PDA

View Full Version : I'm confused



ducknwork
04-23-2010, 05:23 PM
So they pass this legislation in AZ that makes being an illegal immigrant a crime :confused: (first point of confusion...thought it already was illegal...) and there are people protesting it :confused: (second point of confusion) because it takes away our rights as citizens (third point of confusion...non citizens don't have US rights, right?). Please help me understand.:( Until someone makes me see the light here, I guess I'll be sitting here thinking that Arizona passed some great laws today.

Check out the article for more info. I really don't understand how Obama can be against this. *scratching head*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_enforcement

Some great quotes:


"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."


The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."


"Illegal is illegal," said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona. "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.

Other provisions of the bill allow lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

What I find somewhat humorous is that in the link, there is a picture of four protestors holding signs that say V E T O. It appears that they are all hispanic. Go figure!:o




Obama said in Washington that he's instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona bill to see if it's legal, and said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

Cody Covey
04-23-2010, 05:38 PM
They are making it illegal in the sense that they can ask you to prove that you are a citizen now is my understanding. people are protesting because they believe it will lead to racial profiling but that doesn't make sense for a couple reason. First if it was going to happen trust me it already is. Second there are rules in place to prevent racial profiling. If someone asked me if i was a citizen and to prove it, it wouldn't be to hard to do and i wouldn't have an issue with it especially if i knew it was to help keep illegals out.

dnf777
04-23-2010, 08:23 PM
I'm confused also. The law basically lists a bunch of things that I thought already were in place?? Maybe we should rob a bank, then sue the gov't because the cops caught us because we "matched a description" and they pulled us over, and we happened to have large sums of cash? Heaven forbid they ask us where we got it, or to prove we actually earned it, and didn't steal it. I don't get it either???

Eric Johnson
04-23-2010, 09:16 PM
The Feds have not been enforcing the immigration laws as strenuously as they might. When the stae authorities would catch someone, there was no way to prosecute because the law was a Federal law and the state has no standing in Federal court. Now it's a state law and they can file state charges and go to state court.

Only time will tell if this simply changes a Federal Catch and Release program into a state Catch and Release program.

Watch for the DoJ to say, "You can't do that" and file a Federal lawsuit. Now we're talking states rights and it'll be interesting.

Eric

luvmylabs23139
04-23-2010, 10:06 PM
There are a few interesting things that a legal or illegal imigrant can be charged with.
A legal imigrant can be charged with failing to carry their green card. The law states that it must be carried at all times so in reality even legal imigrants can and should be charged with that violation. Before anyone jumps on me for saying that they should be charged for failure to carry their green card, mine was issued 4/1/67 and yes I do keep it in my wallet at all times.

JDogger
04-23-2010, 10:44 PM
There are a few interesting things that a legal or illegal imigrant can be charged with.
A legal imigrant can be charged with failing to carry their green card. The law states that it must be carried at all times so in reality even legal imigrants can and should be charged with that violation. Before anyone jumps on me for saying that they should be charged for failure to carry their green card, mine was issued 4/1/67 and yes I do keep it in my wallet at all times.

I'm curious luvy. You've been a greencard carrying immigrant for +40 years.
Considering some of your very fervent posts here regarding other immigrants (legal or not) and native minorities, I have to wonder why you have never elected to go through the Naturalization process and become a US citizen yourself?

Fair question? JD

Franco
04-23-2010, 10:58 PM
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

Then Obama called them irresponsibile;
Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level – or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

This is what's wrong with Obama. Just as with his Health Care Reform, now his poorly concieved Banking Reform and his soon the Amnesty(why not, tax payers will be buying them health insurence) is all detrimental to the well-being of CITIZENS!

It is Washington DC that is and has been irresponsible!

ducknwork
04-24-2010, 05:57 AM
That's exactly what I don't get, Franco. I don't see what rational grounds he has to oppose this upon. I would be interested in knowing exactly what he finds so irresponsible about the law. It sounds like it makes complete sense from the articles I have read.

Terry Britton
04-24-2010, 09:32 AM
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

Then Obama called them irresponsibile;
Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

This is what's wrong with Obama. Just as with his Health Care Reform, now his poorly concieved Banking Reform and his soon the Amnesty(why not, tax payers will be buying them health insurence) is all detrimental to the well-being of CITIZENS!

It is Washington DC that is and has been irresponsible!

He is probably more upset at Arizona over their other bill that will be passed if it hasn't already that requires anyone that will be on their ballots for any election to produce their birth certificate. Hey, both my wife and myself have to produce our birth certificate in Oklahoma to obtain our professional licenses, so why people going on the ballots?

If this law to show birth certificates to be on a ballot were in place earlier, then there wouldn't be any birthers. This will either settle the birthers forever in 2012, or Obama may choose to run without being on the Arizona ballot.

Franco
04-24-2010, 09:51 AM
If this law to show birth certificates to be on a ballot were in place earlier, then there wouldn't be any birthers. This will either settle the birthers forever in 2012, or Obama may choose to run without being on the Arizona ballot.



Interesting that Obama won't lay all the speculation to rest and show proof that he was born here. He won't show proof and expose himself because he knows he would lose Arizona anyway.

Texas, will you stand with your Arizona brothers?

ducknwork
04-24-2010, 04:21 PM
Waaaah waaaah Cry me a river. Then swim across it (towards Mexico).:p

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36753942/ns/us_news-life/

I still don't get how people are upset about getting people out of the US that are ILLEGAL...

Sounds like some brainwashing and overreaction going on as well...


"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

Blackstone
04-25-2010, 02:32 PM
What criteria are they planning to use as “reasonable suspicion” for stopping suspected illegals? Do you actually believe racial profiling is not going to be involved? I have been a citizen of this country for all of my 56 years. I don’t intend to produce “papers” on the whim of a cop to prove it.

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 02:41 PM
Waaaah waaaah Cry me a river. Then swim across it (towards Mexico).:p

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36753942/ns/us_news-life/

I still don't get how people are upset about getting people out of the US that are ILLEGAL...

