How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Protesting.....Lefty-style.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Protesting.....Lefty-style.

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


100 posted 05-03-2010 05:52 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Allow me then Mike, to put some comments in bold:

quote:

in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made



Barking dog, loud party, tall grass, car with a flat tire in front of the house parked on the street, spitting on the sidewalk...

SHALL, not may, SHALL
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


101 posted 05-03-2010 06:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

An excellent question, grinch. I was thinking of that myself, having worked with NCIC and FCIC (Florida database) for so long.

I'm not sure, thinking about it. Yes, it could be immediately determined that the person has no outstanding warrants, etc, etc, but not whether the person was illegal or not. It will show driver's licenses (at least the state database will - not sure about NCIC), which would clear many immediately. If a check is run on the subject and the check shows a valid license, he's home free on the spot.

Databases can also be run for non-operating drivers licenses, tribal ids, social security cards, home addresses, telephone numbers, tax receipts, electric bills, etc, etc. You yourself can even find those online and even use them, if you are willing to pay for them.

Should a person be stopped with no id at all (and think about it - how many people are out there with no id?) and the checks do not come up with any substantial proof that he is a citizen and he refuses to cooperate, I must assume he would be taken in for questioning and asked for a home address, or contact numbers for relatives or employers, etc. and it would go from there. I can't speak of how Arizona plans to handle it, but I would assume it would be something similar.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


102 posted 05-03-2010 06:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LR, shall we dance?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


103 posted 05-03-2010 07:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I thought you'd never ask -- but, I must warn you --

I don't FOXtrot
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


104 posted 05-03-2010 07:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

CNN, can you do the CNN CNN?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


105 posted 05-04-2010 09:52 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

After all the attempts to paint peaceful demonstrators as violent and racist hate-mongers, not a word about this:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_15002029
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


106 posted 05-04-2010 04:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course, Denise. They were union workers. What did you expect?? I'm sure Pelosi. Reid and Obama will come out express their displeasure at such an event and the newspapers will make it front page material, while Obermann and Maddow will give speeches about the fear-mongering and unbridled violence of such groups.....NOT!!!!
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


107 posted 05-04-2010 04:45 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Thanks Mike,

I didn’t think that the police could verify the legal status on the spot without a valid ID. The obvious outcome, as you pointed out, is that in some cases legal citizens are going to be detained, given that my question would be twofold. Are all legal citizens equally likely to be arrested in error or are one section of society more likely to be arrested in error, if the answer is that one ethnic group are going to be more likely to be arrested how can that not be classed as discriminatory? My second question, regardless of the answer to the first question, is whether the legal citizens who are going to bear the cost and inconvenience are ok with being arrested from time to time?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


108 posted 05-04-2010 06:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Are all legal citizens equally likely to be arrested in error or are one section of society more likely to be arrested in error, if the answer is that one ethnic group are going to be more likely to be arrested how can that not be classed as discriminatory?

I'm not sure who you are referring to as being arrested in error. I think I said that those with no valid ID could be taken in for questioning to resolve the matter by producing proof such as employer names, relatives phone munbers or proof of address. If a person can't produce any of those things THEN I assume it would be likely he could be arrested or detained. Would it target any specific group?. Since the police would be responding to a crime or incident other than checking alien status, then I don't see where. If a policemen responds to a possible burglary and sees a suspect on the premises. he would be asked for ID, regardless of his skin color or ethnicity. If he couldn't produce any and a computer check dodn't reveal any, he would be taken in, also regardless of race or ethnicity. As long as the suspect didn't throw a fit and refuse to cooperate and call his buddy, the President. the incident would end with the presentation of the ID, as far as delaring status.

My second question, regardless of the answer to the first question, is whether the legal citizens who are going to bear the cost and inconvenience are ok with being arrested from time to time?

No,  because legal citizens are not going to be arrested from time to time, unless they commited a crime. You can buy into our local doomsters who claim that barking dogs and tall grass wil cause people to be targeted, if you like, but I don't see it happening.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


109 posted 05-05-2010 12:22 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Are all legal citizens equally likely to be arrested in error or are one section of society more likely to be arrested in error, if the answer is that one ethnic group are going to be more likely to be arrested how can that not be classed as discriminatory?

I'm not sure who you are referring to as being arrested in error. I think I said that those with no valid ID could be taken in for questioning to resolve the matter by producing proof such as employer names, relatives phone numbers or proof of address. If a person can't produce any of those things THEN I assume it would be likely he could be arrested or detained. Would it target any specific group?. Since the police would be responding to a crime or incident other than checking alien status, then I don't see where. If a policemen responds to a possible burglary and sees a suspect on the premises. he would be asked for ID, regardless of his skin color or ethnicity. If he couldn't produce any and a computer check don't reveal any, he would be taken in, also regardless of race or ethnicity. As long as the suspect didn't throw a fit and refuse to cooperate and call his buddy, the President. the incident would end with the presentation of the ID, as far as declaring status.



     If you look at the law, a person must be detained if he cannot produce appropriate identification.  If that is for Arizona residents, the documents described include country of origin.  Therefore, if you are stopped and questioned and are unable to produce identification at all, you are supposed to be arrested and taken to the police stationed.  In an earlier version of the law, that was good for a significant fine as well as detention.  That seems to be somewhat mitigated in this version, but I believe you are still responsible for showing identification.  I have no idea how long detention can last if you don't produce it.

     Perhaps Mike knows.

     I suspect that a disproportionate number of these detentions will fall on Latinos and minorities.  I suspect so because the number of people in our prisons is disproportionately minority and poor.  This sets the police up for charges of Racial Profiling, which may or may not be true, but which would be very difficult to disprove.  That is, an excellent case can be made in favor of the fact that racial profiling goes on, and the degree of proof required for this sort of litigation is "the preponderance of evidence," which means more than 50%, rather than the more stringent criminal requirements.

quote:


No,  because legal citizens are not going to be arrested from time to time, unless they committed a crime. You can buy into our local doomsters who claim that barking dogs and tall grass wil cause people to be targeted, if you like, but I don't see it happening.



     Actually legal citizens are arrested all the time, and not always because they've committed a crime but often because they simply look out of place or odd.  A black guy driving a fancy car in an upscale neighborhood, a latino doing the same thing, especially if they've got friends with them have often caused officers to see faulty tail lights where none existed.  Or to have noticed the speed guns were showing very high readings.  Or to notice that these drivers have gone through traffic lights that they may not have actually gone through, or past stop signs where they'd actually stopped, or had spit on the sidewalk or any one of a number of things that more neighborhood friendly appearing folk would not have been stopped for.

     In this regard you will frequently hear the policeman respond with a line like, "Are you calling me a liar?" to a matter of disagreement about what the actual speed was.
"No, officer, and when was the last time you had your speed gun calibrated?" is not a good response."

     Driving while Black and Driving while Latino are two fairly frequent crimes which don't appear on the statutes in that form.  Also Driving while having Long Hair can occasionally still be good for an occasional traffic stop.  Driving while Gay, in those situations where it is obvious, is occasionally good for an arrest from time to time.

     Mike is right about the fairness and kindness of most officers.  They're folks who get hurt by this law as well, because they get blamed for the unfairness the enforcement demands of them by making them vulnerable to law suit by wing-nuts who think that police should should be more severe in  their enforcement efforts.  There are also officers who are not such great folks from time to time, like in any profession, but with more power.

    
  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


110 posted 05-05-2010 07:46 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

So what’s the solution, folks?

Are Americans really ready & willing to do something about illegal immigrants, even if it costs us a little bit of time, effort, inconvenience, & more money to the Gov.?

Grinch proposed a “valid ID” solution: One that every person must carry to prove their legal rights to be in this country. One that would register each Legal into a criminally expensive & elaborate database, for ease of an identity check for authorities whenever we are in question for whatever reason or if we are applying for something, (birth certificates, marriage certificates, new hirees, all licenses, car accidents, speeding, etc.)

So if everyone went down to whatever new office under whatever new law to apply for whatever new ID, presenting whatever current ID is required to obtain such, serving the purpose of establishing one’s self and all loved ones as Legal, what happens with Illegals in the meantime?

Those who know they have no chance of obtaining the ID will make their way back across our failed borders?

And what will Illegals have to abandon to make that happen? The jobs they’ve somehow obtained, the homes they have rented, the sick loved one in the hospital, maybe even their children, etc?

Provide them transportation? Buses? Flight tickets?

And how will we deal with the whole new wave of identity theft that will terrorize citizens, en masse, as more elaborate methods of falsification of documents rise to meet the needs of cash paying Legals & Illegals?

Some Legal Citzs who are on the lamb might have a prob getting registered, too.

And how will we deal with citizens who will clog the system with their “reports of the  brown-skinned man” out of spite or frenzy or boredom?


I don’t know. I think this is way over everyone's head. And the sad thing is that ANY solution will be so costly to us on so many levels that the only positive thing that might come out of it all? New jobs that will be created just to make an attempt at a very old problem.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


111 posted 05-05-2010 08:55 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Not even mentioning the expense, I'm wondering what good a new ID card/system would do, if requiring  people to show ID now is considered racist by some? What about a new National ID card would make such requests acceptable?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


112 posted 05-05-2010 09:20 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

In this regard you will frequently hear the policeman respond with a line like, "Are you calling me a liar?

Is that a fact, Bob?  Define frequently, please. Would that be 5 out of 10? Less than that wouldn't fit frequently. How many times have you personally heard it? Do you think that just throwing out comments like that bolster whatever point you are trying to make? For a fellow who likes to demand verification or references to comments made, I'd like some verification to that (that doesn't come out of a dime store mystery novel or an episode of Hill Street Blues).
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


113 posted 05-05-2010 09:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I suspect so because the number of people in our prisons is disproportionately minority and poor.  

There is actually a reason for that, Bob. They commit the most crimes.

an excellent case can be made in favor of the fact that racial profiling goes on

Actually legal citizens are arrested all the time, and not always because they've committed a crime but often because they simply look out of place or odd.

have often caused officers to see faulty tail lights where none existed.


     Driving while Black and Driving while Latino are two fairly frequent crimes which don't appear on the statutes in that form.  Also Driving while having Long Hair can occasionally still be good for an occasional traffic stop.  Driving while Gay, in those situations where it is obvious, is occasionally good for an arrest from time to time.


Legal citizens arrested all the time....often cause officers to see faulty tail lights...driving while black or latin are two fairly frequent crimes.....long hair can occasionally still be good for an occasional traffic stop.....Gay is occasionally good for an arrest.

All the time - often - frequent - occasionally...........and you claim you are misrepresented when stated that you have a low opinion of police. You may think that throwing in a CYA caveat at the end like   Mike is right about the fairness and kindness of most officers. somehow covers it all up, but your thoughts are quite clear....and one doesn't have to be a mind-reader to see them. They only need to look at your words.

If they happen all of the time, then how will this law change anything, except to uncover the illegals while these all-the-time-frequent-occasional events  occur?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


114 posted 05-05-2010 11:59 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Very few Americans ... are inherently opposed to immigration. For the most part, the controversy we face isn't about immigration at all. It's about the systematic failure of federal government to enforce the law or offer rational policy. There's a difference." --columnist Daniel Harsanyi
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


115 posted 05-05-2010 06:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Happened to me personally, Mike?

     Twice.

     Happened in front of my face?  More than that.  Happened to friends of mine, a fair amount, because I've had a series of not particularly reputable looking friends over the years who've had long hair and who've been multi-hued on occasion.  Back in the sixties and seventies it was more frequent than it is today, but then I'm more of a loner now, and I'm much more sedate looking and the police tend to call me "Sir" for some odd reason.

     These things, by the way, are not black and white, Mike.  It really is possible to think highly of police and to not idealize them.  That may not be possible for you, but being able to feel and tolerate ambivalence is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of adulthood, and I have yet to meet somebody that doesn't have significant flaws, including myself.

     I included the qualifiers when I spoke about the problems with the police simply because the comments don't apply to all police, as you well know.  As you well know, it does apply to some of them, so asking me to specify a number is silly in the same way that asking you to specify a number would be silly.  In large part it depends on the officer and how s/he feels about a potential situation.  The calmer and more in control they feel, the less likely they are to act badly, the same way that it works for anybody else.  They are nervous because even ordinary traffic stops can be very dangerous.

     Anxiety is not something that helps a lot of people function more effectively.

     These days stopping illegal aliens may be on the top of everybody's list in every state in the union, though I have my doubts about that.  Certainly it wasn't always that way, and I'd wager even today that most police would have the immigration status of somebody they stop lower on their list that such question as, Is this guy dangerous?, Is he out of place?, Why's he been here so long?, What's his business? and Do I recognize him from any sheets or briefings that I've had?

     Most arrests and detainings are probably on the basis of those things, and not on the basis of immigration status, so that is where the majority of mistakes will be made.  Having to check those folks for ID means that there will be a lot of them who don't have identification with country of origin on it.  I don't, unless I carry a passport.  I shouldn't have to carry a specialized document meant for crossing borders into foreign countries to get about in my own country.  I shouldn't have to make xenophobic happy.  It's impossible to make Xenophobics happy short of Eugenic measures, and even then there will be those who want to be more active about it.  Will the next law have me pleasing paranoids that I haven't had people from mars put devices up their noses?

     As to whether the majority of crimes are committed by people of color, I don't know.  The majority of convictions are of people of color, however.  Does this mean that all the white folks brought to trial have had rotten police work done with them?  I think not.  Might it have something to do with the quality of the representation they may be able to afford?   As Sean Hannity might say,  "Some people might say that it was so."

     "The failure of Federal law" is probably an apt comment on the business.  What we need is a bipartisan set of regulations that we feel are enforcable and which do not cut into our civil liberties.  Let's work on that.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


116 posted 05-05-2010 07:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

asking me to specify a number is silly

Actually, Bob what is silly is saying occasionally, frequently, or all the time.


Most arrests and detainings are probably on the basis of those things, and not on the basis of immigration status

I agree...and there is nothing in this law to change that.


Having to check those folks for ID means that there will be a lot of them who don't have identification with country of origin on it.  

They don't need ID with a country of origin....not sure where you came up with that one. I don't carry any ID that shows my country of origin, either. Acceptable id could be a driver's license, social security card, voter's registration card, credit cards and things that show you had to produce id to get them. Seriously, how many people do you know who DON'T walk around with any form of ID at all? I don't know any.

Quite possibly, you missed Ringo's entry...

    ..since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime.


Actually, the exact statute is:
"(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001304----000-.html

If it has been a federal crime since 1940, what's the big hoopla now about actually enforcing it?

What we need is a bipartisan set of regulations that we feel are enforcable and which do not cut into our civil liberties.  Let's work on that.

Sounds good to me. Tell the administration....well, tell them next year because they are too tired this year, according to Obama.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


117 posted 05-05-2010 11:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"We've gone though a very tough year and I've been working Congress very hard, so I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue," the president told reporters aboard Air Force One returning with him to Washington from a Midwest trip. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-28-Obama-immigration_N.htm?csp=34&utm_[/ URL]


and now...


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Wednesday he wants to begin work this year on legislation overhauling the nation's immigration system, firming up his commitment on a key priority for Latino voters and lawmakers.

Obama's comments at a Cinco de Mayo celebration at the White House reaffirmed his long-held support for immigration reform. He went a step further than he has in the past by calling for the work to begin this year.

Latino groups have been calling for Obama to deliver on his campaign promise of making immigration reform a top priority, with some activists and lawmakers in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus complaining he wasn't doing enough.
[URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100506/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_immigration]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100506/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_immigration



Same man.....different day
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


118 posted 05-06-2010 04:18 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Yes.  He heard what the folks were asking and responded.  He also saw a way to use immigration as a wedge issue against the Republicans in November, and decided that it was a useful thing to do as well, which it is.  The Congressional Republicans must now either continue to say that they will reject efforts on the Congressional level to pass immigration Reform, or support it.  If they support it, they will tend to alienate the more Xenophobic of their base voters.  If they continue to reject it, they can look at their efforts to convince potential Latino voters that Republicans are the party that understands Latino issues and supports them goodbye.

     A great set of reasons to change course.  It makes the Democrats feel that the President is flexible and responsive, and makes Republicans feels he's a flip-flopper.  The Republicans thought that already.  They're generally ready with something foul to say about the man, and this will just get lost in the ground clutter.

     If the Republicans had decided to pick their shots, it might have some impact, though probably not too much.  Ironically, the folks that might be most swayed by the arguments are the unions, who do not like the influx of illegals at all, and who are pretty protectionistic; but the Republicans have gone to such lengths to alienate them that it's going to be difficult to get the unions to listen to what the Republicans have to say.  Reagan was able to do it, but there's nobody out there right now who has the common touch like Reagan did, at least on the Republican side of things.

quote:

asking me to specify a number is silly

Actually, Bob what is silly is saying occasionally, frequently, or all the time.



     So taking time out for a personal swipe at my language use is fine.  The fact that you asked me if I'd experienced anything like that sort of police behavior I'd mentioned and your getting an answer you didn't like was simply coincidental, was it?  It was probably a coincidence that you raised the issue and didn't pursue it as well.  Perhaps it's better to take a shot at me and pretend the issue didn't come up?  I can understand that, Mike.  It's simply an issue that, having once raised it, made you unbearably bored when it was addressed and which is now too much trouble for you to deal with in a reasonable way.  You've mentioned this sort of thing to me before.  You're not obligated to address issues you've brought up.

     I'm sorry, I mean issues that I've responded to at your request.

     No, no, no, that's issues that I bring up, isn't it?  That's right!


quote:
Bob said:
Most arrests and detainings are probably on the basis of those things, and not on the basis of immigration status

Mike replied:
I agree...and there is nothing in this law to change that.



     Except that the percentage of arrests that can go wrong goes up.  More arrests, more possibilities of mistake.  And the people who will be arrested with a greater possibility of error will be racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically biased.  Know a lot of people driving late model Beamers who get pulled over for problems with their tail-lights?  Know a lot of white folks driving expensive late model cars who get pulled over in expensive neighborhoods because their driving looked a little erratic?  Know a lot of folks in Million dollar homes who get pulled over because their description matches that of someone who comes over the scanner as being a suspect in a breaking and entering?  They might match the description as well or better, you know?

     It's possible.  Really it is possible, but it's not as likely.  

quote:

Having to check those folks for ID means that there will be a lot of them who don't have identification with country of origin on it.  

They don't need ID with a country of origin....not sure where you came up with that one. I don't carry any ID that shows my country of origin, either. Acceptable id could be a driver's license, social security card, voter's registration card, credit cards and things that show you had to produce id to get them. Seriously, how many people do you know who DON'T walk around with any form of ID at all? I don't know any.



     The law says that the officers may accept as proof of legality any of the following:

     1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION. 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

     The Arizona License and the Arizona Nonoperating Identification License both include sections requiring statement of citizenship.  Tribal enrollment card places a member of the tribe on legal footing by treaty in The United States.  It would take a lawyer to untangle the meaning of the fourth requirement — (whose) legal presence in the United States before issuance (By whom and Of What document or thing).  Sticking the grammatically obscure phrase"ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.[...]" on the end does little or nothing to clarify the meaning of the sentence.  It only includes reassuring words, but does not specify what relationship they have to the rest of the section.  They are, indeed, out of parallel with the rest of the section, which describes how one may prove National origin and legal right to be in the country.

     Sorry Mike.
    
quote:

Quite possibly, you missed Ringo's entry...

    ..since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime.

Actually, the exact statute is:
"(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both." http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001304----000-.html

If it has been a federal crime since 1940, what's the big hoopla now about actually enforcing it?



     I really should find out more about this law, and will.  In the meantime, the problem with enforcing is is a matter of Probably Cause.  In 1940, there was no particular problem with violations of civil rights because of race, color, creed or national origin.  Segregation was the law of the land.  Lots of folks sympathized with Hitler and lots of folks thought that killing off inferior genetic material was just grand.  Hitler pointed out that the American Eugenics movement was a big inspiration for him.

     Lots of laws passed in that era would not pass the stink test today.  Simply because a law is old and on the books doesn't mean it's a good or even constitutional law.  It simply means it's still on the books.  Lots of counties still have blue laws on the books.  Some folks want to enforce them.  Do you?  There are probably some race laws still on the books in some jurisdictions.  Do you want to try to enforce them?  You can bet that some people do.
The argument you make about it being an old law and all we need to do is enforce it is simplistic and perhaps risible.  It needs to be legal today, and not simply a relic that's been proven obsolete by Supreme court decision made since that time.

     Has it been tested and is it still a valid law?

     That would be, off the top of my head, the initial big hoopla about simply enforcing it.    

     In terms of Probable Cause, how do you form a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in violation of this law?  In other words, what does an Alien look like, and how is that different from what a citizen looks like or sounds like?

     It gets folks into the same potentially racist trap as they are trying to avoid with the amendments to the current Arizona law.  Racial profiling, ethnic profiling, and states taking over the functions of the Federal government are all potential areas of constitutional conflict here.  There may be more.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


119 posted 05-06-2010 07:59 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I have so much to say to you diatribe it is mind-boggling...but work calls. See you later...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


120 posted 05-06-2010 06:24 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Obama said that there's work to do on energy legislation, midterm elections are coming up and he doesn't want to do something "just for the sake of politics'

That's what he said, Bob.


He also saw a way to use immigration as a wedge issue against the Republicans in November, and decided that it was a useful thing to do as well, which it is.

That's what you say, Bob. SO he claimed he would not do something for the sake of politics and you applaud him for doing something for the sake of politics.  Obama a flip-flopper??? Who could even  think such a thing????

The fact that you asked me if I'd experienced anything like that sort of police behavior I'd mentioned and your getting an answer you didn't like was simply coincidental, was it?  It was probably a coincidence that you raised the issue and didn't pursue it as well.  Perhaps it's better to take a shot at me and pretend the issue didn't come up?  I can understand that, Mike.


Apparently there's not a lot I say  you DO understand. I didn't respond to your answer because (1) there was no reason to and (2) I saw no need to further criticize you....BUT....since you have now berated me for not responding, I will.

I don't know how old you are, Bob, but I would imagine in the 50-70 range. So you have been approached or questioned by the police twice? Two time in half a century? Were you taken in? Were you arrested? Tasered? Thrown against a wall? Physically abused? Were you alone? I know that one of the two times you were on a bus, which must have affected you deeply since you have made more than one reference to it. Did it affect you because of a "You talking to ME??? attitude on your part? These two events covering over 50 years jaded your thinking of the police so badly that make references to them arresting innocent people "all the time"?

Except that the percentage of arrests that can go wrong goes up.

CAN go wrong?? That's like saying, "Buy our medicine and it CAN help you."

Know a lot of people driving late model Beamers who get pulled over for problems with their tail-lights?  Know a lot of white folks driving expensive late model cars who get pulled over in expensive neighborhoods because their driving looked a little erratic?  Know a lot of folks in Million dollar homes who get pulled over because their description matches that of someone who comes over the scanner as being a suspect in a breaking and entering?

Well, I know a lot of people who do NOT drive late-model Beamers or live in million dollar homes. They are called the middle class, Bob. Perhaps you now one or two of them yourself. I defer to Maureen's comment of your over-exaggerations.


Actually, Bob, the aliens in Arizona should thank you and much as the police should despise you. Thanks to Obama and the people like you he has caused to rise up in protest and scream bloody murder, everyone stopped now or questioned about anything can just scream "Racist!!", regardless of the circumstance. "So what if there's a bloody knife in my hand with a dead woman lying at my feet? You suspect me because I'm Mexican! You're a racist!!!" Sound far-fetched? Remember OJ??? You and Obama have given them an automatic out. Don't think they won't use it. Nice work....


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


121 posted 05-06-2010 07:47 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Mike,

Under the new law are any legal citizens going to be arrested and detained until they provide evidence that they are legal? If so are those people more or less likely to be of Mexican descent?

Personally I think the answer to the first question is undoubtedly yes, there are going to be occasions when perfectly legal citizens are asked to provide documentary proof and they won’t be able to comply. That’s not an issue if the legal citizen accept that inconvenience as a cost of repatriating illegal immigrants.

The second question is the killer though. If all citizens are equally likely to be detained there isn’t an issue, no discrimination racial or otherwise has taken place. If however the legal citizens who are getting detained are of Mexican descent they are being unfairly discriminated against based solely on their ethnicity – they are in effect being treated differently from every other legal Americans.

quote:
     ..since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime..

If it has been a federal crime since 1940, what's the big hoopla now about actually enforcing it?


The hoopla isn’t about enforcing it Mike, it’s about extending it to legal citizens. The original law only applied to aliens, under the new law anyone, legal or otherwise, who cannot show documented evidence will be detained until they can.

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


122 posted 05-06-2010 08:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

But on the narrower question Sinema raised -- about overgrown lawns or loudly barking dogs triggering an immigration check -- our experts say that she is on pretty safe ground. She exaggerates when she says that such violations could require law enforcement officers to "inquire into their immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion to believe they may be undocumented." The law has a few more hurdles than that.

It says that "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation." And of course, there's no way of knowing yet whether law enforcement officers will actually use the full extent of their powers. Still, she's correct that relatively minor violations could open the door to immigration questioning. So we rate her claim Mostly True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/04/kyrsten-sinema/under-arizona-immigration-law-overgrown-lawns-bark/


and in the wrong thread Mike said:

quote:

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?th&emc=th


Interestingly enough, kidnapping wasn't one of the crimes listed in those graphs some of you are so proud of. Why? I would assume because of the rarity of it. It is not a crime American crooks prefer. It IS a favored crime in the latin world. More than 240 in one town in 2008? EPA!



EPA?  The Environmental Protection Agency? Que?

quote:

Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson took a telephone call not long ago from a Florida couple who were driving their motorhome through Arizona and wanted to know if they should avoid Phoenix.

The folks from the Sunshine State had heard on TV that Phoenix was the "kidnapping capital" of the nation and the second-worst city for kidnapping in the entire world. They wondered if they should bypass Arizona since they couldn't afford a big ransom.

"I also talked to the parents of a kid who was coming here to learn how to be a diesel mechanic," Thompson said. "They asked if it was too dangerous to send him. I even talked to somebody from the Sheboygan Chamber of Commerce about these same safety concerns."

Where did all this angst come from?

"I started getting calls from all over the country, all over the world really, after ABC broadcast their story," Thompson said.

That was in February. The TV folks had learned that the Phoenix Police Department had a special unit to deal with what has become a near constant stream of ransom kidnappings linked to drug-smuggling and human-smuggling gangs out of Mexico. The department let a news crew monitor their operation. In the subsequent ABC report, Phoenix is described as "the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City."

The label stuck. And not just with outsiders. Politicians looking to push an anti-illegal-immigrant agenda have jumped on the phrase. State Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, for instance, wrote a guest column for The Arizona Republic in which he said: "Phoenix runs second in the world in kidnappings and third in the United States for violence . . . "

I've left word with Pearce asking where he got his statistics but he hasn't gotten back to me. Perhaps because violent crimes (murder, rape, assaults) are down in Phoenix.

As for the kidnapping claim, once something like that becomes part of the national lexicon there is no going back, particularly when the label reflects both reality and myth.

Sgt. Thompson puts it this way, "Does anyone know how many kidnappings there are in Bogotá? In Mogadishu? In Baghdad?"

For that matter, does anyone know how many there are in Los Angeles? In San Diego? In Houston? Or other big cities in border states?

"We (in Phoenix) recognized that we have a problem and we are doing something about it," Thompson said. "We're also not afraid to talk about it. A lot of people are."

Phoenix is upfront about the roughly 370 kidnappings each year linked to criminal smuggling gangs. Other cities may not keep track of the problem in the same way or may simply avoid speaking about it publicly.

.....
So I asked Thompson if visitors or residents should be quaking in fear.

"We're talking about drop houses where people who have used coyotes to get into the country may be held for ransom," Thompson said. "And we're talking about the kidnapping of smugglers and associates. I have no fear that my kids or grandkids will be victims. Or that E.J. Montini will be a victim."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/07/11/20090711Montini0712.html#ixzz0nCS3PQ1r




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


123 posted 05-06-2010 08:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Under the new law are any legal citizens going to be arrested and detained until they provide evidence that they are legal?

There is a difference between detained and arrested. Detained could be taking them in to the station and asking them to provide information which would verify their status....family, employment, etc. Arrested would be taking them through the booking process, complete with fingerprinting, mug shots and being locked up. Are citizens who can prove their legality be arrested? That would depend on what crime they could be accused of.

Personally I think the answer to the first question is undoubtedly yes, there are going to be occasions when perfectly legal citizens are asked to provide documentary proof and they won t be able to comply.

Undoubtedly? I can see where there may be a rare case of a homeless person living on the streets with no verifyable id but how many other legal citizens do you think there are who not only don't carry any form of id but are also not able to produce any of the above information to verify their status? The peercentage, if any, would have to be microscopic.

If so are those people more or less likely to be of Mexican descent?

You're following the assumption that people would be stopped for the sole reason of checking their status. The authorities say it won't be that way and, until proven otherwise, who is to claim it is false.

That s not an issue if the legal citizen accept that inconvenience as a cost of repatriating illegal immigrants.

That's an interesting observation, grinch. Americans are funny people that way, often people who are prima donnas and demand as birthright things others would die for. There are Americans who scream about the inconvenience of the airport security checkpoints (but don't want a bomb sneaked through on their plane), for example. Bob's example of being questioned on a bus rankled his sensitivities, although I believe he was not singled out alone.  People want the police to handle the "bad guys" but don't want to have to show they are not one of those "bad guys" to officers that don't know them from Adam. On New Years Eve, here in Florida, there are numerous police checkpoints where people are stopped randomly for visual evaluation of whether or not they had drunk enough to make them unfit to drive. Do people complain about that? Yep...but they want drunk drivers off the roads. So....would a citizen accept the inconvenience? The intelligent ones would because they would not take it personally and know that the actions of the police were ultimately in their best interests. One of the videos Denise posted here is about Mexican community leaders in Arizona welcoming the new law, behind it completely.

The hoopla isn t about enforcing it Mike, it s about extending it to legal citizens. The original law only applied to aliens, under the new law anyone, legal or otherwise, who cannot show documented evidence will be detained until they can.

I see no problem with that, grinch. Should a person be accused of a crime, or even be a suspect, showing identification would be something mandatory, alien or not. it's not a case of where legal citizens have LEGAL tattooed to their foreheads. Police have to ask. They have to check. If you were to say don't extend it to legal citizens then you would have to know the legal citizens it would not be extended to, wouldn't you? It goes back to my earlier comment....how many legal citizens would there be who could not provide either ID or any type of records or verifications of their status? Zero would be a reasonable guess.

I see it as a very simple thing that has been blown out of proportion by Obama and all of the hanger-on who want to view it in the worst possible light.

A punk grabs a woman's purse and is caught, fleeing. He is arrested. He cannot provide any proof of legality and is also charged with being in the country illegally. Period.

Obama and people like Bob would paint it differently. In their eyes it becomes police stopping everyone they feel like and demanding id. Fathers taking their children out for ice cream are not safe. No one is safe. Jails will be filled with people who could not produce proof of residency or citizenship. Chaos will reign.....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


124 posted 05-07-2010 03:06 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I was certainly not counting the situation on the bus, Mike.  I probably should not have shown identification to those people as a matter of principle, and probably should have asked them to show me what their probable cause was, but I did not.  Nor am I speaking about the way the immigration officer bullied some of the people on the bus, nor the way he sneered at them, nor the way he had to be escorted off the bus by his own fellow officers who seemed ashamed of the way he was acting.  Nor of the way he detained some of the people on the bus for quite a while during a trip from Ithaca to Buffalo.  He acted like a jack-booted thug.

     But no, he wasn't one of the two examples I was speaking about.  

quote:

Obama and people like Bob would paint it differently. In their eyes it becomes police stopping everyone they feel like and demanding id. Fathers taking their children out for ice cream are not safe. No one is safe. Jails will be filled with people who could not produce proof of residency or citizenship. Chaos will reign.....



     No, Mike, I'm not demanding Id.  You seem to be giving it without any request being made for it at all.  I'd much rather some nice rational Ego.

     Even more than either one, I'd rather some constitutional thinking on your part.  The framers were not big on the police, near as I can tell, and they made a real point of limiting police powers.

     I have yet to see you find a police power that you felt was large enough.  Nor have I seen you be critical of police powers or behavior at all.  You have taken the side of the police in every discussion I can recall.  I am certainly willing to be reminded of any exceptions you'd care to present.  I've met a fair number of police, and I've liked a fair number of the police I've met.  I don't recall any of them who liked police powers when they were turned against the police themselves, however.  In fact, the police I've known and spoken with about internal affairs and enforcement of policy matters inside various forces have universally expressed dislike for those who police them.  

     Please, tell me how much cops love internal affairs folks.  The Police police.  I long to hear these affectionate stories.

     The founders knew that the very function of policing is a difficult one.  In fact, at the time the constitution was written, the very notion of modern policing had not yet been invented.  All the founding fathers had to deal with were sheriffs and bailiffs and  justices and the like.  The Founders were already very nervous about these.  The notion of a modern police force would have driven them into hysterics.  What do you think all those amendments were about anyway.

     You keep trying to turn the discussion into a matter of liberal hysteria.

     It's actually a matter of what you might call strict construction.  Most the what you consider police powers are simply powers that are very much discouraged in the constitution.  And you are giving those protections away.  What I want to know is where is the Conservative hysteria that should be there at the usurpation of constitutional liberties?

     And you are on the side of those giving those protections away.  If I am on the side of those who want to hold on to those liberties, Pal, I'm proud to be there.  I guess I want to know why you're in such an all fired hurry to give them away?  

     I mean, gee, the policeman asked politely, didn't he?  Why shouldn't I hand my right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure over to him quietly and without fuss?  Now he'd like me not to say anything about my objections about selecting portions of the population for increased scrutiny and decreased rights based on their religion or the color of their skin or their ethnic origin.  Can't let those Muslims get on those airplanes without extra scrutiny, now, can we?  And we don't need to give those blue haired white eyed grandmothers any extra look because we all know they're harmless, don't we?

     No, Mike, being stopped by the border folks on the bus didn't even make my top 5.  But thanks, anyway.  I often find when I tell you something about myself, I seem to end up regretting it.  I'm going to have to be more self protective with you, aren't I?  My bad.

    


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Protesting.....Lefty-style.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors