If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Arizona migrant case could lead to sweeping changes. Also dishwashing changes, landscaping changes, and nanny changes   (npr.org) divider line 404
    More: Obvious, Arizona Attorney General, state crime, federal courts, illegal immigrants  
•       •       •

6737 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2012 at 9:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-26 03:25:20 PM

DrewCurtisJr: pciszek: Under this law, the police can pull over anyone they suspect is in the country illegally (i.e., "looks foreign"). They don't have to be doing anything wrong.

When I made my claim about the licenses I referenced the actual text of the law. Would you do me a favor and reference the actual text of the law that you believe supports your claim?


How about another round of hyperbole instead? Facts are hard. Feelings are better.
 
2012-04-26 03:26:23 PM

DrewCurtisJr: chuckufarlie: but there is a reason - suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

And this reasonable suspicion would come from? And keep in mind that there is an executive order and federal laws that prevent them from doing so just based on a person's ethnicity.

redmid17: To be fair, police often state if they follow you long enough in a car they can pull you over for any number of reasons (not staying in lane, speeding, tailgating, rolling stop, etc..)

They can already do that, they don't need SB 1070. If they aren't doing it already why would they change? Do you think they need this law to hand over someone to ICE?


I give up. Keep your racism and your ignorance. There is nothing for you.
 
2012-04-26 03:26:59 PM

washington-babylon: ox45tallboy: Joe Blowme: ox45tallboy: Thunderpipes: My driver's license shows my immigration status.

What state do you live in? Mine doesn't.

Yes it does. What did you have to show the DMV to get said drivers license?

Here you go.

Also, here's a REALLY current (as in today) article discussing which states have DL's or ID's that can be used as proof of citizenship under the EDL program.

And for the record, my first license was in TN, where I showed my Social Security card and HS diploma (graduated early, otherwise would have had to show proof of attendance from my school). No birth certificate. (NOTE; this changed a few years ago in TN, now you have to show proof of citizenship).

This is true. I had to show my "U.S. citizen born Abroad" Documents, as I am a navy brat. That caused a stir as they had not dealt with that before. That has continued to haunt me through my work history as well. They ask for your birth certificate to check you out for a security clearance and you hand them that document, they usually stare at it in confusion for a minute then ask "where's the certificate number?" In an uncertain voice. I then hand over my copies of BOTH of my birth certificates (U.S. and Canadian) and they get REALLY confused.

/had dual citizenship until I was 18. Had to pick a country.


what did you pick? And are you starting to regret that?
 
2012-04-26 03:27:59 PM

Bunnyhat: RibbyK: Satanic_Hamster: RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.
What we object to is that American citizens just walking down the street can be subject to arrest solely based on an officer's suspicion that they're not in the country legally.

About ten years ago in Las Vegas, a cop reminded me that you must always have a valid ID or be subject to arrest. Why doesn't the Supreme Court hear that argument?

/Yes, I perhaps had a few drinks, possibly, maybe...


The SC did hear that argument and threw those laws out. Citizens do not need to have any sort of ID on them. They are simply required to give their name if arrested, they are not even required to do so if a police officer asks.


No. You might want to follow the link in the post immediately above yours.
 
2012-04-26 03:28:11 PM

chuckufarlie: DrewCurtisJr: chuckufarlie: but there is a reason - suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

And this reasonable suspicion would come from? And keep in mind that there is an executive order and federal laws that prevent them from doing so just based on a person's ethnicity.

redmid17: To be fair, police often state if they follow you long enough in a car they can pull you over for any number of reasons (not staying in lane, speeding, tailgating, rolling stop, etc..)

They can already do that, they don't need SB 1070. If they aren't doing it already why would they change? Do you think they need this law to hand over someone to ICE?

I give up. Keep your racism and your ignorance. There is nothing for you.


Now come back when you learn to read if you would like to keep discussing the law as it is actually written
 
2012-04-26 03:30:39 PM

redmid17: pciszek: DrewCurtisJr: As much stock as I have of fark threads being the authoritative source on the law, you can read the actual law.

Only an Arizona license is acceptable. Out of state licenses are not--and this is a state with enormous tourist and retiree industries, so there are going to be a lot of out-of-staters.

Actually that last part (section 4) says that any valid local, state, or federal ID is acceptable.


no it doesn't, it says any state, local, or national ID card for which it is necessary to provide proof of citizenship in order to obtain. As of now, this is not very many states. See the link I provided earlier.
 
2012-04-26 03:35:49 PM

DrewCurtisJr: also part of the law gives them the power to charge illegal immigrants who ICE refuses to take into custody under the no ID law (which mirrors the federal law)


They were just talking about this on NPR the other day, there was someone on saying how the immigration department doesn't have the resources to send the millions of illegals through the system and provide them with the lawyers they would need to fight extradition so they prioritize and deal with violent criminals first and then down the line from there. Seems pretty reasonable.
 
2012-04-26 03:35:53 PM

JustGetItRight: Bunnyhat: RibbyK: Satanic_Hamster: RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.
What we object to is that American citizens just walking down the street can be subject to arrest solely based on an officer's suspicion that they're not in the country legally.

About ten years ago in Las Vegas, a cop reminded me that you must always have a valid ID or be subject to arrest. Why doesn't the Supreme Court hear that argument?

/Yes, I perhaps had a few drinks, possibly, maybe...


The SC did hear that argument and threw those laws out. Citizens do not need to have any sort of ID on them. They are simply required to give their name if arrested, they are not even required to do so if a police officer asks.

No. You might want to follow the link in the post immediately above yours.


The law says' held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement'.

The test is to ask if you are free to go. If he has no reasonable suspicion, he should let you go. If he does not allow you to leave, then you are taking a chance. Although required to have a reasonable suspicion, he is not required to tell you what that suspicion is.

That means a police officer can not just walk up to you and demand your name for no reason. He can only do so if he is legally able to arrest or detain you.
 
2012-04-26 03:37:40 PM

Thunderpipes: pciszek: DrewCurtisJr: Pulled over for what?

Under this law, the police can pull over anyone they suspect is in the country illegally (i.e., "looks foreign"). They don't have to be doing anything wrong.

Jesus H Christ, liberals really need to take their heads out of their asses.

Only after a valid stop for other reasons, dick. Just like it works for any other American citizen, dumbass.


yes, and just driving down the road will net a cop any number of 'valid reasons' to pull you over.

And what if you're the passenger? A citizen is under no obligation to carry proof of his citizenship or even any identification at all.

Unless he's brown.
 
2012-04-26 03:45:39 PM

Joe Blowme: Do you carry proof of your citizenship around with you everywhere you go? If you're a citizen, then you probably don't. And you're not required to. But under this law, if your skin is brown, you HAVE to carry PROOF you're a citizen, or get taken to the pokey until you can convince someone to find your proof and bring it to them.

Why do you keep picking on brown people? This law states no color preference yet you keep interjecting it like some racist bastard. You are being willfully misleading and ignorant, lay off the crack and get out of your moms basement once in a while.



I get it. So ... you're not racist (per se), you just leap at every opportunity you have to treat "brown people" like animals.

i41.tinypic.com


And in the last two months, you haven't thought up a better insult than telling someone to "get out of your moms basement once in a while". Obviously, you're some kind of crazy smart genius, and everyone else just doesn't get it.

www.dailyhaha.com
 
2012-04-26 03:49:13 PM
Here in Oklahoma City the police have formed what they call Drug Interdiction Teams (as have many cities). Here, what they do for the most part is drive up and down I-35 and pull over cars based solely on a profile. And what do you know, every car they pull over has an Hispanic driver. What reason do they have for pulling the cars over? It's almost always illegal lane change. And what reason do they have for a search? The driver was "acting nervous".
These cops are lying scumbags that are willing to lie for an arrest. When you give the police the power to demand papers based on "reasonable suspicion", you have just given them the power to stop anyone at anytime.
 
2012-04-26 03:57:59 PM

Headso: They were just talking about this on NPR the other day, there was someone on saying how the immigration department doesn't have the resources to send the millions of illegals through the system and provide them with the lawyers they would need to fight extradition so they prioritize and deal with violent criminals first and then down the line from there. Seems pretty reasonable.


If it is true. I'm skeptical and think the new guidelines are election pandering. They've always focuses their resources on criminals, non criminals are mostly low hanging fruit turned over by local authorities or people swept up in searches for criminals.

I read something recently that since the new rules the number of criminal aliens hadn't gone up as of yet, although they did pull of a big operation earlier this month, it's still early so we'll see if this prioritization approach actually results in more criminal aliens being arrested and deported.
 
2012-04-26 04:00:11 PM

Joe Blowme: chuckufarlie: DrewCurtisJr: chuckufarlie: but there is a reason - suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

And this reasonable suspicion would come from? And keep in mind that there is an executive order and federal laws that prevent them from doing so just based on a person's ethnicity.

redmid17: To be fair, police often state if they follow you long enough in a car they can pull you over for any number of reasons (not staying in lane, speeding, tailgating, rolling stop, etc..)

They can already do that, they don't need SB 1070. If they aren't doing it already why would they change? Do you think they need this law to hand over someone to ICE?

I give up. Keep your racism and your ignorance. There is nothing for you.

Now come back when you learn to read if you would like to keep discussing the law as it is actually written


oh look, another idiot!! What is it about racists?
 
2012-04-26 04:00:28 PM

Bunnyhat: JustGetItRight: Bunnyhat: RibbyK: Satanic_Hamster: RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.
What we object to is that American citizens just walking down the street can be subject to arrest solely based on an officer's suspicion that they're not in the country legally.

About ten years ago in Las Vegas, a cop reminded me that you must always have a valid ID or be subject to arrest. Why doesn't the Supreme Court hear that argument?

/Yes, I perhaps had a few drinks, possibly, maybe...


The SC did hear that argument and threw those laws out. Citizens do not need to have any sort of ID on them. They are simply required to give their name if arrested, they are not even required to do so if a police officer asks.

No. You might want to follow the link in the post immediately above yours.

The law says' held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement'.

The test is to ask if you are free to go. If he has no reasonable suspicion, he should let you go. If he does not allow you to leave, then you are taking a chance. Although required to have a reasonable suspicion, he is not required to tell you what that suspicion is.

That means a police officer can not just walk up to you and demand your name for no reason. He can only do so if he is legally able to arrest or detain you.


Yes, but adding 'detain' changes things. The post to which I responded said "They are simply required to give their name if arrested", which was quite inaccurate.
 
2012-04-26 04:00:56 PM

chuckufarlie: I give up. Keep your racism and your ignorance. There is nothing for you.


You give up? Is calling people names, accusing them being racists and making ridiculous claims that you can't provide any evidence for really that hard?
 
2012-04-26 04:01:10 PM

Satanic_Hamster: RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.

For the past 20 years, I've been asked about my immigration status (Form I-9) on a job application or when hired, and *shock* I didn't run to the ACLU.. If you're in the US legally and actually want a job...

/I wash my own dishes
//Am a proud parent who never hired a babysitter (relatives only)

And guess what? NO ONE CARES or is against businesses doing this when hiring.

What we object to is that American citizens just walking down the street can be subject to arrest solely based on an officer's suspicion that they're not in the country legally.


The law doesn't allow that you farking ignorant retard.
 
2012-04-26 04:02:21 PM

DrewCurtisJr: If it is true. I'm skeptical and think the new guidelines are election pandering. They've always focuses their resources on criminals, non criminals are mostly low hanging fruit turned over by local authorities or people swept up in searches for criminals.


I don't think it was a new guideline they were just explaining why it is not possible to be doing mass deportations.
 
2012-04-26 04:10:49 PM

DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: If cops aren't going to be harassing brown people, then why do they need the explicit right to do so codified into law?

They can already do this. 2 things, it forces sanctuary cities who order police to not follow immigration laws even in cases where they know a person is illegal, also part of the law gives them the power to charge illegal immigrants who ICE refuses to take into custody under the no ID law (which mirrors the federal law)


So - correct me if I'm getting this wrong - the reason people are crying about this law is the verbage that eliminates any local non-enforcement of illegal immigration - people are having a shiat fit because of local politics? That would surprise me. Not unheard of, but I was under the impression that they were angry over the 'reasonable suspicion' part.
 
2012-04-26 04:12:57 PM

ox45tallboy: Beemer_Vol: s2s2s2 Wait, you mean to tell me that a state law that mirrors a federal law might not be declared unconstitutional?

Actually, from what I've read up on it, AZ SB 1070 has a higher regard for human rights than the federal guidance.

Have you read up on the fact that it requires American Farking Citizens to carry proof of citizenship on their person at all times, and that the police have the authority to take you to the pokey if you can not or choose not to produce it on demand?


No it doesn't. Seriously you are an ignorant dumbass. The law is a secondary offense. If stopped for a primary offense a citizen already has to provide identifying information. This can be an is or simply running a name and ss number through the database. This is already done today.

Take 5 farking minutes and read the 7 page law so you don't look as much a dumbass.
 
2012-04-26 04:18:52 PM

MaliFinn: Not unheard of, but I was under the impression that they were angry over the 'reasonable suspicion' part.


What the current case in court is about is the federal government doesn't want states enforcing immigration laws without the federal government's permission.
 
2012-04-26 04:21:08 PM

Headso: I don't think it was a new guideline they were just explaining why it is not possible to be doing mass deportations.


They were already doing a lot of deportations. So many that people started to complain, that's why Obama announced these new priorities to scale them back.
 
2012-04-26 04:23:00 PM
If liberals love Mexicans so much, why don't they move to Arizona?

/very liberal
 
2012-04-26 04:24:00 PM

MyRandomName: No it doesn't. Seriously you are an ignorant dumbass. The law is a secondary offense. If stopped for a primary offense a citizen already has to provide identifying information. This can be an is or simply running a name and ss number through the database. This is already done today.

Take 5 farking minutes and read the 7 page law so you don't look as much a dumbass.


Just like seatbelt laws were promised to only be tacked on and not pull-over offenses.
The laws were changed little by little until they were. It's the entire slippery slope aspect of having to carry papers around at all time.
 
2012-04-26 04:31:37 PM

chuckufarlie: Joe Blowme: chuckufarlie: DrewCurtisJr: chuckufarlie: but there is a reason - suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

And this reasonable suspicion would come from? And keep in mind that there is an executive order and federal laws that prevent them from doing so just based on a person's ethnicity.

redmid17: To be fair, police often state if they follow you long enough in a car they can pull you over for any number of reasons (not staying in lane, speeding, tailgating, rolling stop, etc..)

They can already do that, they don't need SB 1070. If they aren't doing it already why would they change? Do you think they need this law to hand over someone to ICE?

I give up. Keep your racism and your ignorance. There is nothing for you.

Now come back when you learn to read if you would like to keep discussing the law as it is actually written

oh look, another idiot!! What is it about racists?


You should be able to answer your own question, you are the one screaming about "brown people". Why do you hate "brown people"? Is that all you see when you look at people? Their color?
 
2012-04-26 04:32:41 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Headso: They were just talking about this on NPR the other day, there was someone on saying how the immigration department doesn't have the resources to send the millions of illegals through the system and provide them with the lawyers they would need to fight extradition so they prioritize and deal with violent criminals first and then down the line from there. Seems pretty reasonable.

If it is true. I'm skeptical and think the new guidelines are election pandering. They've always focuses their resources on criminals, non criminals are mostly low hanging fruit turned over by local authorities or people swept up in searches for criminals.

I read something recently that since the new rules the number of criminal aliens hadn't gone up as of yet, although they did pull of a big operation earlier this month, it's still early so we'll see if this prioritization approach actually results in more criminal aliens being arrested and deported.


You know, if I could just stop talking, you'd prove all of my points for me. You agree with me, you just can't see it.

You see, the one thing that the state cannot do is actually deport people. This is ONLY the function of the Federal government. INS doesn't have the resources, therefore, this person who would otherwise be working and contributing to society (even if he/she doesn't pay income tax - and I'm not about to concede the majority don't - he or she is still contributing labor and paying sales tax and property tax (possibly indirectly through renting).)

If INS can't deal with it, guess what? AZ pays a private prison to house, feed, clothe, and guard them for an indefinite period. You want to talk about a "drain on society"? There it is, right there.
 
2012-04-26 04:36:14 PM

MyRandomName: Satanic_Hamster: RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.

For the past 20 years, I've been asked about my immigration status (Form I-9) on a job application or when hired, and *shock* I didn't run to the ACLU.. If you're in the US legally and actually want a job...

/I wash my own dishes
//Am a proud parent who never hired a babysitter (relatives only)

And guess what? NO ONE CARES or is against businesses doing this when hiring.

What we object to is that American citizens just walking down the street can be subject to arrest solely based on an officer's suspicion that they're not in the country legally.

The law doesn't allow that you farking ignorant retard.


YES IT DOES. All a cop has to do is feel the need to question a person that "fits the description" (Latino male approx. 5'9". 30 yrs of age) of someone who committed another crime. This constitutes "investigation of a crime". Then it's "Papers, please" and off to jail if the guy can't prove he's a citizen.

Don't try to argue, "that's not the way it'll be done in practice". If not, then why word the law this way? Why not write the law in such a way that this is not possible?
 
2012-04-26 04:38:23 PM

DrewCurtisJr: MaliFinn: Not unheard of, but I was under the impression that they were angry over the 'reasonable suspicion' part.

What the current case in court is about is the federal government doesn't want states enforcing immigration laws without the federal government's permission.


Isn't it a little ironic then that the state is upset about being overruled, when the thrust of their legislation is to overrule local governments?
 
2012-04-26 04:38:38 PM

MaliFinn: DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: If cops aren't going to be harassing brown people, then why do they need the explicit right to do so codified into law?

They can already do this. 2 things, it forces sanctuary cities who order police to not follow immigration laws even in cases where they know a person is illegal, also part of the law gives them the power to charge illegal immigrants who ICE refuses to take into custody under the no ID law (which mirrors the federal law)

So - correct me if I'm getting this wrong - the reason people are crying about this law is the verbage that eliminates any local non-enforcement of illegal immigration - people are having a shiat fit because of local politics? That would surprise me. Not unheard of, but I was under the impression that they were angry over the 'reasonable suspicion' part.


No, people are "crying" because this is a direct violation of the civil liberties of CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES who happen to be brown. If the state can take away their civil liberties, i.e., demand to see their papers or face a trip to the pokey, then how long will it be until I am under the same restrictions?
 
2012-04-26 04:41:45 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Headso: I don't think it was a new guideline they were just explaining why it is not possible to be doing mass deportations.

They were already doing a lot of deportations. So many that people started to complain, that's why Obama announced these new priorities to scale them back.


I don't believe there is a new policy, as far as I know there was always a prioritization of which illegals to deport. Because we are a nation where the accused have rights they can't just throw them out of the country so the only way to deal with it is to prioritize and not jam up the system with a bunch of day laborers from AZ.
 
2012-04-26 04:45:50 PM

MaliFinn: Isn't it a little ironic then that the state is upset about being overruled, when the thrust of their legislation is to overrule local governments?


Not really ironic. Both the feds and the local governments are ignoring the law.
 
2012-04-26 04:50:32 PM

Headso: I don't believe there is a new policy, as far as I know there was always a prioritization of which illegals to deport.


There has always been a prioritization which is why excuses for the new policy are suspect.
 
2012-04-26 04:53:40 PM

ox45tallboy: You see, the one thing that the state cannot do is actually deport people. This is ONLY the function of the Federal government. INS doesn't have the resources, therefore, this person who would otherwise be working and contributing to society (even if he/she doesn't pay income tax - and I'm not about to concede the majority don't - he or she is still contributing labor and paying sales tax and property tax (possibly indirectly through renting).)


First off INS hasn't been an agency in over 9 years, secondly the idea isn't locking up all illegal immigrants in AZ. Simply by not turning a blind eye to the problem will make many illegals leave on their own. If they can't get work, and they could be arrested while being pulled over for speeding, they will not want to live in that environment.
 
2012-04-26 04:55:04 PM

MyRandomName: Take 5 farking minutes and read the 7 page law so you don't look as much a dumbass.


Wow, that takes a lot of cojones to say _I_ look like a dumbass for not reading the law. Here you go, in black and white, copy and pasted, so you can plainly see how the law doesn't say what you wish it said:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Do you see that? It says "Any Lawful Contact". It does not say "during the course of investigation of an individual suspected of committing another crime.

"ANY LAWFUL CONTACT."

That can mean anything from getting pulled over for a broken taillight or improper lane change to a passenger being asked to step outside the vehicle to an interview with a witness to a robbery or even a victim reporting a rape.

Once again, neither I nor the law give two shiats about what you wish it meant, I'm only talking about what it says.

ANY LAWFUL CONTACT.

Now what was that about me looking like a dumbass for not reading the law?
 
2012-04-26 04:56:51 PM

MyRandomName: ox45tallboy: Beemer_Vol: s2s2s2 Wait, you mean to tell me that a state law that mirrors a federal law might not be declared unconstitutional?

Actually, from what I've read up on it, AZ SB 1070 has a higher regard for human rights than the federal guidance.

Have you read up on the fact that it requires American Farking Citizens to carry proof of citizenship on their person at all times, and that the police have the authority to take you to the pokey if you can not or choose not to produce it on demand?

No it doesn't. Seriously you are an ignorant dumbass. The law is a secondary offense. If stopped for a primary offense a citizen already has to provide identifying information. This can be an is or simply running a name and ss number through the database. This is already done today.

Take 5 farking minutes and read the 7 page law so you don't look as much a dumbass.


Dumbass? I think he's one of the best trolls I've seen in some time. Unfortunately, he won't get much credit for it as he's trolling from the left. Brilliant, nonetheless.
 
2012-04-26 05:02:12 PM

DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: You see, the one thing that the state cannot do is actually deport people. This is ONLY the function of the Federal government. INS doesn't have the resources, therefore, this person who would otherwise be working and contributing to society (even if he/she doesn't pay income tax - and I'm not about to concede the majority don't - he or she is still contributing labor and paying sales tax and property tax (possibly indirectly through renting).)

First off INS hasn't been an agency in over 9 years, secondly the idea isn't locking up all illegal immigrants in AZ. Simply by not turning a blind eye to the problem will make many illegals leave on their own. If they can't get work, and they could be arrested while being pulled over for speeding, they will not want to live in that environment.


Can you get it through your thick skull that this law was written by the prison system in order to put more people in jail, and that it was passed by a legislature elected by people who want ALL brown people harassed? It's not just that "illegal immigration is takin our jerbs", it's that "I don't want to look at the ugly brown people."

If they wanted to stop the illegals from takin their jerbs, they would crack down even more on those that hire illegals. But they don't. No one likes the idea of the cops running surprise inspections on local white-owned businesses to see if they are abiding by the law and not hiring illegals, but harassing the brown citizens in order to get the brown illegals? Sure!

And yes, I know that they have also passed legislation making it a state crime to knowingly hire illegals. But are they giving the cops the ability to demand the papers of white-owned businesses if there is "reasonable suspicion" they might employing illegals?
 
2012-04-26 05:03:29 PM

Cataholic: Dumbass? I think he's one of the best trolls I've seen in some time. Unfortunately, he won't get much credit for it as he's trolling from the left. Brilliant, nonetheless.


Hate to break it to you, but I'm not trolling. I really do feel this way. Am I still brilliant?
 
2012-04-26 05:13:13 PM
 
2012-04-26 05:14:53 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Headso: I don't believe there is a new policy, as far as I know there was always a prioritization of which illegals to deport.

There has always been a prioritization which is why excuses for the new policy are suspect.


That's from last year, like I said, pretty sure the person they were interviewing on NPR was speaking in response to the idea that you can just easily mass amounts of people. They were talking about laws like the Arizona one being adopted in other states being a problem in that it would be sending too many regular Joses through the system when criminals need to be deported first.
 
2012-04-26 05:15:51 PM

Bees are livestock: I live on the S.Texas border.

When I leave the RGV to go to Corpus Christi I must pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint on U.S. 77. They stop every vehicle and ask if you are a U.S. citizen and run the dog around the vehicle. Every road out of S. Texas has Border Patrol checkpoints.

Where is the outrage?? I mean I live in the U.S. the checkpionts are somewhere near 60 miles north from the border.


I drove through Texas last summer. Got stopped by Border Patrol. Yes, they ask if you are a citizen, but if you're white, they don't ask for an ID. I did have to answer a baseball question, though.
 
2012-04-26 05:20:55 PM
Mr. Moderator, I hereby nominate this headline for the Headline of the Year contest; and defer the remainder of my time to the Girl from Ipanema.
 
2012-04-26 05:22:10 PM

ox45tallboy: And yes, I know that they have also passed legislation making it a state crime to knowingly hire illegals. But are they giving the cops the ability to demand the papers of white-owned businesses if there is "reasonable suspicion" they might employing illegals?


Yes. If there is reasonable suspicion an investigation will get started. If the investigation turns up probable cause then yes they will demand business records and get a warrant.

That is all for me today, I'm out.
 
2012-04-26 05:22:20 PM

MacWizard: Bees are livestock: I live on the S.Texas border.

When I leave the RGV to go to Corpus Christi I must pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint on U.S. 77. They stop every vehicle and ask if you are a U.S. citizen and run the dog around the vehicle. Every road out of S. Texas has Border Patrol checkpoints.

Where is the outrage?? I mean I live in the U.S. the checkpionts are somewhere near 60 miles north from the border.

I drove through Texas last summer. Got stopped by Border Patrol. Yes, they ask if you are a citizen, but if you're white, they don't ask for an ID. I did have to answer a baseball question, though.



shiat. I'm going to prison than.
 
2012-04-26 05:26:05 PM

MyRandomName: The law doesn't allow that you farking ignorant retard.


Silly troll account; yes it does. And you know this from past threads.
 
2012-04-26 05:28:55 PM

KimNorth: Slam1263: So, will one change be that the criminal aliens leave?

They are being deported and then it is documented that the majority are back in the U.S. within 2 weeks to 6 mo.


Yeah, I know. I used to work at a plant nurseryin Oregon. A worker wouldn't come in, and I'd hear thet they got deported, but they would be back a couple of weeks later.

And none of that new name and papers stuff either.

I do like the argument that they don't file for refunds on the taxes they pay, AYUDA would be out ever year helping them get money back from Uncle Sam.
 
2012-04-26 05:37:26 PM

DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: "ANY LAWFUL CONTACT."

That can mean anything from getting pulled over for a broken taillight or improper lane change to a passenger being asked to step outside the vehicle to an interview with a witness to a robbery or even a victim reporting a rape.

On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the Act that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[28] The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100,[26] and changes incarceration limits for first-time offenders from 6 months to 20 days.[9]


First off, imagine that. A law so obviously flawed it had to be modified a mere week later.

Do you really think that a person "walking down the street" cannot be detained for such offenses as "loitering in a designated drug zone"? Do you realize that checking the immigration status of PASSENGERS in a car that has been "lawfully stopped" is covered under this bill?

Do you realize that checking the immigration status of a rape victim is "incident to" the investigation of the rape?

And how in the hell does anyone think a cop can tell "national origin" without asking an individual? Can you tell the difference between a Chilean and a Brasilian? How about an American and a Canadian? A Cambodian and a Laotian?
 
2012-04-26 05:39:00 PM

DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: And yes, I know that they have also passed legislation making it a state crime to knowingly hire illegals. But are they giving the cops the ability to demand the papers of white-owned businesses if there is "reasonable suspicion" they might employing illegals?

Yes. If there is reasonable suspicion an investigation will get started. If the investigation turns up probable cause then yes they will demand business records and get a warrant.

That is all for me today, I'm out.


Umm.... yeah, they'll "get right on that", in the meantime the brown person goes straight to the pokey and is not even offered a bail hearing.
 
2012-04-26 05:42:13 PM

Slam1263: I do like the argument that they don't file for refunds on the taxes they pay, AYUDA would be out ever year helping them get money back from Uncle Sam.


Hey, I don't know about across the country, I'm talking about the people I know personally in the Atlanta area. All of them work a payroll job under someone else's papers, and NONE of them file for a refund.
 
2012-04-26 05:44:38 PM

ox45tallboy: Joe Blowme: In my state you must show SS card, BC (not a copy) , and some form of picture id such as school id.
I bet you had to have the BC to get a SS number so in effect you did have to show it.
And as others have stated, is it racist to require visitors to carry passports? evey country requires this.

Sigh. It is ALREADY the law that visitors carry their documents. Now AMERICAN FARKING CITIZENS have to carry their papers as well, or get thrown in the pokey.

How hard is this to understand?


You do realize that that is the current situation in 46 state. Washington state is but one of 4 that there is no legal requirement for a citizen to produce valid ID when asked to by law enforcement.

There very thing you are shrilling about is already happening in the vast majority of this nation.

So, what are you going to do about it?
 
2012-04-26 05:47:21 PM
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically
productive for the State of California ...

You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2
parents, 2 children and live in California. "Joe Legal" works in
construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with
payroll taxes deducted...."Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has
"NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Joe Legal...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per
year.

Now take 30% away for state federal tax, Joe Legal now has $31,231.00

Jose Illegal...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per
year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes... Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00

Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage $1000.00
per month, $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $19,231.00

Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and
local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00

Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare.
Joe Legal pays for food $1,000.00 per month, $12,000.00 per year. Joe
Legal now has $7,231.00

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and
Welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,000.00 per month. $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal
is now in the hole minus (-) $4,769.00

Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal
pays rent. $500.00 per month. $6,000.00 per year Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after
work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe
Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a
government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school
ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services,
but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Don't vote/support any politician that supports illegal aliens...Its PAST
time to take a stand for America and Americans!
 
2012-04-26 05:50:12 PM
OOpsS.

Forgot my cites:
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-24/justice/dorf.police.id_1_warrant-r e quirement-search-reasonable-suspicion?_s=PM:LAW
http://www.newsmine.org/content.php?ol=security/bigbrother/supreme-co u rt-backs-police-on-showing-ID.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/66486/supreme_court_no_right_to_ k eep_name_from_police/
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report