Sounds like some brainwashing and overreaction going on as well...

Maybe when the Gistapo pulls you over and asks for you 'papers' you'll get it.

dback
04-25-2010, 10:22 PM
What criteria are they planning to use as reasonable suspicion for stopping suspected illegals?Well, lets see if you can wrap your brain around this scenario. A Phoenix Police Officer observes a red toyota pickup traveling east bound on 'blank' avenue....the vehicle runs a red light at the intersection of 'blank' and 'blank'. He pulls the pickup over, after advising dispatch of his location, vehicle description and license number he approaches the vehicle and asks for drivers license, registration and proof of insurance (standard procedure for any traffic stop). Driver speaks no (or very little) english, may or may not have proof of insurance (likely not), may or may not have registration and can only produce a Mexican drivers license but no visa......that will probably be considered "reasonable suspicion" Do you actually believe racial profiling is not going to be involved? Unlikely.....every officer knows the scrutiny they will be under. Don't forget that a huge percentage of the LEO in Arizona are themselves members of one minority group or another (mostly Hispanic) I have been a citizen of this country for all of my 56 years. I dont intend to produce papers on the whim of a cop to prove it. You don't mind if I doubt your veracity here....I believe very strongly that in the above scenario, you WILL produce "papers" or you WILL receive a citation (just like anyone else that fails to provide that documentation on the 'WHIM of a cop').

These are in large part, Federal laws verbatim that will now require a uniform enforcement throughout the state.

Hew
04-25-2010, 11:50 PM
Maybe when the Gistapo pulls you over and asks for you 'papers' you'll get it.
There should be a law in this country, under penalty of being chased with a stick, requiring anyone making ham-handed Nazi comparisons (about anything) to at least know how to f'ing spell whatever Nazi reference they're comparing something to. I'm just sayin'.

dback
04-26-2010, 12:02 AM
There should be a law in this country, under penalty of being chased with a stick, requiring anyone making ham-handed Nazi comparisons (about anything) to at least know how to f'ing spell whatever Nazi reference they're comparing something to. I'm just sayin'.

Oooooh.....now I get it......and here I was thinking he just forgot to hit the 'spacebar' and was talking about the 'essence' of the Air Force Post Office :-)

ducknwork
04-26-2010, 07:24 AM
What criteria are they planning to use as reasonable suspicion for stopping suspected illegals? Do you actually believe racial profiling is not going to be involved? I have been a citizen of this country for all of my 56 years. I dont intend to produce papers on the whim of a cop to prove it.

I suspect 'reasonable suspicion' will be very clearly and very specifically defined to prevent problems from arising. They would have to define it that way to cover their butts.

I bet when they slap those cuffs on you for not being cooperative (which would probably be a red flag for reasonable suspicion), you'll be screaming 'MY PAPERS ARE IN MY WALLET...JUST LET ME GOOOOOO....' Of course, you wouldn't be doing anything that would lead them to suspect you to be illegal, do you?

BTW, you seem OK with illegals being here unchecked. Is that a fair assessment? If so, please tell us why.

ducknwork
04-26-2010, 07:25 AM
Maybe when the Gistapo pulls you over and asks for you 'papers' you'll get it.

And maybe when your kid, wife, grandkid or whatever gets blasted in the crossfire of illegal mexican drug dealers, you'll get it. Will you still sympathize with them then?

badbullgator
04-26-2010, 09:09 AM
What criteria are they planning to use as reasonable suspicion for stopping suspected illegals? Do you actually believe racial profiling is not going to be involved? I have been a citizen of this country for all of my 56 years. I dont intend to produce papers on the whim of a cop to prove it.


ummmm lets see.....they look Mexican maybe??? Call a spade a spade. Why would they stop me, a cracker ass white boy, here in Florida? No real reason it is pretty clear I am not hispanic and lets be real clear this is primarily about hispanics and well maybe those damn canadians....but mostly about hispanics. I don't know you but I assume you are not blind and my guess is the majority of the people can tell what a hispanic looks like.
As far as not producing papers for a cop, are you saying you don't give them your DL when they ask for it?? My bet is you do and being that you were born here my guess is that for those who were born here a DL makes it pretty clear.

dback
04-26-2010, 10:22 AM
For all the 'Henny Penny's' out there. This is not about Racial Profiling......it is about 'LAW ENFORCEMENT'. The Feds make many hundreds of arrests daily and officers at border check stations make in the hundreds of thousands of judgements daily.....where are your forlorn wails of outrage, 'Gistapo' :rolleyes: comparisons and profiling charges when the Feds enforce the law? The vast majority of protesters are Hispanic and/or teens....go figure :rolleyes: These prepubescent comments about being arrested because you forgot your DL while heading out to buy a gallon of milk or anyone that buys into them are absurd. My son is Phoenix PD....."no DL....no problem....give me name, DOB and SS#, in seconds I'll give you more info on you than even you will remember, plus a photo. Give me zero info and you get arrested regardless of gender, race, age or the class of vehicle you're driving". Those laws apply in ALL 57 states.

Ask yourself why the Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala are screaming so loudly.....If you were looking at taking on the burden of additional 'health care', crime, poverty, strained social programs AND the loss of 'cash flow'...you'd scream too. Dems wouldn't give two hoots in hell about these people if they weren't viewed as future votes or political fodder. From a Dem perspective it works nicely....."let the border states shoulder the burden of our future votes and we'll scream bloody murder when they complain"

Franco
04-26-2010, 10:29 AM
For all the 'Henny Penny's' out there. This is not about Racial Profiling......it is about 'LAW ENFORCEMENT'. The Feds make many hundreds of arrests daily and officers at border check stations make in the hundreds of thousands of judgements daily.....where are your forlorn wails of outrage, 'Gistapo' :rolleyes: comparisons and profiling charges when the Feds enforce the law? The vast majority of protesters are Hispanic and/or teens....go figure :rolleyes: These prepubescent comments about being arrested because you forgot your DL while heading out to buy a gallon of milk or anyone that buys into them are absurd. My son is Phoenix PD....."no DL....no problem....give me name, DOB and SS#, in seconds I'll give you more info on you than even you will remember, plus a photo. Give me zero info and you get arrested regardless of gender, race, age or the class of vehicle you're driving". Those laws apply in ALL 57 states.

Ask yourself why the Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala are screaming so loudly.....If you were looking at taking on the burden of additional 'health care', crime, poverty, strained social programs AND the loss of 'cash flow'...you'd scream too. Dems wouldn't give two hoots in hell about these people if they weren't viewed as future votes or political fodder. From a Dem perspective it works nicely....."let the border states shoulder the burden of our future votes and we'll scream bloody murder when they complain"

The dissenters must have watched too much of Cheech Marins, "Born In East La."!

For those against this new law, are you ready to pay for their Health Insurance, thier education and pay additional taxes to maintain roads and other infastructure to support these illegals?

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 10:43 AM
There should be a law in this country, under penalty of being chased with a stick, requiring anyone making ham-handed Nazi comparisons (about anything) to at least know how to f'ing spell whatever Nazi reference they're comparing something to. I'm just sayin'.

So predictable. If you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 10:45 AM
What criteria are they planning to use as reasonable suspicion for stopping suspected illegals? Do you actually believe racial profiling is not going to be involved? I have been a citizen of this country for all of my 56 years. I dont intend to produce papers on the whim of a cop to prove it.

That's the point. The law is unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged and shot down in the courts. That's one of the big problems of extremists. When the constitution, or any laws for that matter, get in their way, they just ignore them.

huntinman
04-26-2010, 10:50 AM
That's the point. The law is unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged and shot down in the courts. That's one of the big problems of extremists. When the constitution, or any laws for that matter, get in their way, they just ignore them.

Just as Obambi and his merry misfits have done with the Obamacare debacle, huh?

badbullgator
04-26-2010, 11:13 AM
That's the point. The law is unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged and shot down in the courts. That's one of the big problems of extremists. When the constitution, or any laws for that matter, get in their way, they just ignore them.


So you don't produce your DL when asked by a LEO?
Stop being such a bunch of pansy ass pc babies. Profiling is the best way to find the target group you are looking for. Profile muslims in airports and Hispanics in boarder states. If your legal and you get stopped what is the big deal? If you want to find a terrorist trying to blow up an airplane you time is best spent profiling muslims and if you want to find a tax dollar leaching illegal you time is best spent profiling Mexicans, Gutamalins, Panamanians, or what have you in Texas, Florida, LA, AZ,.. it just makes good sense.
I am confused on why this is unconstitutional? I dont recall an amendment that says you shall not have to prove citizenship. On what grounds are you calling this unconstitutional?

ducknwork
04-26-2010, 11:43 AM
That's the point. The law is unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged and shot down in the courts. That's one of the big problems of extremists. When the constitution, or any laws for that matter, get in their way, they just ignore them.

PLEASE tell us what is unconstitutional about verifying the citizenship of someone living in America. Also, what is so 'extreme', as you put it, about making a law that gives AZ the authority to charge someone who is doing something ILLEGAL with the crime they are committing?

JDogger
04-26-2010, 12:00 PM
Google "probable cause", the 4th amendement and the 14th sec 1.

If this law is challenged and found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS it will be overturned. Likewise the healthcare bill. The sky is not falling.

Uncle Bill
04-26-2010, 12:01 PM
That's the point. The law is unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged and shot down in the courts. That's one of the big problems of extremists. When the constitution, or any laws for that matter, get in their way, they just ignore them.


Spoken like a true ILLEGAL. I'm surprised you have time to post here, when you should be carrying some sign in the protest group. "Hey Jose...how you like my golf gun?" "What you mean Pepe?" "Well it sure made a hole-in-Juan".


UB

ducknwork
04-26-2010, 12:12 PM
Google "probable cause", the 4th amendement and the 14th sec 1.

If this law is challenged and found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS it will be overturned. Likewise the healthcare bill. The sky is not falling.

I did.


In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people (who is referred to as 'the people'? most likely US citizens) 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.

The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[1] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[2]

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar-Spinelli test.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

I think standing in the Home Depot parking lot at 7 am with all you hispanic buddies would be probably cause for getting carded. So would the traffic stop scenario proposed a couple pages back. What problem do any of you have with this? Oh, btw, the constitution only applies to citizens...So even if you get checked 'unconstitutionally' and you are not a legal US citizen, you can't do jack about it.

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 12:17 PM
Spoken like a true ILLEGAL. I'm surprised you have time to post here, when you should be carrying some sign in the protest group. "Hey Jose...how you like my golf gun?" "What you mean Pepe?" "Well it sure made a hole-in-Juan".


UB

Attack attack attack.... The methodology of the mindless... BTW my family has been in America since the 1700's and I'm of European decent. Without a doubt, you have established yourself as an extremist of the most volatile order... Good job bud.

ducknwork
04-26-2010, 12:21 PM
Attack attack attack.... The methodology of the mindless... BTW my family has been in America since the 1700's and I'm of European decent. Without a doubt, you have established yourself as an extremist of the most volatile order... Good job bud.

Avoid avoid avoid...typical MO of those who have no answers when asked to back up what comes out of their mouths.


Nice deflection though...:)

dnf777
04-26-2010, 12:25 PM
Attack attack attack.... The methodology of the mindless... BTW my family has been in America since the 1700's and I'm of European decent. Without a doubt, you have established yourself as an extremist of the most volatile order... Good job bud.

Depitty,
I wouldn't have seen that classy reply, except you reposted it in your response. Such classy comments, (I won't say racist, although bordering thereon) are why exactly ONE person is on my ignore list. RTF is so much more enjoyable without the sophomoric personal attacks against fellow RTFers, ethnic groups, or heaven forbid, not extremists! Its a waste of bandwidth to try and have a civilized difference of opinion with some.

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 12:27 PM
PLEASE tell us what is unconstitutional about verifying the citizenship of someone living in America. Also, what is so 'extreme', as you put it, about making a law that gives AZ the authority to charge someone who is doing something ILLEGAL with the crime they are committing?

