to AZ. I also didn’t realize Thanksgiving and participating in the first one was singled out as a reason for possibly being thrown into jail or not being thrown in jail. If all of the above that was the intent of the law, then the folks in AZ must be pretty stupid. Does being 20% Cherokee count for or against you?

If the law really says that, then it’s a bad law and somebody will get sued for doing that regardless of the status of their ancestors. And yes it’s all in the way the state law is implemented, but the above example you used is pretty dramatic.

[nnuut]

this link no longer available -.
I knew that, but the synopsis was pretty detailed about the problems Briton is having with immigration.:D

[alevin]

CB, if you get pulled over, they can demand proof of citizenship-the new law REQUIRES LE to enforce, they can be sued by AZ citizens if they don't enforce. They will currently accept an AZ DL, they will NOT accept a DL from another state as proof of citizenship. What do you carry in your wallet that would keep you out of jail in AZ under the new state law if you were stopped and asked for proof? My 2 youngest nephews are citizens with colonial ancestry on my side. they look Hispanic, their mother is Puerto Rican. Should they need to carry passports on their persons at all times, even tho you don't?

[CountryBoy]

Alevin, What does the new law require? Then I will carry it when I go to AZ, so I'll be within the law.

[Frixxxx]

You know what Frixxx, yes there are federal AGENCIES and PROGRAMS that Congress and the Pres don't fund or limit funding for-which inhibits ability to ENFORCE the laws the agencies are tasked with carrying out (the programs are there to implement the laws). surprise surprise. More border enforcement is needed, I totally agree. the impact of illegals on municipal, county and state services and financing is evident in this state too, just not as bad as in AZ.

There'll be a lot of people who pay the fine on HC, it'll be cheaper for them than buying the insurance. Heck, younger members of my family are likely to be in that crowd once they figure it out (and become old enough to leave home). I am in a state of suspended animation on longterm impacts of HC bill, we won't see full impact for some time yet thanks to the phase-in.
Alevin, I used your statement as a platform to launch a "federal government" needs to be fiscally responsible when it comes to their enforcement of law. Not an atack on you ~ sorry if you felt that it was.

I'm hearing the feds can't do this and that because they haven't budgeted or set money aside for things that they are supposed to do, and yet, here they are yelling and screaming at banks and calling them "Sh*tty". You see where I am at? The pot calling the kettle black? I am not even on a political platform here, this is way higher. If we are going to start legislating businesses and states from the federal level then abolish the states and vote these issues at a general election.

I live in a state that for every federal tax dollar I pay, only 80 cents comes back. Why? Give that 20 cents back so California has more healthcare and secured borders.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0724/which-states-get-the-most-federal-money
UTAH should be spitting blood with these numbers.

Ask my ancestors about "illegal immigration". They hated it as much then, as I do now. At least my ancestors fought until they were almost extinct. Now this society says we can't even fight. We can't even ask a little question?
I have to roll over?

No!:mad:

[alevin]

We're on the same page, Frixxxx. totally agree.:)

[alevin]

Alevin, What does the new law require? Then I will carry it when I go to AZ, so I'll be within the law.

CB, a passport is always proof of citizenship. Just make sure you have a backup proof-like your SS card, voter precinct card, marriage licence, birth certificate....in case your passport gets lost or stolen while you're there.

Me, I don't carry those things around with me unless I need to show 2 forms to get my Linkpass to sign on my computer at work, or to get my DL renewed (state law). Now that I got my linkpass, (condition of my job), and got my DL renewed (2 years ago), my proofs of citizenshp are safely back at home where they belong, like my parents taught me to protect them. I'll just stay out of AZ, no need to go there.

[Minnow]

[QUOTE=alevin;268888]They will currently accept an AZ DL, they will NOT accept a DL from another state as proof of citizenship. QUOTE]

Where did you get this idea?

[CountryBoy]

Well if I go to AZ, I'll be sure to pull them from the safe or Saftey Deposit box, in the mean time, I'll keep a close eye on reports from AZ of all the American Citizens being thrown in jail, cause most don't carry that info and since the law specifically calls for it, the jails will be full and we'll hear plenty of reports.

Thanks for telling me all the info the new law requires.

[Frixxxx]

Reid-Schumer-Menendez Draft for Immigration reform...

Wow, Biometrics used for enforcement? I think the ACLU will prefer a DL check any day!

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/RSMBillOutline.pdf

[Minnow]

Well if I go to AZ, I'll be sure to pull them from the safe or Saftey Deposit box, in the mean time, I'll keep a close eye on reports from AZ of all the American Citizens being thrown in jail, cause most don't carry that info and since the law specifically calls for it, the jails will be full and we'll hear plenty of reports.

Thanks for telling me all the info the new law requires.

That information was wrong. If you don't believe me, go ahead and read the Arizona bill.

Go ahead and carry what you want (although checking their CCW laws is always good advice). Your Ohio DL is just fine -- just have registration and proof of insurance.

[CountryBoy]

That information was wrong. If you don't believe me, go ahead and read the Arizona bill.

Go ahead and carry what you want (although checking their CCW laws is always good advice). Your Ohio DL is just fine -- just have registration and proof of insurance.

I believe you Minnow,

Good to go on the CCW, all the states in between honor my CCW.

[XL-entLady]

CB, I don't recall anyone saying shouldn't have to show proof of citizenship (or green card), before getting hired for a job. I personally believe employers need to be held accountable to best of their ability.

I'm talking about getting pulled over on the road somewhere for something simple like busted taillight, failure to signal right turn, going 5 miles over the limit-and suddenly having proof of citizenship demanded or getting thrown in jail. If you're in AZ, having an Ohio DL or a credit card wouldn't cut it. You'd get thrown in jail til somebody arrived from Ohio with the right papers. Doesn't matter if your ancestors celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

I said earlier that yes, AZ needs to do something to help themselves since the feds are so underfunded and unsupported at sealing the border, that it's all in the way the state law is implemented.
Thank you for saying that. It's exactly the way I feel. But it's getting a little scary for James or me to post in this thread.

[James48843]

Reid-Schumer-Menendez Draft for Immigration reform...

Wow, Biometrics used for enforcement? I think the ACLU will prefer a DL check any day!

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/RSMBillOutline.pdf

Yes, biometrics. Go take a look at the various drafts of the bills now- the 9-11 commission recommendations, and the current law on the books. They have been talking for a decade about using biometrics as a requirement on border identity. Eye Iris scans and electronic fingerprints are both biometric ID methods that already are being used and talked about in various programs.

[Buster]

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT…

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET

1 - A JOB,

2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE,

3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,

4 - WELFARE,

5 - FOOD STAMPS,

6 - CREDIT CARDS,

7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,

8 - FREE EDUCATION,

9 - FREE HEALTH CARE,

10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON

11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE

12 - AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT

.


Touche' CB..;)

and now it's time to play this again..

ZHPm_TEQ0PA

[James48843]

Thank you for saying that. It's exactly the way I feel. But it's getting a little scary for James or me to post in this thread.


Sorry Lady- I'm not scared to post in this thread- Just busy. It's lunch now- so here goes-


I believe in law enforcment carrying out the law. I have no problem with that position.

I believe illegal aliens should leave the country. I have no problem with that position.

I believe illegal aliens should not be able to work in this country. I have no problem at all with that position.

I don't like it that the federal government went from 3,000 border patrol, to 18,000 border patrol, and then the people who wanted that are now screaming "GOVERNMENT SPENDING HAS TO STOP". Hey- that's part of the government spending.

Is 18,000 the number needed to close the border down? I don't think so, but I don't know what the number is.

So either hire and place the people you need to close the border, (and don't complain that spending is too high....) or fix the problem so we don't have all those flowing over the border. Is that a work program? I don't know. That's what the people in DC have to figure out. What it will take to close the border.


What I personally have a BIG problem with- is the aibility to stop a person, without probable cause, and make them prove that they are an American citizen, or else they get thrown in the clink. THAT is my beef.

An American citizen should not have to produce papers for any govenrment authority- simply to transit public spaces, cross state lines, etc.

Crossing the border is different. I have no problem with checking a passport at the border.

Once here, however, I see a mountain of difference, and a 4th amendment "seizer" issue that I do not like.

That's all I am saying. I am not prepared to give up my rights- and the rights of fellow citizens, and have to produce documents to prove my, or other citizens, legal ability to walk or drive around.

It's just not right. It's not the America I want to live in.

F-r-e-e-d-o-m means not having to go to jail for refusing to produce a birth certificate. (Hey- we're back to that birth certificate thingy, aren't we? :D)

[CountryBoy]

Sorry Lady- I'm not scared to post in this thread- Just busy. It's lunch now- so here goes-


I believe in law enforcment carrying out the law. I have no problem with that position.

I believe illegal aliens should leave the country. I have no problem with that position.

I believe illegal aliens should not be able to work in this country. I have no problem at all with that position.

I don't like it that the federal government went from 3,000 border patrol, to 18,000 border patrol, and then the people who wanted that are now screaming "GOVERNMENT SPENDING HAS TO STOP". Hey- that's part of the government spending.

Is 18,000 the number needed to close the border down? I don't think so, but I don't know what the number is.

So either hire and place the people you need to close the border, (and don't complain that spending is too high....) or fix the problem so we don't have all those flowing over the border. Is that a work program? I don't know. That's what the people in DC have to figure out. What it will take to close the border.


What I personally have a BIG problem with- is the aibility to stop a person, without probable cause, and make them prove that they are an American citizen, or else they get thrown in the clink. THAT is my beef.

An American citizen should not have to produce papers for any govenrment authority- simply to transit public spaces, cross state lines, etc.

Crossing the border is different. I have no problem with checking a passport at the border.

Once here, however, I see a mountain of difference, and a 4th amendment "seizer" issue that I do not like.

That's all I am saying. I am not prepared to give up my rights- and the rights of fellow citizens, and have to produce documents to prove my, or other citizens, legal ability to walk or drive around.

It's just not right. It's not the America I want to live in.

F-r-e-e-d-o-m means not having to go to jail for refusing to produce a birth certificate. (Hey- we're back to that birth certificate thingy, aren't we? :D)
Hang on James.

I agree with ya on this issue. unless there is a MG in the back seat and then I'm not sure about the 4th. :D

CB

[Steadygain]

I must've of missed the implants under the skin becoming law

CB, My comment about implants under the skin was directly related to the O man openly stating he is outraged about the AZ law.

So my point is -- he (as the SOB Leader of our Nation) -- had better make sure he can openly come up with a better plan if he's going to openly degrade the one at hand. I use the term 'SOB' because if he doesn't have something better in mind then he has 'NO PLACE' to be critizing anything.

The People in AZ are the ones living with all this rahm and they are the ones actively having to deal with it all -- not someone in D.C.

So if a STATE next to the border wants to take steps to curb a very significant problem then the President should be showing very huge support for them taking a stand to address it.

and you must have missed my post of all the places and times, that we as Legal American Citizens must show id as a normal part of life. Dang those pesky facts, but ya don't have to acknowlege them.

If we 'Legal American Citizens' must show some kind of ID as a normal part of our life -- at all places and times. Then a small implant would make a whole lot more sense then carrying some card -- others can 'copy' or we could lose or forget.

Your implants under the skin seems to work for you.

Actually it was off the top of my head -- only thinking if O man wants to criticize AZ -- then he'd better have a better plan. My thought at that time was 'Immigrants would get the implant if they are legal'.

Also, If you find me annoying ,

Where the hell is that coming from ??

I totally supported everything you said ! Believe it or not - all my comments were line by line in agreement with you.

just hit the ignore button, I'm sure others have and it'll make your life must better, not having to listen to someone using his right of free speech.

That'll be nice and easy for ya.

Whatever -- if I find you annoying -- I'll either say something to ya or ignore it -- but I'm cool with you CB. And BTW -- I'm about the most Ultra Conservative guy around -- now that my wife let me know the difference.

My only comments that remotely varried from yours are:
1. I think the MODs are the best of the best and Show-me could rightfully be one again as far as I'm concerned.

2. Someone who goes out of there way to make posts that are excessively annoying and irritating -- and deliberately meant to grade against others -- I would not call 'progressive' -- but here I mean the word in a literal sense.

would probably favor: dip rahm -- or something similar

[Steadygain]

I'll just stay out of AZ, no need to go there.

Oooh Alevie --- and LADY !!

Don't ever let yourself start feeling this way -- AZ is close to Utah.

We can't dismiss the opportunity to take in all the beautiful sights that AZ uniquely holds anymore than writting Utah off. These sort of things go way beyond 'immigrants'. We're talking about some of the most beautiful sights in the USA.

Plus both of them have some super great resorts and don't forget the people that live there. Gosh.

There is always a need to go there -- we just haven't advanced enough to recognize how great and pressing that need really is.

[alevin]

Sorry Lady- I'm not scared to post in this thread- Just busy. It's lunch now- so here goes-


I believe in law enforcment carrying out the law. I have no problem with that position.

I believe illegal aliens should leave the country. I have no problem with that position.

I believe illegal aliens should not be able to work in this country. I have no problem at all with that position.

I don't like it that the federal government went from 3,000 border patrol, to 18,000 border patrol, and then the people who wanted that are now screaming "GOVERNMENT SPENDING HAS TO STOP". Hey- that's part of the government spending.

Is 18,000 the number needed to close the border down? I don't think so, but I don't know what the number is.

So either hire and place the people you need to close the border, (and don't complain that spending is too high....) or fix the problem so we don't have all those flowing over the border. Is that a work program? I don't know. That's what the people in DC have to figure out. What it will take to close the border.


What I personally have a BIG problem with- is the aibility to stop a person, without probable cause, and make them prove that they are an American citizen, or else they get thrown in the clink. THAT is my beef.

An American citizen should not have to produce papers for any govenrment authority- simply to transit public spaces, cross state lines, etc.

Crossing the border is different. I have no problem with checking a passport at the border.

Once here, however, I see a mountain of difference, and a 4th amendment "seizer" issue that I do not like.

That's all I am saying. I am not prepared to give up my rights- and the rights of fellow citizens, and have to produce documents to prove my, or other citizens, legal ability to walk or drive around.

It's just not right. It's not the America I want to live in.

F-r-e-e-d-o-m means not having to go to jail for refusing to produce a birth certificate. (Hey- we're back to that birth certificate thingy, aren't we? :D)

Garsh, I could swear this is exactly what I've been saying. :cool:

[XL-entLady]

... I am not prepared to give up my rights- and the rights of fellow citizens, and have to produce documents to prove my, or other citizens, legal ability to walk or drive around.

It's just not right. It's not the America I want to live in.

F-r-e-e-d-o-m means not having to go to jail for refusing to produce a birth certificate. (Hey- we're back to that birth certificate thingy, aren't we? :D)
And it may not be just a birth certificate.

I was talking to my brother on the phone last night. I'm a fair skinned redhead but my brother is very tanned with dark hair. So much so that when he was little, people thought that he and my Navajo sister were twins. He was talking to a relative of ours who is an AZ highway patrolman because my brother travels in AZ a lot in his work and he was trying to figure out what if anything he needed to do.

The HP told him that he didn't know what the regulatory elements of the law were going to be yet but he advised my brother to carry a certified copy of his birth certificate while in AZ until that was all worked out. Then he said it could have been even worse. Because if my brother didn't currently have the same name on his drivers license as appeared on his birth certificate (think "women who change their last name when they get married") then he would have to have a legal transition document (such as a marriage license) too.

This thing just keeps getting better and better. :(

[Frixxxx]

What I personally have a BIG problem with- is the aibility to stop a person, without probable cause, and make them prove that they are an American citizen, or else they get thrown in the clink. THAT is my beef.

An American citizen should not have to produce papers for any govenrment authority- simply to transit public spaces, cross state lines, etc.

The problem is, your Terry Stop Law allows police to stop people under reasonable concerns. Not just for walking down the street.


Once here, however, I see a mountain of difference, and a 4th amendment "seizer" issue that I do not like.

That's all I am saying. I am not prepared to give up my rights- and the rights of fellow citizens, and have to produce documents to prove my, or other citizens, legal ability to walk or drive around.

It's just not right. It's not the America I want to live in.

F-r-e-e-d-o-m means not having to go to jail for refusing to produce a birth certificate. (Hey- we're back to that birth certificate thingy, aren't we? :D)
With great power comes great responsibility......We as a nation have forgotten responsibility. How do we get responsible enough to get Millions of people back to their country of origin? The only way I know how is to PROVE IT!

Make a sacrifice. I have given blood, DNA, fingerprints to prove who I am to my country, how can we get everyone else to do that? Lets initiate a Prove you're a citizen day and shame everyone into doing it?

How do we go back to America and say,"We screwed up!, we need to make it right and we must do 1,2,3 to correct the situation!"

[Viva_La_Migra]

CB, if you get pulled over, they can demand proof of citizenship-the new law REQUIRES LE to enforce, they can be sued by AZ citizens if they don't enforce. They will currently accept an AZ DL, they will NOT accept a DL from another state as proof of citizenship. What do you carry in your wallet that would keep you out of jail in AZ under the new state law if you were stopped and asked for proof? My 2 youngest nephews are citizens with colonial ancestry on my side. they look Hispanic, their mother is Puerto Rican. Should they need to carry passports on their persons at all times, even tho you don't?
If anyone is interested in the facts, here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf) is a link to the text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Here (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm) is a link to a summary page.

[Minnow]

Have any of you opposing this bill actually read it? It's not terribly long. If any of you think that this law says an out-of-state drivers' license is not valid in Arizona, please point me to the passage.

James... exactly when are you going to cease with the "a cop has to have probable cause to stop" line? Haven't we already put that to rest?

If you require a law enforcement officer to have probable cause before he stops, you are fomenting anarchy. The police presence in this country will become a reactionary force only. This is why I will not budge on this point. In theory and in reality, this does not work.

So, if in you're idea of America, the Fourth Amendment means a police officer has to have probable cause before he can stop or question or conduct a consensual encounter, then I respectfully do not want to live in your version of America.

[alevin]

The ACLU is a two-edged sword IMO. I'm not a big fan, but....Here's their point by point breakdown of legal concerns about various sections of the new law. I found it interesting they had no comment on Section 12-which ensures the entire law is not voided, even if certain sections are invalidated later.

http://www.acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20By%20Section%20Analysis%20of%20SB10 70updated%204-14-10.pdf

[XL-entLady]

...The HP told him that he didn't know what the regulatory elements of the law were going to be yet but he advised my brother to carry a certified copy of his birth certificate while in AZ until that was all worked out. Then he said it could have been even worse. Because if my brother didn't currently have the same name on his drivers license as appeared on his birth certificate (think "women who change their last name when they get married") then he would have to have a legal transition document (such as a marriage license) too.

This thing just keeps getting better and better. :(


If anyone is interested in the facts, here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf) is a link to the text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Here (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm) is a link to a summary page.
And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS


22

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS


23

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,


24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."



That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.

[XL-entLady]

Have any of you opposing this bill actually read it? It's not terribly long. If any of you think that this law says an out-of-state drivers' license is not valid in Arizona, please point me to the passage.

James... exactly when are you going to cease with the "a cop has to have probable cause to stop" line? Haven't we already put that to rest?

If you require a law enforcement officer to have probable cause before he stops, you are fomenting anarchy. The police presence in this country will become a reactionary force only. This is why I will not budge on this point. In theory and in reality, this does not work.

So, if in you're idea of America, the Fourth Amendment means a police officer has to have probable cause before he can stop or question or conduct a consensual encounter, then I respectfully do not want to live in your version of America.

"Probable cause" is what you have to have to be arrested. To be stopped and detained for up to 72 hours you have to have "reasonable suspicion." These are legal terms of art, folks. And you are taught in a police academy that the first question you ask is, "Do you know why I stopped you?" That is all you have to prove you did for the courts to say you had reasonable suspicion.

[Minnow]

And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS



22

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS



23

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,



24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."




That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.



3rd and 4th words speak volumes: lawful contact... a police officer will not pull you over on suspicion of being Hispanic. If you are suspected of breaking another law, then your citizenship comes into question, then he is allowed to investigate... same as federal law.

If you have legally changed your name, then you are required to change it on your state drivers' license. That's the law. Don't like it? Write your state congressman. I happen to think that law is wise in a myriad of ways.

[Minnow]

"Probable cause" is what you have to have to be arrested. To be stopped and detained for up to 72 hours you have to have "reasonable suspicion." These are legal terms of art, folks. And you are taught in a police academy that the first question you ask is, "Do you know why I stopped you?" That is all you have to prove you did for the courts to say you had reasonable suspicion.


Thanks, I think:). Would you please enlighten others on the board who say they are all for "Enforcement" of the law but then say that a cop has to have probable cause to even make a stop?

[alevin]

minnow, I missed the part where James used the term "probable cause". I know the difference and that "reasonable" has already been ruled permissible. Point of implementation is determining what is "reasonable". Apparently the bar is even lower than I thought, based on what Lady said.

[Minnow]

[QUOTE=James48843;268914I believe in law enforcment carrying out the law. I have no problem with that position.

What I personally have a BIG problem with- is the aibility to stop a person, without probable cause, and make them prove that they are an American citizen, or else they get thrown in the clink. THAT is my beef.

[/QUOTE]

Alevin (or spanish minnow ;)) ... this was the latest post. He had done it earlier in this thread as well.

As far as what Lady said, for most every traffic stop (other encounters differ a bit), she's pretty much right. Traffic infraction allows the stop (expired tags, no signal, unable to maintain your lane, etc.) therefore, the cop is allowed to question.

[XL-entLady]

So here's a cop joke for you. It illustrates the "reasonable suspicion" traffic stop stuff. To get the joke, you have to know that fundamentalist "prophet" Warren Jeffs was in hiding at the time to try to avoid arrest warrants for his activities related to under-age girls.

Why did the highway patrol trooper do a traffic stop on Warren Jeffs? One of his wives was out of her car seat.

[Viva_La_Migra]

And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS



22

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS



23

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,



24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."




That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.


What constitutes a lawful contact has been addressed by the courts many times. Cops generally know what constitutes lawful contact, though no doubt someone will challenge their arrest under this law in court.

I can't say whether the courts have decided what consititutes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. That may be a subject of future litigation.

[Minnow]

What constitutes a lawful contact has been addressed by the courts many times. Cops generally know what constitutes lawful contact, though no doubt someone will challenge their arrest under this law in court.

I can't say whether the courts have decided what consititutes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. That may be a subject of future litigation.

Exactly... and coming from La Migra, this should echo very loudly!!!

The Border Patrol is not perfect. But would you agree VLM, that by virtually making the agents automatons, making them almost an entirely reactionary force was not wise? The BP did (and still do) their job well -- when allowed to. Political will to enforce the law slipped and the BP agents' ability to do their job was slowly and steadily taken away. As is the case with every law enforcement agency, the BP depend on local, state and other federal agencies also doing their job. Immigration law should be enforced by every other agency as well.

Sanctuary cities are the truly unconstitutional entities here.

[XL-entLady]

What constitutes a lawful contact has been addressed by the courts many times. Cops generally know what constitutes lawful contact, though no doubt someone will challenge their arrest under this law in court.

I can't say whether the courts have decided what consititutes a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. That may be a subject of future litigation.
I absolutely agree with everything you've said. And that is also why my brother, who looks Hispanic, was advised to carry his birth certificate with him while driving in Arizona.

Which is a very strange thought to me. I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.

[Minnow]

I absolutely agree with everything you've said. And that is also why my brother, who looks Hispanic, was advised to carry his birth certificate with him while driving in Arizona.

Which is a very strange thought to me. I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.

This bill is just about enforcing the law and making sanctuary cities liable for not enforcing the law. Again, pulling someone over on suspicion of being Hispanic is not allowed in this bill. If someone is lawfully encountered by law enforcement and the officer has suspicion that the person is here illegally, then he can and should inquire further. All one needs is a valid form of ID.

Not to make this personal, but you wanna know how many family members I have here in the U.S. that "look" Hispanic? I can't count them all -- there are too many. Wanna know how many of them actually give a second thought to being pulled over and "asked for their papers?" Zero. That's because they were either born here or immigrated legally and they are subject to the same laws every other citizen is subject to. The citizens just carry their drivers license and the permanent residents waiting to be naturalized carry their green card (it isn't green) and their state issued ID. They can go through Arizona any time they want.

Legal immigration, read all about it:
From the uscis.gov website:

General Path to Citizenship



There are various naturalization provisions that allow permanent residents (green card holders) to become U.S. citizens. The most common of these provisions is section 316(a) of the INA which allows a person who has been a permanent resident for at least 5 years to apply for naturalization
Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must:

Be 18 or older
Be a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application
Have continuous residence in the United States as a permanent resident for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of the filing the application
Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization
Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law.

[Steadygain]

I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.


You never will have to Lady ;)

Ohhh my gosh !! Are you kidding me ???

5'10" and as femenine as you can get :toung:

Red hair :nuts: and fair skinned


Trust me Lady -- on the street -- the crowds will part and ohh and ahh wherever you go

puddles will be covered with coats and jackets to keep your feet dry

the men will bow and the women will kurtsy

police and all others will eagarly and warmly offer their assistence


Never fear -- they won't mess with you

[Viva_La_Migra]

I absolutely agree with everything you've said. And that is also why my brother, who looks Hispanic, was advised to carry his birth certificate with him while driving in Arizona.

Which is a very strange thought to me. I never thought I'd have to carry my papers with me on the street in my country.
THIS IS NOT A FREAKING HISPANIC ISSUE! It's about stopping the flow of illegal aliens from ANY other country into this country. Please stop the spin doctoring!

Neither your brother nor you should have to carry more than your driver's license or other form of government issued identification while in Arizona, or any other state in this union. Unless your state is one that knowingly provides driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, your license will more than likely be prima facie evidence of citizenship. Until the law changed with respect to passport requirements at land border ports of entry, a drivers license was prima facie evidence for someone claiming U.S. citizenship. If I didn't believe that person was a citizen, I had to prove they weren't before I could arrest them on an immigration violation. I am confident this will be the case in Arizona as well.

[Steadygain]

Well on to something a little lighter :)


According to the Beatles:

Jo Jo left his home in Tuson AZ ...




... I wonder why ????

[Buster]

And the issue that I and a lot of other folks have with this is that nobody yet knows what the following encompasses:


"20

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21

OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS



22

STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS



23

UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,



24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."




That's what the AZ highway patrolman was saying. Nobody knows yet what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable attempt" so he was advising my brother what to do to ensure that he wasn't detained.


Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....must be an illegal..Simple:cool:

[Buster]

Well on to something a little lighter :)


According to the Beatles:

Jo Jo left his home in Tuson AZ ...




... I wonder why ????


Pronounced; "Ho-Ho":cool:

[Steadygain]

THIS IS NOT A FREAKING HISPANIC ISSUE!

Well I would argue with that.

If Lady is even indirectly talking about her 'looks' -- her brother with an hispanic appearance....

... then that overrides every other issue.... :p:cool::cool:

[Frixxxx]

Well on to something a little lighter :)


According to the Beatles:

Jo Jo left his home in Tuson AZ ...




... I wonder why ????
For some California grass!

[Steadygain]

For some California grass!


Very good !!! ;)


Now all of us just need to chill :D:toung: and kind of float with that :p

Yes Minnow -- VLM -- everybody ....


breathe in silk ..... blow out bubbles..

[Minnow]

Very good !!! ;)


Now all of us just need to chill and kind of float with that :p

Yes Minnow -- VLM -- everybody ....


breathe in silk ..... blow out bubbles..

OK... side of the road buddy ... got too much of that whacky weed did ya? Wanna know why I pulled you over? You were goin' 7!!! 7 miles per hour in the fast lane!!! :)


http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9187&d=1272550071

[Frixxxx]

OK... side of the road buddy ... got too much of that whacky weed did ya? Wanna know why I pulled you over? You were goin' 7!!! 7 miles per hour in the fast lane!!! :)


http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9187&d=1272550071
There is NO fast lane in California.....Got me a 72 in a 65 ticket going around a guy in the "fast lane". I asked the cop why the guy in the "fast lane" wasn't at fault for doing 55, he responded, "No fast lane in California, sonny!" But interesting enough, if you get a ticket in California, you can go to traffic school and they won't record it against your license as points.....course this only works once in a year!:cool:

[James48843]

This thread is going to the dogs, fast.


9189

[James48843]

Q: "Do you know why I am pulling you over?"

Answer (ALWAYS): "No Sir,(or Mam), I have no idea why. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained”?


“What is your reasonable suspicion?”

Am I free to go now? "

[Minnow]

There is NO fast lane in California.....Got me a 72 in a 65 ticket going around a guy in the "fast lane". I asked the cop why the guy in the "fast lane" wasn't at fault for doing 55, he responded, "No fast lane in California, sonny!" But interesting enough, if you get a ticket in California, you can go to traffic school and they won't record it against your license as points.....course this only works once in a year!:cool:

I've driven in and through LA. I wasn't aware that you could actually go even as high as 55 there. They call them parkways for a reason.

Maybe we should start a road rage thread for just the Californians. -- The true reason they want pot legal. :D

[Minnow]

Q: "Do you know why I am pulling you over?"

Answer (ALWAYS): "No Sir,(or Mam), I have no idea why. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained”?


“What is your reasonable suspicion?”

Am I free to go now? "

You get that from a jailhouse lawyer? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[alevin]

Alevin (or spanish minnow ;)) ...

Minnow, I always knew we were 5th cousins. Welcome to the family! :D:nuts:


As far as what Lady said, for most every traffic stop (other encounters differ a bit), she's pretty much right. Traffic infraction allows the stop (expired tags, no signal, unable to maintain your lane, etc.) therefore, the cop is allowed to question. Yup, why I said what I said to CB earlier.

[James48843]

You get that from a jailhouse lawyer? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

No.

From Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer dissenting in Hiibel vs. Nevada. And Justice Kenndey's response to Justice Breyer's dissent.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

[Minnow]

No.

From Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer dissenting in Hiibel vs. Nevada. And Justice Kenndey's response to Justice Breyer's dissent.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

red and bold for emphasis.

follow James' advice at your own risk.

[James48843]

You can read the whole case, with opinions, here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

Stops, ID's, requirements, reasonable suspecion, and probable cause have all been previously addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Several laws have been tossed out in the past.

That's all.

[James48843]

Dissent is a valuable tool- because it clearly gives guidence on what that Justice would find un-constitutional in another circumstance.

And the text of the majority decision is equally important- as it is here:




(a) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?405+156), 167—171, this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms. The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?443+47), 52, where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) grounds, and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?461+352), where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off. Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) requirements noted in Brown. Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3—6.
(b) The officer’s conduct did not violate Hiibel’s Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment. INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?466+210), 216. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?392+1), the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?469+221), 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34. The Nevada statute is consistent with Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures because it properly balances the intrusion on the individual’s interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?440+648), 654. An identity request has an immediate relation to the Terry stop’s purpose, rationale, and practical demands, and the threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself, changing neither its duration nor its location. Hiibel argues unpersuasively that the statute circumvents the probable-cause requirement by allowing an officer to arrest a person for being suspicious, thereby creating an impermissible risk of arbitrary police conduct. These familiar concerns underlay Kolender, Brown, and Papachristou. They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U.S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. Cf. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?470+811), 817. The request in this case was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv). Pp. 6—10.
(c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentv)’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentv) prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?161+591), 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?406+441), 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?341+479), 486. It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentv) does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?493+549), 555. If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentv) privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here. 10—13.

[Minnow]

You can read the whole case, with opinions, here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

Stops, ID's, requirements, reasonable suspecion, and probable cause have all been previously addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Several laws have been tossed out in the past.

That's all.

If your "you" meant me, then no thanks... been there, read them, studied them, passed written and practical tests on them, been to court on them, and live them every day of my professional life.

If your "you" meant others not so acquainted with the law then sure, go ahead and reach your own conclusions.

[James48843]

from the Majority Opinion in Hiibel:



The Court has recognized similar constitutional limitations on the scope and operation of stop and identify statutes. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?443+47), 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. See id., at 51—52. Absent that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court held, the risk of “arbitrary and abusive police practices” was too great and the stop was impermissible. Id., at 52. Four Terms later, the Court invalidated a modified stop and identify statute on vagueness grounds. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?461+352) (1983). The California law in Kolender required a suspect to give an officer “ ‘credible and reliable’ ” identification when asked to identify himself. Id., at 360. The Court held that the statute was void because it provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with it, resulting in “ ‘virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.’ ” Id., at 360 (quoting Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?415+130), 135 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in result)).
The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv) requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer “credible and reliable” identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P.3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) (“The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists”). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means–a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make–the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P.3d, at 1206—1207.

[Minnow]

Dissent is a valuable tool- because it clearly gives guidence on what that Justice would find un-constitutional in another circumstance.

And the text of the majority decision is equally important- as it is here:

This supports my point of view, not yours.

[James48843]

Just saying- there is a clear body of law in this area already- that all you need to do is tell them who you are. The part about being detained for failing to providing a birth certificate or proof of citizenship, is far beyond what has been litigated before.

And this Arizona law will provide, I'm sure, some interesting cases ahead.

As for me- No, I don't know why you are stopping me. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

And am I free to go now?

[Viva_La_Migra]

Dissent is a valuable tool- because it clearly gives guidence on what that Justice would find un-constitutional in another circumstance.

And the text of the majority decision is equally important- as it is here:
Dissent is a valuable tool, but it is not precedent setting. It is the majority decision that is more important, because it sets precedent.

[James48843]

This supports my point of view, not yours.

here-

If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentv) privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here. 10—13.


It's clear from the Arizona law discussion, that if one fails to provide proof of citizenship on the stop, they can be arrested.

It is clear from the decision in Hiibel, that Hiibel left open the door on Fifth, as well as Fourth Amendment grounds- that if providing your identity will result in your being charged with a crime (like border crossing illegally), that you may still have the right to remain silent, and not answer the question. THAT is what becomes new fertile ground for the Surpeme Court in this new law.

We'll see.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Just saying- there is a clear body of law in this area already- that all you need to do is tell them who you are. The part about being detained for failing to providing a birth certificate or proof of citizenship, is far beyond what has been litigated before.

And this Arizona law will provide, I'm sure, some interesting cases ahead.

As for me- No, I don't know why you are stopping me. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

And am I free to go now?
Next time you get pulled over, say that to the cop and let us know how that works out for you.:D Just don't call me to post your bond.;)

[Minnow]

Just saying- there is a clear body of law in this area already- that all you need to do is tell them who you are. The part about being detained for failing to providing a birth certificate or proof of citizenship, is far beyond what has been litigated before.

And this Arizona law will provide, I'm sure, some interesting cases ahead.

As for me- No, I don't know why you are stopping me. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

And am I free to go now?

Just a friendly bit of advice. Do not try that. Good way to move up to getting a ticket instead of a warning.

Read the AZ law. Doesn't say anything about having to carry a birth certificate. Read VLM's earlier post... interstate travel, all you need is to comply with "license, registration and (sometimes) proof of insurance." nothing has changed. (you do need passport for border crossing now -- mostly).

[Minnow]

here-

again, this supports what I am saying.

It's clear from the Arizona law discussion, that if one fails to provide proof of citizenship on the stop, they can be arrested.

No, they can be questioned and their identity can be investigated.

It is clear from the decision in Hiibel, that Hiibel left open the door on Fifth, as well as Fourth Amendment grounds- that if providing your identity will result in your being charged with a crime (like border crossing illegally), that you may still have the right to remain silent, and not answer the question. THAT is what becomes new fertile ground for the Surpeme Court in this new law.

We'll see.

I doubt it... Here's the reason: the ILLEGAL aliens' mere presence is a crime. Think about it this way -- say a criminal escapes from jail. He's stopped by a cop. The escaped criminal fails to identify himself. The cop detains him until he's identified. You gonna drop the escape charge? His presence outside the jail is illegal. Just like the illegal aliens' presence in this country is, well, illegal.

[XL-entLady]

Just saying- there is a clear body of law in this area already- that all you need to do is tell them who you are. The part about being detained for failing to providing a birth certificate or proof of citizenship, is far beyond what has been litigated before.

And this Arizona law will provide, I'm sure, some interesting cases ahead.

As for me- No, I don't know why you are stopping me. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

And am I free to go now?
James, while I agree with you (big surprise there :cheesy:) I don't advise trying it. My husband would probably call that a subsection of failing the attitude test.

"Why didn't you just give him a warning?"

"He flunked the attitude test."

[Silverbird]

You'll need up to 3 pieces of ID.




Driver's Licence only proves you know how to drive a car (at least in theory) and there's a record of your driving ability (or lack thereof) and it can be linked with the licence of your car.
All this does for ID purposes is get you a picture to match your name. For us non-drivers, ID card does the same thing
Driver's license does NOT prove you are a citizen
Birth certificate = Works with a picture ID, unless you changed your name at marriage. Can be substituted with green card, naturalization papers, etc for status of citizenship purposes.
If your last name changed, guess what? You'll need your marriage license too!
Or you can carry your passport around with you, if you have one

It's not the same as showing your Driver's license, that just proves you are registered with the DMV to drive a car, and the cop will only demand it if you happen to be behind the wheel.

[Viva_La_Migra]

You'll need up to 3 pieces of ID.





Driver's Licence only proves you know how to drive a car (at least in theory) and there's a record of your driving ability (or lack thereof) and it can be linked with the licence of your car.
All this does for ID purposes is get you a picture to match your name. For us non-drivers, ID card does the same thing
Driver's license does NOT prove you are a citizen
Birth certificate = Works with a picture ID, unless you changed your name at marriage. Can be substituted with green card, naturalization papers, etc for status of citizenship purposes.
If your last name changed, guess what? You'll need your marriage license too!
Or you can carry your passport around with you, if you have one

It's not the same as showing your Driver's license, that just proves you are registered with the DMV to drive a car, and the cop will only demand it if you happen to be behind the wheel.
From what law, rule, or regulation are you quoting?

[Viva_La_Migra]

Arizona immigration law is spreading (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/29/arizonas-immigration-law-spread/) to other states.

[nnuut]

http://thehill.com/images/stories/briefing_blog.jpg
http://thehill.com/templates/thehill/images/space.gif (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room)

Reid, Schumer, Menendez to unveil immigration reform plan


By Michael O'Brien and Russell Berman - 04/29/10 04:21 PM ET
Senate Democrats will unveil a plan to reform U.S. immigration laws on Thursday afternoon.

The plan will require that benchmarks be met on border security before the status of illegal immigrants is settled, according to a memo prepared by Senate Democratic offices.

The memo indicates the Democrats' plan includes measures to bolster border security and unify standards for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants. The plan also provides a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants who agree to some penalties, including paying back taxes.
The names of three Democratic senators are attached to the memo: Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.).

Reid will unveil the framework for the bill at a 5:45 p.m. press conference, according to a press release sent out by Democrats.

Schumer has been spearheading the immigration reform effort and said this morning that he's been reaching out to Republican senators on the plan.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had worked with Schumer for some time on a proposal, warned Thursday that "if you bring up immigration in this climate, you'll divide the country further."

Graham told The Washington Post's Ezra Klein (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/sen_lindsey_graham_i_care_equa.html), though, that while he sympathizes with immigration reform, it just can't be done this year.

"If you go, I can't go with you. Some supporters of immigration reform think I've abandoned them," he said. "But they're not listening. This is just too far for me and for the issue this year."

Other key congressional figures have warned about the feasibility of immigration reform. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said that he doubts (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/95089-dem-doubts-immigration-will-be-finished-this-year) Democrats can fit it into their schedule this year.

And while House leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have suggested the Senate must act first on immigration, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned there's "not a chance" (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/95109-boehner-not-a-chance-that-immigration-reform-passes-this-year) that Congress would pass an immigration bill this year.
President Barack Obama on Wednesday night said he favors moving forward on immigration reform, but warned that Congress might not have the political will to take up the issue this year.
RELATED ARTICLES

GOP congressman compares Ariz. law to Nazi Germany (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/95123-mack-r-compares-ariz-law-to-nazi-germany)

Pelosi: Immigration push requires 'presidential leadership' (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/95199-pelosi-immigration-reform-will-require-presidential-leadership-and-congressional-appetite)
"That's a step in the right direction," one of the most forceful advocates for immigration reform, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), said after learning Senate Democrats would unveil their draft proposal, which he said he had seen.


Gutierrez was unfazed by Obama's comments. The congressman said the process would undergo a lot of "ups and downs" before reform is ultimately achieved.

"It means double down. Be persistent," Gutierrez said. "We can't let our guard down.

"It is what it is, but it is not a death knell."

He said he was opposed to pushing immigration reform as a political maneuver to rally Latinos for the 2010 elections. If a bill can't pass, Gutierrez said, "I don't want a cynical vote."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/95121-senate-democrats-set-to-unveil-immigration-plan

[nnuut]

Alternate Plan Devised for Immigration

Senate Democrats Pivot to Strategy for Moving Ahead Without GOP Support


By John Stanton and Kathleen Hunter
Roll Call Staff
April 29, 2010, 12 a.m.
Senate Democrats appear dead set on moving comprehensive immigration reform this year even if it comes without GOP support, and they began laying the groundwork Wednesday for a Democrats-only alternative to a bipartisan deal. [more]
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_124/news/45703-1.html

[XL-entLady]

You'll need up to 3 pieces of ID.





Driver's Licence only proves you know how to drive a car (at least in theory) and there's a record of your driving ability (or lack thereof) and it can be linked with the licence of your car.
All this does for ID purposes is get you a picture to match your name. For us non-drivers, ID card does the same thing
Driver's license does NOT prove you are a citizen
Birth certificate = Works with a picture ID, unless you changed your name at marriage. Can be substituted with green card, naturalization papers, etc for status of citizenship purposes.
If your last name changed, guess what? You'll need your marriage license too!
Or you can carry your passport around with you, if you have one

It's not the same as showing your Driver's license, that just proves you are registered with the DMV to drive a car, and the cop will only demand it if you happen to be behind the wheel.


From what law, rule, or regulation are you quoting?
If her experiences are similar to mine, she's extrapolating from past experience.

Everyone said that airport ID's were going to be no big deal either. Last time I was on a business trip, my nonrefundable flight tickets were not purchased using my full name. When I saw that, I phoned and asked TSA at my regional airport what I needed to do. I was advised to take my driver's licence, my government photo ID, a photocopy of my birth certificate, a photocopy of my marriage certificate, and to have a metal nametag on all my carry-on. And I needed every bit of that in two different airports so it was a good thing I had it all.

Now before anyone goes off on me, I'm not comparing airplane bombers and undocumented aliens. I'm just saying that little regulations can mushroom.

[nnuut]

If the Dems come up with their own Immigration Plan you can bet the house it will be filled with promises of amnesty, IF?:worried:
Amnesty = Votes = Neutralize the Tea Party!! They hope!:laugh:

[grandma]

James: No, I don't know why you are stopping me. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

And am I free to go now?One of my kids respond to me this way, & I would immediately be on top of them for attitude correction.

But, truly, I didn't realize that being pulled over was considered being `detained.'
Wouldn't use of the word `detained' be as signal to the officer there was more to the situation than just a traffic stop?

In fact, the whole of that response sounds like baiting for a hoped for reaction from the officer........... :suspicious:

[James48843]

The plan will require that benchmarks be met on border security before the status of illegal immigrants is settled, according to a memo prepared by Senate Democratic offices.

The memo indicates the Democrats' plan includes measures to bolster border security and unify standards for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants. The plan also provides a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants who agree to some penalties, including paying back taxes.


Amazing, isn't it?

That sounds EXACTLY the plan that President Bush was proposing three years ago, as a bipartisan plan, that got introduced in the Senate, only to be quashed by the republican Senate base.



Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#colum n-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#searc hInput)
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, or, in its full name, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110s1348)) was a bill discussed in the 110th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress) United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) that would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). The bill was portrayed as a compromise between providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement: it included funding for 300 miles (480 km) of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and radar towers, and 20,000 more Border Patrol agents, while simultaneously restructuring visa criteria around high-skilled workers. The bill also received heated criticism from both sides of the immigration debate. The bill was introduced in the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) on May 9, 2007, but was never voted on, though a series of votes on amendments and cloture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture) took place. The last vote on cloture, on June 7, 2007, 11:59 AM, failed 34-61 effectively ending the bill's chances. A related bill S. 1639, on June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM, also failed 46-53..



The bill's sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid), though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham), and input from President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), who strongly supported the bill. For that reason it was referred to in the press by various combinations of these five men's names, most commonly "Kennedy-Kyl". A larger group of senators was involved in creating the bill, sometimes referred to as the 'Gang of 12'.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-0) This group included, in addition to the aforementioned senators, Senators Dianne Feinstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein), Mel Martinez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez), Ken Salazar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Salazar) and Arlen Specter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter). Senators Jim DeMint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint), Jeff Sessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions), and David Vitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter) led the opposition to the bill.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-2)
At the same time, the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Through_Regularized_Immigration_and_a_Vib rant_Economy_Act_of_2007) was being considered in the United States House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives), although to considerably less public attention.
On June 7, three Senate votes on cloture (a move to end discussion) for the bill failed with the first losing 33-63, the second losing 34-61 and the third losing 45-50.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-3) This had been thought by some observers to signal the end of the bill's chances, since on that day, after the first failing vote, Harry Reid had told reporters that, if another vote on cloture failed, "the bill's over with. The bill's gone."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-4)
However, at the urging of President Bush, the bill was brought back for discussion in the Senate as bill S. 1639 on June 25.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-5) On June 26, a motion to proceed passed the Senate, by a margin of 64-35 (under Senate rules it needed 60 votes).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-6) A number of amendments to the bill were considered and rejected. On June 28, the bill failed to get the 60 votes necessary to end debate. The final cloture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture) vote lost 46-53.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-7) This effectively ended its chances, and President Bush said he was disappointed at Congress's failure to act on the issue.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#cite_ note-8)




This is the 2007 bill, all over again. Only this time, McCain and Grahm, who helped write it, will come out against it, because now they call it a Democratic plan.





Watch the madness as partisanship trumps fixing what is wrong.



(I would support that bill, but hey, that's me.)

[Warrenlm]

I was just wondering if the media will provide lots of coverage, air time videos and endless commentary after Saturday's demonstrations of any strange signs or costumes, verbally nasty comments, threatening gestures, angry expressions, wayward spittle, etc. Then again, maybe it will be covered as is done on the understandably distraut demonstrators against World Bank/IMF meetings and such, i.e. the righteousnous of the demonstration simply explained.

[Warrenlm]

A lawyer on the radio today, advocating the "undocumented's" side, likened crossing the border into the USA without proper admittance as an administrative infraction, less than a traffic infraction. I thought it was a felony at some point. Elsewhere it was asserted that an identical offense in Mexico was punishable by 2 years imprisonment.

[James48843]

But, truly, I didn't realize that being pulled over was considered being `detained.'
Wouldn't use of the word `detained' be as signal to the officer there was more to the situation than just a traffic stop?

In fact, the whole of that response sounds like baiting for a hoped for reaction from the officer........... :suspicious:

"Detained" by the police is anything less than being arrested.

You can be detained for questioning, detained while they investigate further, detained could mean simply being held at the scene until more information is forthcoming, or could mean you are taken in for questioning.

If I was tooling along down the highway, and the police pull me over, they are detaining me while they conduct their investigation and/or waiting to here back on the radio, or running my name through there computer. I cannot simply leave at that point, until they tell me I can go.

If I try and take off before they say it's alright for me to go, then I could possibly be charged with fleeing the officer, even though before that moment, they didn't have any crime evidence on me. My simple act of resuming my motoring down the highway, before they told me I was free to go, could be interpreted as an act of fleeing, and therefore a crime.


So yes, officer, my name is XXXXX.

I do not know why you stopped me, and I would like to know, under suspicion of what crime am I being detained? Am I free to go?


And no- these are not the Droids you are looking for.

CnjaUoR15dU

[Show-me]

Outrageous conduct. My mother is a German immigrant and she would never conduct herself in this manner. We have never flown a German flag, ever, much less over a American flag. You want me to grant them citizenship. Yea, right. Learn some respect and learn that you don't have a say until you become a citizen. :mad:

9190

9191

9192

9193

[Buster]

Now doesn't this just figure?

Obama takes immigration reform off agenda

WASHINGTON – Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama's major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.
The president noted that lawmakers may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue — climate change — is already on their plate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_immigration_politics

[XL-entLady]

...In fact, the whole of that response sounds like baiting for a hoped for reaction from the officer........... :suspicious:


"Detained" by the police is anything less than being arrested. ... I cannot simply leave at that point, until they tell me I can go. ...

So yes, officer, my name is XXXXX.

I do not know why you stopped me, and I would like to know, under suspicion of what crime am I being detained? Am I free to go?

Grandma, I didn't mean to suggest that James's response was improper. It's just that when a policeman pulls you over, he's not looking for anything other than, "Yes, officer, here are the documents you requested." And if you give him (or her) anything other than the very most polite answer you can possible imagine, he isn't likely to cut you any slack at all. That is what cops mean when they refer to the "attitude test."

James is also correct about the detainment issue. That's not just me saying that, that's spouse saying that, and he knows what he's talking about. He's my expert on three subjects: law enforcement, heavy machinery, and a third one that I won't specify.:cheesy:

[burrocrat]

Outrageous conduct. My mother is a German immigrant and she would never conduct herself in this manner. We have never flown a German flag, ever, much less over a American flag. You want me to grant them citizenship. Yea, right. Learn some respect and learn that you don't have a say until you become a citizen. :mad:

9190

9191

9192

9193

what were these illegals doing at a tea party?

[Minnow]

Grandma, I didn't mean to suggest that James's response was improper. It's just that when a policeman pulls you over, he's not looking for anything other than, "Yes, officer, here are the documents you requested." And if you give him (or her) anything other than the very most polite answer you can possible imagine, he isn't likely to cut you any slack at all. That is what cops mean when they refer to the "attitude test."

James is also correct about the detainment issue. That's not just me saying that, that's spouse saying that, and he knows what he's talking about. He's my expert on three subjects: law enforcement, heavy machinery, and a third one that I won't specify.:cheesy:

James is not correct about the detainment issue. If you don't believe me, go ahead and ask your husband about a consensual encounter (that has nothing to do with his third field of expertise, I don't think).

[XL-entLady]

James is not correct about the detainment issue. If you don't believe me, go ahead and ask your husband about a consensual encounter (that has nothing to do with his third field of expertise, I don't think).
Yes, Minnow, whatever you do in Real Life is obviously law enforcement related. So you know that a consensual encounter would quickly become a detainment if you tried to leave the law enforcement officer's presence before answering his/her questions. But that very thin line between consent and detainment is there until the cop takes your papers.

[Steadygain]

Arizona immigration law is spreading (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/29/arizonas-immigration-law-spread/) to other states.

I hope this is TRUE.

I seriously believe AZ and other states should strongly and actively deal with all situations that make them especially vulnerable.

I wholly believe we need this kind of ACTION more than anything else. States are expected to deal with their own 'budgets' and in so many ways are expected to demonstate independence.

On this note I all the more believe the President should do everything possible to show His SUPPORT and Encouragement.

Want to add real quick that I was kind of crazy yesterday and LADY,

I'm sorry if I said anything awkward - or embarassing - was just being silly and fun.

[Frixxxx]

Tom,

Please invoke the rule of closure in regards to Godwin's Law.

Thank you!

[burrocrat]

what were these illegals doing at a tea party?

i would like to retract that statement. it is not right to assume everyone attending an immigration rally is an illegal, anymore than it is right to portray people attending tea parties as bigoted radicals.

[Minnow]

Yes, Minnow, whatever you do in Real Life is obviously law enforcement related. So you know that a consensual encounter would quickly become a detainment if you tried to leave the law enforcement officer's presence before answering his/her questions. But that very thin line between consent and detainment is there until the cop takes your papers.

Absolutely.

You and I are not disagreeing about the concepts nor are you and I disagreeing about the theories behind these concepts. James and I are disagreeing about both -- but you keep saying he is right about this and that he is right about that.

James has started out with a faulty premise. He has stated that he believes that law enforcement should be allowed to do their job -- enforce the law. Then he says that law enforcement should not be allowed to even "stop" without probable cause. You see why I disagree so strongly with this, right?

Those two points are incompatible both in theory and in reality. Here's why:

A government has to be able to enforce the law. If one appointed to enforce the law is not allowed to "stop" (read: investigate a possible violation of the law) anyone without probable cause, then the government loses its ability to enforce the law.

Now, James believes that a government should be able to enforce the law, but how? Without police? If he believes that police are needed to enforce the law, how are they supposed to enforce that law? There are only two choices: 1) police can only stop, detain, and arrest when the police eyewitness a crime themselves -- only that gives probable cause; 2) every police officer that stops is presumed by the government to already have probable cause.

The first option does not work. If a cop can only stop someone after he sees them commit a crime, then what good is that cop? That cop is no different than any citizen. He is not enforcing the law, he is merely reacting to an event or series of events.

The second option is called suspending the writ of habeus corpus. That's what totalitarian regimes do. That's what countries going through civil war do. That's what countries at war do. That is NOT what the Arizona immigration law is doing.

In American, now, you have the right to be heard in court. A cop is not presumed to be correct. But he/she is allowed to do their job subject to judicial scrutiny. I wouldn't have it any other way and I wouldn't have a government based on James' two incompatable theories.

[James48843]

Minnow- maybe I am using the wrong term when I say probable cause- when in fact I mean articularable facts.


The bottom line of what I am trying to say is that I do not believe a police officer should be able to stop and question anyone, unless they have a reason to stop and question that person. And that reason cannot be simply that they think the guy or gal looks like he or she needs to be stopped.

Anytime a police officer asks a question, the person has a choice. They can answer the question, or they can ask if they are free to go. As long as the police officer is asking the questions, the person is NOT free to go. That's what I was trying to say.

One can investigate, and do a great deal to ascertain the facts, long before having to ask any particular person questions. In my mind, even stopping someone, without knowledge that something is wrong/a crime has been committed, etc, is beyond what I am comfortable with. In my book - a stop should not be made, a person not "held back from being able to do whatever they want to do", without some kind of cause. Probable cause might be the wrong word for me to use- sorry. But I think "proof", or "witness statements", or "evidence" of some kind is appropriate.

Just my 2 cents.

My opinion- everyone else is welcome to have one too.

[Warrenlm]

A question, since some members here may know. I keep reading/hearing about large sums paid by individuals to be smuggled into the USA. Sums that I would think all the borrowing back home would still fall short of funding. Where do they get the $10,000, $20,000 to pay the smugglers? Are they really able to gather that amount in Mexico (or China, or___) to pay for transport in advance? It would seem to be so high as to impoverish their hometowns. Or are they generally indentured servants ala the 1700s?

[Minnow]

Minnow- maybe I am using the wrong term when I say probable cause- when in fact I mean articularable facts.

I think you mean articulable but that's OK... I won't be the spelling police too. :D

The bottom line of what I am trying to say is that I do not believe a police officer should be able to stop and question anyone, unless they have a reason to stop and question that person. And that reason cannot be simply that they think the guy or gal looks like he or she needs to be stopped.

If you read everything I wrote carefully, this was what I was saying.
The Arizona Law does not broaden an officer's ability to do this. If, during an encounter, a subject's citizenship comes into question, then the officer is allowed to question further.

Anytime a police officer asks a question, the person has a choice. They can answer the question, or they can ask if they are free to go. As long as the police officer is asking the questions, the person is NOT free to go. That's what I was trying to say.

Again, I don't think just asking questions means that the person is not free to go. During a vehicle stop, yes. But that "detention" started pretty much at the moment the blue and red lights went on. Other encounters, well, as they say, "that depends." This is where good law enforcement interview techniques come in.

One can investigate, and do a great deal to ascertain the facts, long before having to ask any particular person questions. In my mind, even stopping someone, without knowledge that something is wrong/a crime has been committed, etc, is beyond what I am comfortable with. In my book - a stop should not be made, a person not "held back from being able to do whatever they want to do", without some kind of cause. Probable cause might be the wrong word for me to use- sorry. But I think "proof", or "witness statements", or "evidence" of some kind is appropriate.

Now you're beginning to see the light. (Although, proof, evidence, are terms for the court, not for the street). This is the world we live in. Now you begin to see the difficulties in doing good law enforcement but that is what it is. You gotta be able to give "articulable facts" which, if a case goes all the way to court, can be put under judicial scrutiny.

The Arizona Law, as it is written, does not change a thing.
Just my 2 cents.

My opinion- everyone else is welcome to have one too.

Now, would you go and tell Shakira I want to have a good one-on-one "discussion" to enlighten her. :D

[Minnow]

A question, since some members here may know. I keep reading/hearing about large sums paid by individuals to be smuggled into the USA. Sums that I would think all the borrowing back home would still fall short of funding. Where do they get the $10,000, $20,000 to pay the smugglers? Are they really able to gather that amount in Mexico (or China, or___) to pay for transport in advance? It would seem to be so high as to impoverish their hometowns. Or are they generally indentured servants ala the 1700s?

There's a price and cost structure and, I hate to say this, it depends.

Depends on if you're just being "guided." Depends on if you're provided papers (plain papers cost less, good forgeries cost more), a job, a new identity, the list is endless.

Needless to say, some don't need to pay to be able to get here.

About the indentured servant part: you do know about the girls and boys smuggled here (and abroad) that are used in the sex industry, right? Promised a bright future in America only to be prostituted. Given a bastardized version of the American dream. Sickening.

Some pay off their debts by becoming drug mules, others different ways but they are endentured to others in their home country because the criminals in their home country know where their families live, shop, and work and non-payment is not tolerated.

You don't learn that being a reactionary cop. You learn it being a good investigator.

$10,000 probably pays for some added benefits to the crossing.

$20,000 is alot... but probably not unheard of.

[XL-entLady]

I highly recommend the following opinion piece. It says what I've been trying, but failing, to put across.

How we became white people
by Christina Lander

"...I'm a white male. I belong to a group that pretty much always been able to own land and to vote. I'm more or less from the kind that grabbed power somewhere after the fall of Rome and never let go. In other words, I'm the kind of white guy that has never experienced any real oppression.

Although I guess my ancestors technically left England because of some religious persecution and in spite of a rough boat ride and a rough first Thanksgiving, it's safe to say it worked out pretty well. ... But in addition to being white and having ancestors on the Mayflower, I'm also Canadian. Yes, I know that might actually make me more white than before, but it also technically makes me an immigrant to this country. ......

The reality is that America has a long history of welcoming immigrants who will never be able to check that white box on the census, and unfortunately that means America also has a long history of discrimination against those people regardless of their status in the country. Just one example would be the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II contrasted against the treatment of German-Americans. But all of that was in the past right? Well, ask yourself this: Who is more likely to get pulled over and forced to show his papers in Arizona today? A first generation Canadian immigrant, or a 10th generation Mexican-American?

What I hope this census will force the country to deal with is the fact that white immigrants like me will never again make up the majority of people that come to this country. America is not getting whiter, it will never get whiter. Well, unless we start handing those blankets out again."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/29/lander.who.am.i/index.html?hpt=T2

[Minnow]

I highly recommend the following opinion piece. It says what I've been trying, but failing, to put across.

How we became white people
by Christina Lander

"...I'm a white male. I belong to a group that pretty much always been able to own land and to vote. I'm more or less from the kind that grabbed power somewhere after the fall of Rome and never let go. In other words, I'm the kind of white guy that has never experienced any real oppression.

Although I guess my ancestors technically left England because of some religious persecution and in spite of a rough boat ride and a rough first Thanksgiving, it's safe to say it worked out pretty well. ... But in addition to being white and having ancestors on the Mayflower, I'm also Canadian. Yes, I know that might actually make me more white than before, but it also technically makes me an immigrant to this country. ......

The reality is that America has a long history of welcoming immigrants who will never be able to check that white box on the census, and unfortunately that means America also has a long history of discrimination against those people regardless of their status in the country. Just one example would be the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II contrasted against the treatment of German-Americans. But all of that was in the past right? Well, ask yourself this: Who is more likely to get pulled over and forced to show his papers in Arizona today? A first generation Canadian immigrant, or a 10th generation Mexican-American?

What I hope this census will force the country to deal with is the fact that white immigrants like me will never again make up the majority of people that come to this country. America is not getting whiter, it will never get whiter. Well, unless we start handing those blankets out again."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/29/lander.who.am.i/index.html?hpt=T2

This is an America issue, not a color or race issue.

Really, I have a high opinion and the utmost respect for you. Would you mind peddling white guilt on the Progressives thread, instead.