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
 Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249
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

Still think the Republican led AZ legislature isn't racist?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


225 posted 06-20-2010 06:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOL...you must be an easy person to have an actual conversation with, grinch. The other person doesn't need to say a word. You can simply ask, answer, project the next point of the conversation, ask about that and then answer it, and so on and so on. Looking for conspiracies can drive one bonkers, I'm told.


I believe the way the law is written, it is not unconstitutional. If the justice department comes up with a point where it is, they will say so. The fact that they haven't said so after over a month of having it handed over to them, is telling.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


226 posted 06-20-2010 06:24 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


So you didnít say this:

quote:
Unlike people here, the justice department will have to show WHERE it is unconstitutional.


OK, got it Mike, nudge nudge say no more.



quote:
I believe the way the law is written, it is not unconstitutional.


The law will lead to legal citizens being detained until they can produce documented evidence Ė youíve already accepted that Mike Ė in your opinion is that unconstitutional?

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


227 posted 06-20-2010 07:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Legal citizens being detained by being involved in a situation that would have caused them to be stopped or investigated, having nothing to do with immigration status? No, I don't find that unconstitutional at all.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


228 posted 06-20-2010 08:52 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Do we really have to go through all this again Mike:

quote:
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.


Thatís your reply to my question regarding what would happen if a law enforcement officer asked a legal citizen to produce their ID and they donít have any on them.

quote:
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.


Thatís you clarifying he point.

And hereís two question I asked directly and the answers you gave.

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

Answer
quote:
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.


Question
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 wonít be able to comply.

Answer
quote:
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.


The Arizona law allows a law enforcement officer to request that a legal citizen supplies documented evidence of citizenship and if no ID is available the legal citizen would be detained until documentation can be produced. However microscopic the percentage of legal citizens that find themselves in that situation Mike doesnít make it any less unconstitutional.

Even removing the threat of detention doesnít make it any less unconstitutional.

Under the constitution a legal citizen of the US is only obliged to supply two things to a law enforcement officer - their name and a current driving licence if they are stopped while in charge of a motor vehicle.

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


229 posted 06-20-2010 09:09 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 constitution a legal citizen of the US is only obliged to supply two things to a law enforcement officer - their name and a current driving licence if they are stopped while in charge of a motor vehicle.

Could you point out where in the constitution it says that?

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


230 posted 06-20-2010 10:59 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



      You are being disingenuous, Mike.  The Driver's license is a matter of law for drivers, though it's not written in a document that predates the automobile.  

     Police may still ask for it.  There may be some quarrel still in the works as to whether you actually have to show it when you're being stopped by police in a driving situation, but it's probably a good idea.  You are required to state your name to a police officer when the officer asks you.

     It would probably help speed things along if you show them some sort of identification as well.

     The Arizona driver's license and their ID card apparently have data on them that say where you were born.  I find that provision offensive, personally, and that alone would prejudice me against wishing to live in Arizona under most circumstances, at least at present.  I believe the state is showing a lax attitude toward their civil liberties.  My understanding is that you favor such states, however, and there is no accounting for taste.

     Many states feel that such information is private and should not appear on such documents, and in their wisdom or, as you might put it, their folly, they have elected to maintain the privacy of their citizens.  Arizona does not yet have the power to force other states to follow Arizona state law on the documents issued by those other states, much as you might wish otherwise.  It does not have the power under the constitution to do so.  The constitution suggests that each state may make its own state laws, and that quarrels between the states should be settled by the Federal government.  Custom has settled that power on the Supreme court.

     Thus, Arizona does not have the power to force other states to issue ID papers which satisfy the citizens and officials of Arizona and not the citizens and officials of the states in which those citizens reside, and of which they are, to be somewhat redundant, citizens.  Should such papers be legal within Arizona for citizens of Arizona by Arizona law, that doesn't mean they are legal otherwise.  Nor does that actually mean that the law has been well tested as valid and constitutional for use in any state.

     You might check out some of the bases on which the law looks like it'll be contested.  I'm not expecting you to agree with them, though you may.  I simply find it intellectually interesting and you might as well.


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


231 posted 06-20-2010 11:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nothing disingenous in my question. Grinch made the statement that those conditions were in the constitution. I'd like to know where.

along those lines, do you know for a fact that Arizona licenses have a section stating where you were born?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


232 posted 06-21-2010 12:44 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     It's part of the ACLU suit, Mike.  

     That supports my understanding that Arizona under the influence of Mr. Pearce, passed that addition to the form into law two to three years ago.

     You can google ACLU and find the details of their lawsuits posted.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


233 posted 06-21-2010 01:16 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     The situation, now that I look it up, is this:  You must present  proof of place of birth when you get your licence in Arizona.  Having a licence in Arizona means that your place of birth has been vetted.  This is why having an Arizona Driver's licence is considered, in Arizona, to be proof of citizenship.  It is not, apparently, listed on the card.

      See this article for more details:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/will-drivers-license-suffice-proof-c
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


234 posted 06-21-2010 02:58 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Could you point out where in the constitution it says that?


Itís inherent in the Fourth Amendment as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, (1968)and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, (2004).

Now Iíve answered your question Mike Iíve a couple of my own if you don't mind.

Which part of the constitution allows a law enforcement officer to demand documented proof of citizenship from a legal citizen and then detain them without charge until they produce proof?

As I pointed out earlier, youíve already admitted on several occasions that the above scenario is likely to occur. Do you think that when it does it might be just a little bit unconstitutional Mike? Or do you think that itís OK for a legal citizen to be required to present documented evidence of citizenship or have their freedom curtailed until they do?

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


235 posted 06-21-2010 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

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to identify himself.

The term "illegal alien" contains the word "illegal", against the law, criminal activity.


Nevada has a ďstop-and-identifyĒ law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters ďunder circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crimeĒ; the person may be detained only to ďascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.Ē In turn, the law requires the person detained to ďidentify himselfĒ, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. As of April 2008, 23 other states[1]  have similar laws.

The Supreme Court upheld the  Nevada ďstop and identifyĒ statute
I'll be back for the rest....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


236 posted 06-21-2010 07:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You must present  proof of place of birth when you get your licence in Arizona.

Bob, can you name any state which does NOT require a birth certificate to obtain a driver's license?

"You might check out some of the bases on which the law looks like it'll be contested."

I'd love to. Where are they?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


237 posted 06-21-2010 08:02 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
The term "illegal alien" contains the word "illegal", against the law, criminal activity.

Yes Mike but we were talking about legal citizens having their constitutional rights infringed.
As youíve accepted there are situations where a perfectly legal citizen will be requested to produce evidence of his\her citizenship and if they canít produce that evidence they will be detained until they can.

You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty answering a simple question Mike but Iíll ask it again in case you missed it Ė Do you think it's unconstitutional to detain a legal citizen under those circumstances?

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


238 posted 06-21-2010 08:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

To quote you earlier in this thread, grinch..

law enforcement officers can demand to see the papers of any non-resident, at any time, without giving any reason. What they canÔŅĹt do however is demand to see the papers of American citizens unless they have a very good reason.

That statement begs the same question the current one does....how does one know another is an American citizen before checking? Perhaps if all Americans were tattooed or something with a bald eagle it would help but, aside from that, how?

Is it unconstitutional to detain an American citizen? Same question...the answer would be yes if one could tell that the subject was an American citizen before checking. How is that done?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


239 posted 06-21-2010 11:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I know of no other state where attention is paid specifically to the place of birth. and that the place of birth is a disqualifier if it is not in the U.S.  Do you?

     The references, or some of them are at the aclu website, but I include some of them here, as well as one or two others.


http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-halliday-et-al
http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/arizonas-anti-immigrant-law-does-not-reflect-our-common-values
http://www.aclu.org/blog/project/immigrants%27-rights
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603arizona-immigration-law-brewer-goddard-fight.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-50466-Grand-Rapids-Liberal-Examiner~y2010m6d18-Is-Arizonas-Immigration-Law-Constitutional


And the below is merely for my own pleasure.  Please feel more than free to skip it, since it is  unashamedly left-wing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miguel-guadalupe/arizonas-sb1070-gestapo-l_b_545959.html



     Among other things, you will not that the Federal lawsuit needs to wait until the Arizona 1070 goes into effect. Die genenken sind frei.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


240 posted 06-22-2010 12:09 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, I do know of such a state, Bob. I live in it. Having to renew my driver's licence in August I have just paid 25 bucks to get a certified copy of my birth certificate because the letter i received says it is required. Forget the fact that I've had a license for 45 years. Forget that I have my DD214. If I don't take my birth certificate, social security card and two bills showing that I live at the address I claim, I don't get the license. I'm sure we are not the only other state like that.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


241 posted 06-22-2010 04:57 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

     I know of no other state where attention is paid specifically to the place of birth. and that the place of birth is a disqualifier if it is not in the U.S.  Do you? {my italics for emphasis]



     You were asked for a birth certificate.  You assert that the purpose of this birth certificate was to determine that you were a legal resident of the United States, is that correct?  And that it was not for the purpose of confirming that your birth date was the same as the prior licence's?  That this information was used to check on your citizenship status?  

     If this is true, I should forward this information to the aclu for possible legal action.  My understanding is that this is probably not constitutional behavior on the part of Florida, if this is what they are doing.  Though, as you are aware, Florida has had a number or brushes with the Federal government around constitutional issues in the past, such as those around illegal supression of voters whose right to vote should have been returned to them and which were illegally withheld by your state.  

     It may be a coincidence that the large majority of these voters were both democratic and people of color.

     We have been over that issue before, if you recall.

     Please let me know the details of your licence as quickly as you can, especially if it turns out that your birth certificate was a requirement because it was proof of citizenship.  I am very interested in that indeed.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


242 posted 06-22-2010 08:05 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Run and call the ACLU, Bob. A good friend of mine is going through a lot of trouble now. He happened to be born in Jamaica to American-born parents. He has had trouble getting a birth certificate copy. He was in the Marines for 5 years and has lived his whole life in the U.S. He has taken his military discharge papers, his SS number, and a ton of proof that he lives where he lives. To this date, he has gone three times to the DMV, trying to get a license - hasn't gotten it yet. Of course it is for proof of citizenship, Bob....and I doubt Florida is the only state.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


243 posted 06-22-2010 12:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     So let me see.  Your friend is being denied his driver's licence.  What about his right to vote?  If your theory is true, he may have had his right to vote revoked as well.

     It may well be true.  As I said, Florida has a history of this sort of thing.  What is the actual situation?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


244 posted 06-22-2010 02:09 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
...the answer would be yes if one could tell that the subject was an American citizen before checking.


Itís called a catch22 Mike, one that could lead to the infringement of a legal citizenís constitutional rights Ė which, in my opinion, makes the Arizona law unconstitutional. While itís certainly a difficult position for States to find themselves in itís not an impossible conundrum. Oklahoma managed to find a way around it, unfortunately Arizona didnít.

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


245 posted 06-22-2010 08:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

What is the actual situation?

What actual situation? I gave you the actual  situation. Berating Florida doesn't change anything. You wanted another state - I gave you another state and it seems to bother you enough to try to go off in another direction. We're talking drivers licenses, not voting privileges...driver's licenses, Bob.

Yes, Grinch, as you said, "in your opinion". That's fine.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


246 posted 06-23-2010 04:35 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Yes, Grinch, as you said, "in your opinion".


Itís an opinion based on a sound and reasonable argument Mike, which is generally accepted as the best type of opinion, far better than opinions presented without any evidence at all.

To demand that a legal citizen presents documented evidence of citizenship and to detain that citizen until such evidence is produced is unconstitutional, even you accept that. If the Arizona law allows that situation to occur, which it clearly does, it too, by definition, has to be unconstitutional.

So far your arguments have been that itíll only happen in a few cases and that thereís no way to know who is or isnít a legal citizen without asking. Neither of which affect the fact that demanding documentation and detaining a citizen is clearly unconstitutional. Iím willing to discuss any arguments that you put forward Mike, if theyíre compelling and persuasive I may even change my opinion, but until that happens Iíll stick to the reasonable argument and opinion Iíve put forward.

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


247 posted 06-23-2010 06:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

grinch, I don't see your opinion changing under any circumstances.

Neither of which affect the fact that demanding documentation and detaining a citizen is clearly unconstitutional.

There is no fool-proof system. If you are at a party and someone is murdered, you may be held for questioning and not released until the police say so, even if you are innocent. There are many instances in which legal residents could be detained until verification of their status is obtained. Is it perfect? No. Does that mean, if it is not perfect, it shouldn't be used? No.

There is an illegal immigration problem. They are trying to deal with it. The federal government is not trying to deal with it. How many people are out in public with no identification at all? One percent%? Two? I certainly don't know any.

So you have that microscopic amount of people who are out with no id. Then what percentage of them are out doing something that would require questioning by an officer for an illegal activity? One percent of them? Two? One percent of one percent is what?

By all means, be a purist, as you showed in your investigation of looting in Mississippi, finding a fellow with 29 prior convictions being arrested for looting and thus nullifying my comment about the absence of looting. Your attempt for perfection is admirable, but not realistic.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


248 posted 06-23-2010 07:13 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

How many people need to have their constitutional rights infringed before a law becomes unconstitutional Mike?

Iíll give you a clue, itís less than two and greater than zero.

quote:
grinch, I don't see your opinion changing under any circumstances.


Then youíd be wrong.

Again thatís only my opinion but hereís the evidence I offer to support it.

Before I looked at the Arizona law in detail my opinion was that I wasnít sure whether it was unconstitutional or not Ė you can even find a comment to that effect in this very forum. When the circumstance changed Ė when I looked a little closer Ė my opinion changed.

If Iíve changed my opinion once Mike I think thereís a reasonable chance that I could be persuaded to change it again.

.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


249 posted 06-24-2010 04:32 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

Someone on another site asked where else could ten to fourteen million people
from one country enter another illegally and it not be considered an invasion.

.

 
 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 >> Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] 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