Nothing is illegal about having to verify citizenship. For example how about when a company wants to hire someone? Or to get a drivers license. Nothing wrong with that. That's when it needs to occur.
The issue is with giving the right of search and seizure to police officers on the street for virtually any reason they want. That is a problem.
How many legal citizens will have to 'prove' there citizenship on the spot? How many prejudiced offices do you folks have down there in Arizona? Don't tell me known, cause I live in Oregon and we've got our fair share. You just gave them free license to discriminate.
Do you folks realize how easily you're being manipulated by this Political Ploy? Cause that's all it is. An attempt to gain a political advantage during an election year. How about the civil suits you will be hit with when Bubba goes after all them Brownskins and inadvertantly picks on a hispanic attorney or worse. Your tax payer dollars will make Jose a millionaire...

YardleyLabs
04-26-2010, 01:01 PM
I did.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

I think standing in the Home Depot parking lot at 7 am with all you hispanic buddies would be probably cause for getting carded. So would the traffic stop scenario proposed a couple pages back. What problem do any of you have with this? Oh, btw, the constitution only applies to citizens...So even if you get checked 'unconstitutionally' and you are not a legal US citizen, you can't do jack about it.
Actually, the fourth amendment and most other provisions of our Constitution apply to all people in the country, whether they are citizens or not. With respect to probable cause, a pretty large percentage of our legal population is or Hispanic origin, and it is the fastest growing part of our legal population. If gathering together constitutes probable cause, then a bunch of white guys hanging together should obviously be questioned for possible ties to militia terrorist groups.:rolleyes: [I think both are protected from such intrusion.]

JDogger
04-26-2010, 01:07 PM
I did.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

I think standing in the Home Depot parking lot at 7 am with all you hispanic buddies would be probably cause for getting carded. So would the traffic stop scenario proposed a couple pages back. What problem do any of you have with this? Oh, btw, the constitution only applies to citizens...So even if you get checked 'unconstitutionally' and you are not a legal US citizen, you can't do jack about it.


14th Amendment Section 1

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/glossary.html#JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/glossary.html#JURIS) the equal protection of the laws.

I guess you missed this part. It says any person, not any citizen, within the jurisdiction of the state shall have equal protection. This has been tested and upheld by the SCOTUS, most notably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

dback
04-26-2010, 03:39 PM
Depitty,
I wouldn't have seen that classy reply, except you reposted it in your response. Such classy comments, (I won't say racist, although bordering thereon) are why exactly ONE person is on my ignore list. RTF is so much more enjoyable without the sophomoric personal attacks against fellow RTFers, ethnic groups, or heaven forbid, not extremists! Its a waste of bandwidth to try and have a civilized difference of opinion with some.

Color me silly Doc....but, decrying UB while embracing someone who has used Jose, Bubba, Brownskins, Bud, the Mindless, Gistapo :rolleyes:, cokehead alcoholic, Bozo and Fat-Boy Limpmouth in only his first few posts seems just a hair disingenuous.

badbullgator
04-26-2010, 04:10 PM
Color me silly Doc....but, decrying UB while embracing someone who has used Jose, Bubba, Brownskins, Bud, the Mindless, Gistapo :rolleyes:, cokehead alcoholic, Bozo and Fat-Boy Limpmouth in only his first few posts seems just a hair disingenuous.



:D:D:D:D

very good point, but you know it is only bad if someone/thing they are against is doing it. You know like calling Bush names is OK, calling obongo names is not....war is good if obongo does it bad if Bush does it....you get the point

Dave Flint
04-26-2010, 04:14 PM
That's the point. The law is unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged and shot down in the courts. That's one of the big problems of extremists. When the constitution, or any laws for that matter, get in their way, they just ignore them.

Maybe we can use the commerce clause to get around it?:rolleyes:

Seriously, all this pretending not to know what's this is about is annoying as hell. Democrats want and need more uneducated peasants voting. That's it & that's all.

dnf777
04-26-2010, 04:38 PM
Color me silly Doc....but, decrying UB while embracing someone who has used Jose, Bubba, Brownskins, Bud, the Mindless, Gistapo :rolleyes:, cokehead alcoholic, Bozo and Fat-Boy Limpmouth in only his first few posts seems just a hair disingenuous.

Who am I embracing?? What?
I try, as most do, not to be rude or call people names. If someone chooses to do so with public figures, that's one thing. UB has consistently attacked and belittled fellow RTFers who he happens to disagree with. That goes against Chris' wishes, Vicky's sticky statement, RK's plea for civility, and my personal tolerance level, hence his is on my ignore list.

I've butted heads with many here, you included, without anyone calling names or attacking, and at the end of the day realize we're all friendly, enjoy our dogs, trying to earn a living (or enjoy retirement) and have some friendly, if not spirited debate. There's no need for name calling or personal smears, or attacking one's trade or profession. And THAT's not disingenuous!

dnf777
04-26-2010, 04:44 PM
:D:D:D:D

very good point, but you know it is only bad if someone/thing they are against is doing it. You know like calling Bush names is OK, calling obongo names is not....war is good if obongo does it bad if Bush does it....you get the point

I have tried not to call any president names, and give presidents and past presidents the respect they're due. In any case, smearing public figures, be they presidents, talk-show hosts or whomever is one thing. Consistently attacking fellow dog enthusiasts is another, and only one or two seem to enjoy that behavior. Besides just being rude, it could get this room shut down if not kept in check. Fortunately, the vast majority of us here engage in debate with respect for one another, with only a few exceptions. I've chosen to ignore that person, as to not be tempted to respond in kind, and lower myself to that level. Sometimes its hard to back away from attacks on your profession or self, and its easier to just ignore it in the first place!

badbullgator
04-26-2010, 05:00 PM
I don't disagree with you there, but you do seem to call out UB while deputydog is not called out by you.

dnf777
04-26-2010, 05:05 PM
I don't disagree with you there, but you do seem to call out UB while deputydog is not called out by you.

I'm not the forum policeman. Sambo's never thrown darts at me.

Hey, what's your boy Crist going to do? Indie? Would he stoop so low as to run with the Dems?
Only things that seems certain, is if he runs in the republican primary, his political life is over.

Hew
04-26-2010, 05:06 PM
So predictable. If you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.
I apologize. I shouldn't have unleashed my Cammocazis to lead a banzoi charge against your stupid gistapo comment. I agree with you now. The new Arizona law is something that Mow C. Tung or Joseph Stalling would do and we should be ashamed of ourselves.

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 05:13 PM
Color me silly Doc....but, decrying UB while embracing someone who has used Jose, Bubba, Brownskins, Bud, the Mindless, Gistapo :rolleyes:, cokehead alcoholic, Bozo and Fat-Boy Limpmouth in only his first few posts seems just a hair disingenuous.

Hmmm. Guess I'll take the 5th on that one.. Although, several of my references where in mock humor citing other posts. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Franco
04-26-2010, 05:16 PM
Maybe depittydawg (is that a misspelling for Deputydawg?) and Sambo work together at IHop.

They have to, I've never read so many misinformed comments in my life!

ducknwork
04-26-2010, 05:18 PM
One person, two names?:confused:

badbullgator
04-26-2010, 05:19 PM
I'm not the forum policeman. Sambo's never thrown darts at me.

Hey, what's your boy Crist going to do? Indie? Would he stoop so low as to run with the Dems?
Only things that seems certain, is if he runs in the republican primary, his political life is over.


Crist is done unless he goes full dem. I doubt he will take votes from the republicans if he runs as a indie, probably more form the democrats. He got too full of himself at some point. His latest, giving in to the teacher unions, was the nails........

badbullgator
04-26-2010, 05:20 PM
One person, two names?:confused:


That could never happen here

road kill
04-26-2010, 05:23 PM
So.......President Obama is siding with illegal aliens over the voting citizens of Arizona which are also citizens of the USA.

This is good?

Splain please???:confused:



rk

ducknwork
04-26-2010, 05:25 PM
So.......President Obama is siding with illegal aliens over the voting citizens of Arizona which are also citizens of the USA.

This is good?

Splain please???:confused:



rk

Hence the title I gave this thread...I'm still waiting for someone the legitimately justify the actions of those that oppose this legislation.

badbullgator
04-26-2010, 05:29 PM
Come on guys. Just because they are illegal doesn't mean they have done anything illegal.........right.......wait.......

obongo needs votes for his peps

YardleyLabs
04-26-2010, 05:33 PM
So.......President Obama is siding with illegal aliens over the voting citizens of Arizona which are also citizens of the USA.

This is good?

Splain please???:confused:



rk
Maybe he's siding with all those Mexican Americans who are here legally and are likely to be stopped at any moment because they might be illegals. Of course, by Supreme Court rule, once they have been stopped they are subject to full searches without warrant and anything found may be used against them in trial whether or not it is related to the cause of the initial stop. Given that, the Arizona law may be the equivalent of eliminating the 4th amendment for anyone who might be considered a Mexican regardless of their actual nationality of genealogy.

road kill
04-26-2010, 05:36 PM
Maybe he's siding with all those Mexican Americans who are here legally and are likely to be stopped at any moment because they might be illegals. Of course, by Supreme Court rule, once they have been stopped they are subject to full searches without warrant and anything found may be used against them in trial whether or not it is related to the cause of the initial stop. Given that, the Arizona law may be the equivalent of eliminating the 4th amendment for anyone who might be considered a Mexican regardless of their actual nationality of genealogy.
The voters of AZ have spoken.
They are also American citizens.

The illegals are not.
Something has to be done.

Doing nothing has not worked out to well.

You have an alternate plan???




rk

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 05:36 PM
Maybe depittydawg (is that a misspelling for Deputydawg?) and Sambo work together at IHop.

They have to, I've never read so many misinformed comments in my life!

So if someone disagrees with you, they must be misinformed. Interesting concept...

Franco
04-26-2010, 05:39 PM
So if someone disagrees with you, they must be misinformed. Interesting concept...

Only when they can't backup what they write!

Franco
04-26-2010, 05:43 PM
Maybe he's siding with all those Mexican Americans who are here legally and are likely to be stopped at any moment because they might be illegals. Of course, by Supreme Court rule, once they have been stopped they are subject to full searches without warrant and anything found may be used against them in trial whether or not it is related to the cause of the initial stop. Given that, the Arizona law may be the equivalent of eliminating the 4th amendment for anyone who might be considered a Mexican regardless of their actual nationality of genealogy.

Jeff, you are good at researching your opinions. You should read the new law in Arizona. They can only ask for one's ID when they are stopped for any number of violations of the law. If they don't have a valid ID, the police can do a background check on the individual. They CAN NOT just walk up to someone and ask for proof of citizenship.

dback
04-26-2010, 05:51 PM
Maybe he's siding with all those Mexican Americans who are here legally and are likely to be stopped at any moment because they might be illegals. Of course, by Supreme Court rule, once they have been stopped they are subject to full searches without warrant and anything found may be used against them in trial whether or not it is related to the cause of the initial stop. Given that, the Arizona law may be the equivalent of eliminating the 4th amendment for anyone who might be considered a Mexican regardless of their actual nationality of genealogy.

Two of my best friends will be involved with 'policy', one for DPS (Az Highway Patrol) and one for Phoenix PD. Both believe that little will change in 'policy' except for 'criminal' investigations or traffic stops where the operator is unable to provide a US DL or ID. LEO have a mountain of paperwork to do daily anyway....add a stop that 'MIGHT' involve 'racial profiling' and you're going to double or triple your workload. If you think a 'beat' officer wants any part of that action.....

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 05:52 PM
The voters of AZ have spoken.
They are also American citizens.

The illegals are not.
Something has to be done.

Doing nothing has not worked out to well.

You have an alternate plan???




rk

You do realize that the constitution guarantees rights to all "the people" in the United States, not just citizens. I don't understand why some people have so much trouble with the 4th amendment. Just because President Bush ignored it, doesn't me everybody can.

dnf777
04-26-2010, 06:01 PM
LEO have a mountain of paperwork to do daily anyway....add a stop that 'MIGHT' involve 'racial profiling' and you're going to double or triple your workload. If you think a 'beat' officer wants any part of that action.....

That's the most pertinent comment on this whole subject! Undoubtedly, any such citation or arrest will result in hours of court appearances, taking more cops off the street and putting them in courtrooms. If anyone's had to appear in court lately, it's amazing how much of people's time is wasted sitting and listening to unrelated cases, waiting for your case to appear. Almost as bad as a doctor's waiting room.

Dave Flint
04-26-2010, 06:06 PM
It’s easy to tell the posters who live in a border state vs. those who don’t. Police in AZ. are not going to go around asking for IDs because someone has brown skin. Don’t you understand that the MAJORITY of the population in many cities is Hispanic??? Many have families that have been here hundreds of years! They speak English!

We all know an illegal when we see one & it doesn’t have anything to do w/ “racial profiling” either. You can tell by their clothes and behavior. Most people help them out if they need it but that doesn’t mean we want to pay for their medical expenses, pay more property taxes so their kids can go to school or have our votes canceled out because some Democrat buys their votes.

JDogger
04-26-2010, 09:48 PM
Its easy to tell the posters who live in a border state vs. those who dont. Police in AZ. are not going to go around asking for IDs because someone has brown skin. Dont you understand that the MAJORITY of the population in many cities is Hispanic??? Many have families that have been here hundreds of years! They speak English!

We all know an illegal when we see one & it doesnt have anything to do w/ racial profiling either. You can tell by their clothes and behavior. Most people help them out if they need it but that doesnt mean we want to pay for their medical expenses, pay more property taxes so their kids can go to school or have our votes canceled out because some Democrat buys their votes.

Hi Dave,

I like your sig line. I'm sure Mr. Bora and others here do as well. After a couple decades of dog training and waterfowling I have learned to watch my dog and respect his senses and read his cues.
I've learned as well to read people through observation, and posters here on PP by their written words, hoping to understand them by reading between the lines in this most imperfect of mediums.

That said, I'll address your most recent post.

I live in a border state. I am disturbed by illegal immigration, but I differ with your statement;
"We all know an illegal when we see one & it doesnt have anything to do w/ racial profiling either."
To quote a previous poster to this forum, "It depends".
Yes, sometimes appearence and behavior can be a tell, but I own pointy-toed exotic skinned boots, an over-large trophy belt-buckle, and a white straw, curled-side cowboy hat, as do a goodly number of my PBR and rodeo friends, some of which are hispanic.

How do you decide who is legal looking and who is not, if not by complexion, ie, racial differences?

"Most people help them out if they need it but that doesnt mean we want to pay for their medical expenses,"

Agreed. I also don't want to pay the medical expenses of the morbidly obese US citizens who routinely drive the aisles of the grocery stores in their motorized chairs, dragging their oxygen bottles, but hey, I guess I got no choice, they are us.

"pay more property taxes so their kids can go to school"

Yeah... my property values go down, and my property taxes continue to rise,...to send your kids to school. I don't have kids, and I recognize the value of universal education, but why do I have to pay the same rate as people with children, (kinda socialistic, huh?). I guess it is all what you're used to. Like medicare.

Last, but not least,

"or have our votes canceled out because some Democrat buys their votes."

There is voter registration fraud ala ACORN and many other groups, ie, young Republicans. Actual fraudulent voting is rare. I have worked at polling stations through the County Clerks office, I know my friends and neighbors, and illegal aliens are not alowed to vote. They are not on the list of registered voters. At least in my county.

JD

Dave Flint
04-27-2010, 04:28 PM
Correct me if Im wrong, but my understanding of the Arizona law is that there must be some lawful reason for the police interaction before they can question the legal status of the suspect. They are not allowed to simply challenge people who "look like Mexicans" or dont speak English unless they are doing something wrong.

My original point in this thread is that the obvious reason the Democrats are opposing this law is because they want more illegals who will soon become legal voters. The base of the Democrat party includes the uneducated and the illiterate. The irony is that their base also includes the environmentalists, the unions, and poor blacks, all of whom are adversely affected by the massive influx of illegals.

YardleyLabs
04-27-2010, 04:40 PM
Correct me if Im wrong, but my understanding of the Arizona law is that there must be some lawful reason for the police interaction before they can question the legal status of the suspect. They are not allowed to simply challenge people who "look like Mexicans" or dont speak English unless they are doing something wrong.

My original point in this thread is that the obvious reason the Democrats are opposing this law is because they want more illegals who will soon become legal voters. The base of the Democrat party includes the uneducated and the illiterate. The irony is that their base also includes the environmentalists, the unions, and poor blacks, all of whom are adversely affected by the massive influx of illegals.
How do illegals become legal voters? The only way for that to happen is for them to first become citizens. However, I do suspect that the treatment of immigration reform will impact hispanic voting patterns for many years. which has been one of the major reasons that people from both parties are reluctant to take too hard a stand since hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the electorate. I suspect that a high percentage wold be inclined to vote Republican on the basis of social issues, where hispanics tend to be more conservative than other groups. However, Republicans have allowed themselves to be cast in an anti-immigration role.

Dave Flint
04-27-2010, 05:21 PM
How do illegals become legal voters?


Amnesty. Coming soon.



I suspect that a high percentage wold be inclined to vote Republican on the basis of social issues, where hispanics tend to be more conservative than other groups. However, Republicans have allowed themselves to be cast in an anti-immigration role.

Agreed. Republicans are remarkably incompetent at public relations. On the other hand, the Democrats have a huge advantage with the media subtly blurring the line between "anti-immigration" and "anti-ILLEGAL immigration".

WaterDogRem
04-28-2010, 01:45 AM
Even Jack Cafferty on CNN can figure this one out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBLgSzJpOec

sandyg
04-28-2010, 06:35 AM
That's the point. The law is unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged and shot down in the courts. That's one of the big problems of extremists. When the constitution, or any laws for that matter, get in their way, they just ignore them.

Ahhhhh, liberals...
Hide behind the Constitution when it's convenient, interpret the Constitution when it's not.

david gibson
04-28-2010, 09:34 AM
How do illegals become legal voters? The only way for that to happen is for them to first become citizens. However, I do suspect that the treatment of immigration reform will impact hispanic voting patterns for many years. which has been one of the major reasons that people from both parties are reluctant to take too hard a stand since hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the electorate. I suspect that a high percentage wold be inclined to vote Republican on the basis of social issues, where hispanics tend to be more conservative than other groups. However, Republicans have allowed themselves to be cast in an anti-immigration role.

have you forgotten the "motor voter" laws? The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 -- the "Motor-Voter" law -- requires that people be allowed to register to vote when they apply for a driver's license, when they collect welfare payments, or by mail. No proof of citizenship is required, however, and motor vehicle departments are not equipped to check citizenship status. They must simply trust the applicant. The practical effect is that non-citizens are now essentially allowed to vote in the United States -- a clear violation of the Constitution.


or how about "anchor babies", Sr. and Sra. "rio nadadores" have 6 kids on us soil, all are automatically citizens. more democratic votes in 18 yrs!

there is nothing unconstitutional about how people will be treated in this bill, it mirrors federal laws already on the books that are not enforced. the only potentially unconstitutionality of it is a state assuming jurisdiction that the Fed is supposed to cover. thats it. but the people opposing this bill dont understand this, they just believe what their talking heads tell them and they think it will lead to "driving while mexican" incidents.

road kill
04-28-2010, 09:36 AM
have you forgotten the "motor voter" laws? or how about "anchor babies", Sr. and Sra. "rio nadadores" have 6 kids on us soil, all are automatically citizens. more democratic votes in 18 yrs!

there is nothing unconstitutional about how people will be treated in this bill, it mirrors federal laws already on the books that are not enforced. the only potentially unconstitutionality of it is a state assuming jurisdiction that the Fed is supposed to cover. thats it. but the people opposing this bill dont understand this, they just believe what their talking heads tell them and they think it will lead to "driving while mexican" incidents.


Wouldn't it be ironic if the Judge tells Holder "Your right, you (Feds) are supposed to be doing this, get troops down there and do it TODAY!!"


A guy can dream right??


rk

ducknwork
04-28-2010, 11:38 AM
Wouldn't it be ironic if the Judge tells Holder "Your right, you (Feds) are supposed to be doing this, get troops down there and do it TODAY!!"


A guy can dream right??


rk

That would be a great day.:D

depittydawg
04-28-2010, 11:56 AM
Ahhhhh, liberals...
Hide behind the Constitution when it's convenient, interpret the Constitution when it's not.

I refer you to comments by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Certainly one of the more radical liberals in Washington, wouldn't you agree?

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday that the tough new Arizona immigration law will probably be struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds.

"In my view it's all uphill under the law," Graham told reporters. "I think they'll have a hard time upholding this law, that's my view."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36418.html#ixzz0mPWwyRZg

depittydawg
04-28-2010, 11:58 AM
Wouldn't it be ironic if the Judge tells Holder "Your right, you (Feds) are supposed to be doing this, get troops down there and do it TODAY!!"


A guy can dream right??


rk

I would be amazed if Eric Holder took any action on any issue at this point.

LokiMeister
04-28-2010, 03:02 PM
There are a few interesting things that a legal or illegal imigrant can be charged with.
A legal imigrant can be charged with failing to carry their green card. The law states that it must be carried at all times so in reality even legal imigrants can and should be charged with that violation. Before anyone jumps on me for saying that they should be charged for failure to carry their green card, mine was issued 4/1/67 and yes I do keep it in my wallet at all times.

I believe it is against the law for ANY person to be without identification.



Ahhhhh, liberals...
Hide behind the Constitution when it's convenient, interpret the Constitution when it's not.

:rolleyes: Yeah, Bush NEVER did that, did he?

Haven't voted for a major party in 20 years, but am a conservative.

Here is the real reason why people are complaining about this: Our prices will go up because Americans are apparently "too good" to work the jobs that Mexicans will do, ie. harvest crops, etc.

Law won't get over turned and I love it, regards.

YardleyLabs
04-28-2010, 04:13 PM
I believe it is against the law for ANY person to be without identification.....
You must identify yourself when requested by a law enforcement officer, but a US citizen is not required to possess or present an identification card unless he or she is engaged in an activity for which identification is required (e.g. driving a vehicle or possession of a concealed weapon). Efforts to create national identification card requirements have been defeated by coalitions of liberal and conservative legislators who believe such a requirement is too intrusive on personal freedom.

dback
04-28-2010, 09:58 PM
IMO...this law will never see the light of day.

The Feds are complicit in the problems and lack of enforcement of current immigration laws. No politician wants to touch this '3rd rail' issue....'R' or 'D' and it has been that way for decades. This is a perfect opportunity for the Dems to make 'hay'. Obama will make campaign speeches decrying the injustice of this bill (even though it is a rewrite of the Fed law), let everyone get all worked up and then he'll have Holder step in with a 'stay' (or whatever the hell you call it [help me here Jeff]) and portray himself as the 'Savior' of the Latin world. There will be talk of reform but Congress and this Administration will never make a serious effort of addressing this issue, other states will lack the intestinal fortitude to make a similar effort as Arizona. The burden of illegal immigration and it's associated strains on this country will continue to go unaddressed due to a lack of leadership. We will be Greece someday.

You heard it here first ;-)

badbullgator
04-29-2010, 07:49 AM
You must identify yourself when requested by a law enforcement officer, but a US citizen is not required to possess or present an identification card unless he or she is engaged in an activity for which identification is required (e.g. driving a vehicle or possession of a concealed weapon). Efforts to create national identification card requirements have been defeated by coalitions of liberal and conservative legislators who believe such a requirement is too intrusive on personal freedom.


The state of Florida requiers that every adult carry government issued ID.

ducknwork
04-29-2010, 12:04 PM
How unconstitutional of them.

dback
04-30-2010, 11:17 PM
Just another day at the office for Az LEOs www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/30/arizona-authorities-searching-deputy-shot-desert/

Steve Hester
05-02-2010, 12:18 PM
Arizona simply realized that the Democratic controlled government was never going to do anything about securing our borders, evident by Obama cutting the budget for border control by 50%, so they decided to do something about that themselves. The Democrats are using this issue to "campaign" and court the Spanish vote. The cost to deport all of the illegal aliens currently in this country is outrageous, but less than the cost of them staying for ONE YEAR.

dnf777
05-02-2010, 01:43 PM
Steve, I don't disagree with what you say, but I think you fall a little short by not saying that a democratically controlled {or republican controlled} gov't will never do anything....

I don't recall lots of immigration action....well, let's see......anytime in my 42 years! (that is, to stem the flow of illegals, despite amnesty programs)

Steve Hester
05-09-2010, 08:33 AM
Steve, I don't disagree with what you say, but I think you fall a little short by not saying that a democratically controlled {or republican controlled} gov't will never do anything....

I don't recall lots of immigration action....well, let's see......anytime in my 42 years! (that is, to stem the flow of illegals, despite amnesty programs)

That's because you haven't been near the Mexican/US border lately. If so, you would have seen the thousands of new Border Patrol vehicles and Officers with new road block checks, courtesy of the Republicans. ;-) Not saying that will stop illegal immigration, but at least it is some progress.

dnf777
05-09-2010, 09:31 AM
That's because you haven't been near the Mexican/US border lately. If so, you would have seen the thousands of new Border Patrol vehicles and Officers with new road block checks, courtesy of the Republicans. ;-) Not saying that will stop illegal immigration, but at least it is some progress.

And to borrow from a clip posted in another POTUS room:

"Until Jan of 2009, any smugglers carrying under the threshold of 500 pounds of narcotics were often not presecuted."

So what were those road block checks doing, asking "got more than 500 pounds of narcotics? No? Move on, and have a nice day..."

Border security has been a joke, but not a very funny joke, for a long time. Maybe progress is finally coming.

Blackstone
05-09-2010, 02:24 PM
Originally Posted by Blackstone
What criteria are they planning to use as reasonable suspicion for stopping suspected illegals?Well, lets see if you can wrap your brain around this scenario. A Phoenix Police Officer observes a red toyota pickup traveling east bound on 'blank' avenue....the vehicle runs a red light at the intersection of 'blank' and 'blank'. He pulls the pickup over, after advising dispatch of his location, vehicle description and license number he approaches the vehicle and asks for drivers license, registration and proof of insurance (standard procedure for any traffic stop). Driver speaks no (or very little) english, may or may not have proof of insurance (likely not), may or may not have registration and can only produce a Mexican drivers license but no visa......that will probably be considered "reasonable suspicion" Do you actually believe racial profiling is not going to be involved? Unlikely.....every officer knows the scrutiny they will be under. Don't forget that a huge percentage of the LEO in Arizona are themselves members of one minority group or another (mostly Hispanic) I have been a citizen of this country for all of my 56 years. I dont intend to produce papers on the whim of a cop to prove it. You don't mind if I doubt your veracity here....I believe very strongly that in the above scenario, you WILL produce "papers" or you WILL receive a citation (just like anyone else that fails to provide that documentation on the 'WHIM of a cop').

Gee, your whole scenario is so complex, but Ill try to grasp it. :rolleyes:

If, under the scenario you described, an officer asked for proof of residency or a green card, I wouldnt have a problem with. But, if officer(s) manufacture reasons to stop Hispanics hoping to find reasonable suspicion in order and check them, I have a problem with that. If you dont think it happens, youre kidding yourself. I have personally seen it happen.

I once worked at a facility in an industrial complex in a suburb of Metro Detroit. The complex was only about a mile off the express way. Most of the people that worked there were minorities from Detroit working in low paying temp jobs. The police would sit just off the exit ramp, and target minorities driving old cars, hoping to catch them with no insurance, unpaid tickets, etc. They did this at least 2 3 days per week. The reasons used for the stops were, faulty tail lights, cracked windshield, no seatbelt, etc.) Many times they werent legitimate and were not cited on the ticket, but those were the reasons used. The harassment finally got so bad, the facility manager and HR requested a meeting with the mayor and police chief to put an end to it.

Just because some of the officers in AZ are Hispanic, doesnt mean they will not participate in such abuses. History is full of examples of members of an abused population participating in abuses against their own people (i.e. slaves that abused other slaves to gain the favor of slave owners, Native Americans that scouted and fought for the U.S. Army the Indian Wars, etc.) When I grew up in Detroit, there were black officers that harassed black residents. Nothing new with that.

I doubt I would find myself in your scenario. I dont fit the profile. However, if I was asked for my papers in a situation where I felt it was unwarranted, I would refuse to produce them. I would rather take the citation and go to court. So, you may doubt my veracity, but I assure you have enough conviction about my principles to stand up for what I believe is right.

Blackstone
05-09-2010, 02:44 PM
I suspect 'reasonable suspicion' will be very clearly and very specifically defined to prevent problems from arising. They would have to define it that way to cover their butts.

I bet when they slap those cuffs on you for not being cooperative (which would probably be a red flag for reasonable suspicion), you'll be screaming 'MY PAPERS ARE IN MY WALLET...JUST LET ME GOOOOOO....'

You bet wrong. If they cuffed me for being "uncooperative" becuse I refused to produce papers, I would probably come a lot closer to screaming, "LAW SUIT".


Of course, you wouldn't be doing anything that would lead them to suspect you to be illegal, do you?

You mean like looking like I could be Mexican?


BTW, you seem OK with illegals being here unchecked. Is that a fair assessment? If so, please tell us why.

Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. I have said nothing that would indicate I support illegal immigration. What I'm against is the abuse of citizens that just happen to be Hispanic and and those that are here legally. But, you seem OK with that. Is that a fair assessment? If so, please tell us why. :rolleyes: