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.

(AZ Family)   "Show Me Your Papers" provision of Arizona's controversial immigration law is perfectly legal after all   (azfamily.com) divider line 190
    More: Followup, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Circuit Court of Appeals, federal judges, U.S. Supreme Court, Jan Brewer  
•       •       •

6884 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Sep 2012 at 3:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-06 03:00:05 AM
In her ruling, Bolton said the court will not ignore the clear direction from the Supreme Court that the provision "cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect." She reiterated the high court's interpretation that the law might be able to be challenged as unconstitutional on other grounds.

This isn't news. The Supreme Court said pretty clearly that, simply as a matter of standing, you have to have an actual case to challenge that provision. Which means that the provision has to take effect, and that somebody has to be affected by it. The first Hispanic they pull over detained any longer than they would be otherwise can challenge the provision, the judge will almost certainly issue an injunction prohibiting further enforcement, and the Supreme Court all but said they'll strike it down once they have the actual case.
 
2012-09-06 03:30:38 AM
Democrats: Give them a path to legal residency and employment

Republicans: Shoot them on sight

Libertarians: Get your own damn job and your own damn gun and be responsible

Seriously, people, there are lawyers and lobbyists and judges and legislators wasting years of effort and billions of your tax dollars on this crap. How can I even be bothered to care anymore?
 
2012-09-06 03:36:40 AM
Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?
 
2012-09-06 03:37:37 AM
The entire discussion about illegal immigrants avoids the fact that a huge number of people are willingly working for far, far less than minimum wage in the US. Maybe that's the real problem? Maybe our society needs to be able to function without slaves and indentured servants?
 
2012-09-06 03:37:39 AM
I'm not going to say I told you so, but I told you so.

So many here seem to think that laws should only work the way they believe in their hearts it should work. I was practically run out of town for suggesting that this law was perfectly legal and would likely stand up to judicial scrutiny.

The worm has now turned and the shoe is on the other foot. Commence with your crying, you bleeding hearts.
 
2012-09-06 03:40:12 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The worm has now turned and the shoe is on the other foot. Commence with your crying, you bleeding hearts.


Is that the worm from the mescal?
 
2012-09-06 03:41:04 AM

grinnel: AverageAmericanGuy: The worm has now turned and the shoe is on the other foot. Commence with your crying, you bleeding hearts.

Is that the worm from the mescal?


That worm is actually well preserved.
 
2012-09-06 03:45:01 AM

grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?


Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.
 
2012-09-06 03:45:33 AM

cptjeff: In her ruling, Bolton said the court will not ignore the clear direction from the Supreme Court that the provision "cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect." She reiterated the high court's interpretation that the law might be able to be challenged as unconstitutional on other grounds.

This isn't news. The Supreme Court said pretty clearly that, simply as a matter of standing, you have to have an actual case to challenge that provision. Which means that the provision has to take effect, and that somebody has to be affected by it. The first Hispanic they pull over detained any longer than they would be otherwise can challenge the provision, the judge will almost certainly issue an injunction prohibiting further enforcement, and the Supreme Court all but said they'll strike it down once they have the actual case.


the really ironic part of this ruling is that it all but ensures that this will happen. Those idiots will take this ruling as implicit consent to do as they were/want to, without fear. Now, we know that's not what it says, but time and time again we've seen that those retards either don't read, don't understand, or don't interpret things in reality. They will see this and go YeeHaw! I can pull over and demand papers for any of those damn wetbacks that I want, and the law said it's A-Okay!
So it WILL happen improperly, almost immediately (were I a gambling man) and then we'll be right back here, but it will be shot down once these folks demonstrate that they can not or will not use the discretion that they have been mercifully granted the ability to use..
 
2012-09-06 03:47:09 AM

taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.


As I understand it, they can't simply ask for papers out of the blue. Though they can do so while following up on a crime. What I'm saying is that the cops need a reason to be there in the first place to ask for papers, but once they have a legitimate reason to be questioning someone, the papers please! question is fair game.
 
2012-09-06 03:53:52 AM

BoxOfBees: Democrats: Give them a path to legal residency and employment


You mean "amnesty" because there's already a path to legal residency and employment, they're just breaking the laws that concern that.

"But... but... its not easy!"

It's not suppose to be.
 
2012-09-06 03:54:11 AM
one can imagine where this may lead in 10 or 20 years.
 
2012-09-06 03:57:04 AM
I don't give a fark if it is legal, it is still disgusting, immoral and wrong.
 
2012-09-06 03:59:37 AM

taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.


The complaint is more about the unlikelihood that officers can genuinely divorce "reasonable suspicion" of illegal staus from their perception of the subject's race/ethnicity. They claim to have training in place that does just that--avoiding racial profiling--but it'll be interesting to see the details when a case gets that far.

/also that having a mandate to enforce laws doesn't mean going on fishing expeditions with anyone you care to harass; again an area where it will be interesting to see how that works out in practice
 
2012-09-06 04:07:45 AM
I believe, might be mistaken, but there was a problem around the Houston area when I used to live there that less people were being pulled over because the local cops were not empowered to perform adequate questioning of suspects. Only state troopers had the authority to ask for proof of citizenship. Somebody that actually lives in Houston might be able to clear this up.
 
2012-09-06 04:12:54 AM

gaspode: I don't give a fark if it is legal, it is still disgusting, immoral and wrong.


Watch out we got an expert here
 
2012-09-06 04:18:04 AM
The obvious solution is to stay the fark out of Arizona. Works for me.
 
2012-09-06 04:19:32 AM
One last comment before I log off for the night; I do not understand the bleeding heart sympathy for illegal immigrants. They are not the victims; the people who worked hard to go through the proper channels and obtain legal citizenship are the victims. The slave wages aren't just taking jobs away from whitey 'Murican, but from naturalized citizens as well. What makes it worse is that a large number of both teams (legal and illegal) are on a near level playing field when it comes to labor/work qualifications.
I have worked in kitchens in Texas for twelve years. If you want to hear somebody biatch about illegal immigrants, you need to talk to a member of the naturalized populous.
 
2012-09-06 04:19:47 AM

taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.


It's not quite as simple as that. The truth is that illegal immigrants work insanely hard agriculture jobs for less than minimum wage, which keeps the price of produce low. How would you like to be paying $10 for a carton of orange juice because all the undocumented workers that pick the oranges are now gone and the growers have to pay a documented worker $7 an hour instead of $1? Even farm workers on the few Work Visas that Mexico is allowed to give out by the US don't fare much better in terms of wages. The campensinos work for near slave wages to increase the Republican ranch owner's bottom line and get exploited by the Democratic machine to secure the Latino vote. 110-120 degree weather, 10+ hour shifts, most of it bent over if you're picking things lettuce, strawberries, or artichokes. Constant exposure to pesticides. And the sad thing is that these conditions are *better* than where they came from.

Face facts: illegal immigration isn't ever going to go away because both the Republicans and Democrats benefit immensely from it.
 
2012-09-06 04:22:29 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.

As I understand it, they can't simply ask for papers out of the blue. Though they can do so while following up on a crime. What I'm saying is that the cops need a reason to be there in the first place to ask for papers, but once they have a legitimate reason to be questioning someone, the papers please! question is fair game.


Policechiefwiggum.jpg

"Noticed your left tail light started blinking when you made that turn. Show me your papers please."
 
2012-09-06 04:23:47 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.

The complaint is more about the unlikelihood that officers can genuinely divorce "reasonable suspicion" of illegal staus from their perception of the subject's race/ethnicity. They claim to have training in place that does just that--avoiding racial profiling--but it'll be interesting to see the details when a case gets that far.

/also that having a mandate to enforce laws doesn't mean going on fishing expeditions with anyone you care to harass; again an area where it will be interesting to see how that works out in practice


This one. Right there. That's the key.

Although I do wonder how a citizen, born in this country, is going to establish citizenship since the people cheering the loudest for this addition to the law do not even accept a COLB as proof. I know I do not have any proof of citizenship handy, or even within a few days retrieval time. Of course, I'm white, so it'll never, ever come up.

DL and SSN are not proof of citizenship. Just wanted to head that one off at the pass.

Still, there are going to be a whoooooooleeeeee lotta "Driving While Brown" arrests made as soon as this goes into effect. I see nothing but an endless stretch of broken tail lights and failure to signals. Follow all that with the always delicious, "we've gotten calls of suspicious persons fitting your description..."

Going to be fun watching this play out. This is a quite literal example of what "White Privilege" can mean.
 
2012-09-06 04:24:54 AM
Is it wrong of me to wish for the Grand Canyon to suddenly expand and take out both Arizona and Texas?
 
2012-09-06 04:24:57 AM

grinnel: One last comment before I log off for the night; I do not understand the bleeding heart sympathy for illegal immigrants. They are not the victims; the people who worked hard to go through the proper channels and obtain legal citizenship are the victims. The slave wages aren't just taking jobs away from whitey 'Murican, but from naturalized citizens as well. What makes it worse is that a large number of both teams (legal and illegal) are on a near level playing field when it comes to labor/work qualifications.
I have worked in kitchens in Texas for twelve years. If you want to hear somebody biatch about illegal immigrants, you need to talk to a member of the naturalized populous.


So you think this is only going to be used against illegals?

BWAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

faqsmedia.ign.com
 
2012-09-06 04:26:32 AM

Electrify: Uchiha_Cycliste: taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.

As I understand it, they can't simply ask for papers out of the blue. Though they can do so while following up on a crime. What I'm saying is that the cops need a reason to be there in the first place to ask for papers, but once they have a legitimate reason to be questioning someone, the papers please! question is fair game.

Policechiefwiggum.jpg

"Noticed your left tail light started blinking when you made that turn. Show me your papers please."



It's a clue to Arizonans that they should buy dashboard cams to CYA in case they are ever pulled over.
 
2012-09-06 04:28:56 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.

As I understand it, they can't simply ask for papers out of the blue. Though they can do so while following up on a crime. What I'm saying is that the cops need a reason to be there in the first place to ask for papers, but once they have a legitimate reason to be questioning someone, the papers please! question is fair game.


Around here you must provide a police officer with a government issued photo ID if the officer requests it, or else you can be arrested. Of course, they don't frequently request without a reason, and since this is a sanctuary city (in practice if not officially) they don't care if the ID shows you're an illegal immigrant, but it has held up to scrutiny before. It also makes voter ID laws a bit of a moot point, but they're still fighting over that one too.
 
2012-09-06 04:29:53 AM
I don't have a problem with a law similar to this, but only with these caveats.

1) The check occurs after a person is convicted for a legitimate crime that would normally cause someone to be arrested. Busting someone for J-walking or driving while being Mexican would result with False arrest chages placed against the officer in question. The officer in charge would be suspended without pay while the investigation is taking place and if profiling or harassment is the case, the Officer is considered fired with cause. also if the person is an illegal, but the profiling/harassment sticks againstthe officer, free green card for the accused.

2)the person in question does not need to have their documents on their person at all times. they would be allowed to use any valid government paperwork that gives them a right to be in this country to be used, SSN, i9, passport, colb. and note if you can rattle off your ssn, they can look it up and compare it with your dl, good enough.

3) Audits and studies as to changes in the numbers and types of crimes people are being arrested for in the affected counties. If there is a significant statistical,change, back to square 1, fire the supervisors that are not keeping an eye on their own officers to make sure that profiling or harrassment do not occur.

4)The immigration check occurs if and only if the prosecution is successful for the original crime, and the person is deported after serving the sentence for their crime.
 
2012-09-06 04:33:30 AM

RoyFokker'sGhost: It's not quite as simple as that. The truth is that illegal immigrants work insanely hard agriculture jobs for less than minimum wage, which keeps the price of produce low. How would you like to be paying $10 for a carton of orange juice because all the undocumented workers that pick the oranges are now gone and the growers have to pay a documented worker $7 an hour instead of $1? Even farm workers on the few Work Visas that Mexico is allowed to give out by the US don't fare much better in terms of wages. The campensinos work for near slave wages to increase the Republican ranch owner's bottom line and get exploited by the Democratic machine to secure the Latino vote. 110-120 degree weather, 10+ hour shifts, most of it bent over if you're picking things lettuce, strawberries, or artichokes. Constant exposure to pesticides. And the sad thing is that these conditions are *better* than where they came from.


When I worked on a farm in Louisiana, there was a law that allowed farmers to pay what they could afford regardless of minimum wage. When I got promoted to foreman, I made a whopping $2.00 an hour. I know that is still more than a lot of these workers are being paid, but this sounds more like a minimum wage/ commerce problem. A lot of these illegals are treated like crap and live in knee deep defecation because they are off the grid; they don't exist. They are being whored out by their own people. There is a way to solve both problems.

/okay. that was the last post
//these are my first slashies
 
2012-09-06 04:33:43 AM

grinnel: One last comment before I log off for the night; I do not understand the bleeding heart sympathy for illegal immigrants. They are not the victims; the people who worked hard to go through the proper channels and obtain legal citizenship are the victims. The slave wages aren't just taking jobs away from whitey 'Murican, but from naturalized citizens as well. What makes it worse is that a large number of both teams (legal and illegal) are on a near level playing field when it comes to labor/work qualifications.
I have worked in kitchens in Texas for twelve years. If you want to hear somebody biatch about illegal immigrants, you need to talk to a member of the naturalized populous.


Well, speaking only for myself here, it's because a bit over 100 years ago, it wasn't the Mexicans that people were complaining about taking jobs from honest Americans, it was those dirty Italians and Irish and Germans.

What do you think 'wop' means? 'With Out Papers'

Everything old is new again.

/proud descendant of those Irish and German immigrants
//also, lifelong Republican and saw how the 'migrant worker' system worked first-hand in central California
 
2012-09-06 04:34:52 AM

Kuroshin: DL and SSN are not proof of citizenship. Just wanted to head that one off at the pass.


The Arizona law specifically allows a driver's license as proof of citizenship, for the purposes of this law. But even at that it still seems a bit onerous for actual citizens -- am I not allowed to leave my home without some form of ID that AZ cops will accept? Foreign nationals are already required to carry their papers with them at all time but US citizens have never been subject to such rules.
 
2012-09-06 04:35:01 AM
So now any American who looks hispanic has to carry identification papers. When I was a kid, people used to tell me that people in the Soviet Union were oppressed by their government because they had to carry identity papers and had to pass through internal check points. Now it seems that America is embracing the same sort of oppression, first its security theater at the airports, then check points at bus terminals and sports stadiums, and now people who resemble people who might be in the country illegally have to carry papers.

But the most disturbing thing is that some Americans seem to be okay with this. What the hell folks, what's happening to us?
 
2012-09-06 04:35:06 AM

CreamFilling: Uchiha_Cycliste: taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.

As I understand it, they can't simply ask for papers out of the blue. Though they can do so while following up on a crime. What I'm saying is that the cops need a reason to be there in the first place to ask for papers, but once they have a legitimate reason to be questioning someone, the papers please! question is fair game.

Around here you must provide a police officer with a government issued photo ID if the officer requests it, or else you can be arrested. Of course, they don't frequently request without a reason, and since this is a sanctuary city (in practice if not officially) they don't care if the ID shows you're an illegal immigrant, but it has held up to scrutiny before. It also makes voter ID laws a bit of a moot point, but they're still fighting over that one too.


That...sounds really un-Constitutional. Anybody been arrested for failing to carry ID yet? That needs to go up the Judicial chain.

Also, where do you live, so I can never go there? No way in hell am I letting some inbred ruin my life because I don't always carry ID with me.
 
2012-09-06 04:36:21 AM
It's amusing to read the posts by people who think this law has now passed it's legal test, and everything is hunky-dunky.
I've got news for you - the legal test of this law begins the first time an American Citizen is hauled down to a police station under it's auspices. Then, it is only a matter of time until it is struck down.
Mark it. I'll be calling it later.
 
2012-09-06 04:38:16 AM

profplump: Kuroshin: DL and SSN are not proof of citizenship. Just wanted to head that one off at the pass.

The Arizona law specifically allows a driver's license as proof of citizenship, for the purposes of this law. But even at that it still seems a bit onerous for actual citizens -- am I not allowed to leave my home without some form of ID that AZ cops will accept? Foreign nationals are already required to carry their papers with them at all time but US citizens have never been subject to such rules.


Thing is, most illegals I've known had perfectly valid DLs. They were forgeries, but would come up totally legit in the system. Dls aren't worth a damn for such tests.

And no, not if you're brown. You look messican, you carry papers, er else! If you aren't brown, you have absolutely nothing to fear - you will never be asked.
 
2012-09-06 04:39:48 AM

CreamFilling: Around here you must provide a police officer with a government issued photo ID if the officer requests it, or else you can be arrested.


You can be arrested for some variation of "annoying a cop" if you annoy a cop. That's the rule almost anywhere. But there is absolutely no statutory requirement that you even be issued ID by the government, let alone that carry it with you at all times.

/ At least not until laws like these
 
2012-09-06 04:40:17 AM

grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?


The law says this:
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state 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 and is unlawfully present in the United States, 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.


Now compare that to the text of the fourth amendment, which, you'll notice, protects "persons," not "citizens and legal aliens." Try to find the words "reasonable suspicion" in here:

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

Ooops! No luck.
 
2012-09-06 04:40:25 AM

RoyFokker'sGhost: It's not quite as simple as that. The truth is that illegal immigrants work insanely hard agriculture jobs for less than minimum wage, which keeps the price of produce low. How would you like to be paying $10 for a carton of orange juice because all the undocumented workers that pick the oranges are now gone and the growers have to pay a documented worker $7 an hour instead of $1? Even farm workers on the few Work Visas that Mexico is allowed to give out by the US don't fare much better in terms of wages. The campensinos work for near slave wages to increase the Republican ranch owner's bottom line and get exploited by the Democratic machine to secure the Latino vote. 110-120 degree weather, 10+ hour shifts, most of it bent over if you're picking things lettuce, strawberries, or artichokes. Constant exposure to pesticides. And the sad thing is that these conditions are *better* than where they came from.


This is true, but it's not the whole picture. The other side of it is that when they're working these jobs for low wages, they're typically not paying any payroll or income taxes on these wages, and that gets paid for by everyone else. They also don't have any medical insurance, and this drives up property taxes for everyone else for indigent care. So while paying low wages may keep some costs down, it also increases others. In times where unemployment is over ten percent, we shouldn't need a class of basically slave labor to keep fruit from rotting on the vine. The fact that we do points to a much larger problem than immigration.
 
2012-09-06 04:43:21 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not going to say I told you so, but I told you so.

So many here seem to think that laws should only work the way they believe in their hearts it should work. I was practically run out of town for suggesting that this law was perfectly legal and would likely stand up to judicial scrutiny.

The worm has now turned and the shoe is on the other foot. Commence with your crying, you bleeding hearts.



What article did you read? Because what you're saying isn't what the article said. The law can't be challenged on hypothetical grounds, there needs to be a victim, someone with standing to file claim.
 
2012-09-06 04:44:39 AM

JamisonJamieJames: Watch out we got an expert here


All you really need to be an expert at normative statements is a brain and a bit of compassion.

I understand how that can be intimidating.
 
2012-09-06 04:46:20 AM

CreamFilling: Uchiha_Cycliste: taurusowner: grinnel: Why shouldn't you be able to ask? Are they not breaking the law by being illegal immigrants?

Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.

As I understand it, they can't simply ask for papers out of the blue. Though they can do so while following up on a crime. What I'm saying is that the cops need a reason to be there in the first place to ask for papers, but once they have a legitimate reason to be questioning someone, the papers please! question is fair game.

Around here you must provide a police officer with a government issued photo ID if the officer requests it, or else you can be arrested. Of course, they don't frequently request without a reason, and since this is a sanctuary city (in practice if not officially) they don't care if the ID shows you're an illegal immigrant, but it has held up to scrutiny before. It also makes voter ID laws a bit of a moot point, but they're still fighting over that one too.


I believe that stands everywhere. But to be more clear, the cops in Arizona can't pull you over just to check your ID. IIRC they can demand your papers once they have pulled you over, but only if they have pulled you over for a legitimate reason. I too think, or remember, that you are always obligated to tell a cop who you are, and that they have the discretion to detain you until they can prove your identity. But they Can NOT pull you over, if you are driving, just to check you legal status.
 
2012-09-06 04:46:56 AM

taurusowner: Yes they are. Being inside the borders of the United States without express permission from the government of the United States is a crime. Police are tasked with seeking out crime. Anything else is just trying to inject an emotional agenda into the argument.


All police cannot investigate all crimes. There are jurisdictional and procedural matters, and amendments about due process and unreasonable search and seizure. Strangely, none of those amendments include the phrase "reasonable suspicion."
 
2012-09-06 04:47:43 AM

DataShade: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not going to say I told you so, but I told you so.

So many here seem to think that laws should only work the way they believe in their hearts it should work. I was practically run out of town for suggesting that this law was perfectly legal and would likely stand up to judicial scrutiny.

The worm has now turned and the shoe is on the other foot. Commence with your crying, you bleeding hearts.


What article did you read? Because what you're saying isn't what the article said. The law can't be challenged on hypothetical grounds, there needs to be a victim, someone with standing to file claim.


I don't think he realizes two things:
1. If they actually enforce it, it is inevitable that an American Citizen will be arrested in error, at some point.

2. When that happens, the law is history.
 
2012-09-06 04:49:15 AM

CreamFilling: The fact that we do points to a much larger problem than immigration.


Yes. That we don't pay enough for the basic jobs that our society requires. Possibly that we can't pay enough without painful changes in our society. In the past people have gotten very angry when you tried to take their slaves away, at least until and unless you replaced the slaves with some form of technology.

I'm not saying that justifies violation of immigration law, just that actually enforcing immigration law as-is unlikely to solve problems like unemployment, and might actually make them worse.

(One might also argue that the whole concept of exclusionary citizenship is antithetical to the American ideal that one's position in life should not be determined by birthright, but that's far beyond the scope of this discussion and quite possibly still not practical in the world as it exists today)
 
2012-09-06 04:49:54 AM

Kuroshin: That...sounds really un-Constitutional. Anybody been arrested for failing to carry ID yet? That needs to go up the Judicial chain.


It already has, several times, in many different states, and it's been upheld. There are different requirements in different states as to when you may be asked, but the general standard usually ends up being when the officer asks. What part of the Constitution do you think that violates?
 
2012-09-06 04:50:33 AM

Kuroshin: Although I do wonder how a citizen, born in this country, is going to establish citizenship since the people cheering the loudest for this addition to the law do not even accept a COLB as proof. I know I do not have any proof of citizenship handy, or even within a few days retrieval time. Of course, I'm white, so it'll never, ever come up.

DL and SSN are not proof of citizenship. Just wanted to head that one off at the pass.


Well... not on a federal level, no.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part - 1/
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency 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.
 


So it's not as bad as it *could* be. Just means that undesireables "lose" their wallet between arrest and booking and get indefinitely detained until someone "finds" the fax the feds sent back. Wheee!
 
2012-09-06 04:53:43 AM

jso2897: It's amusing to read the posts by people who think this law has now passed it's legal test, and everything is hunky-dunky.
I've got news for you - the legal test of this law begins the first time an American Citizen is hauled down to a police station under it's auspices. Then, it is only a matter of time until it is struck down.
Mark it. I'll be calling it later.


Actually, the citizenship of the person really does not matter. It has long been established by the courts that everyone in this country, be they a citizen, foreigner, or even an illegal immigrant, are granted the full protections of the Constitution.
 
2012-09-06 04:58:40 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: I believe that stands everywhere. But to be more clear, the cops in Arizona can't pull you over just to check your ID. IIRC they can demand your papers once they have pulled you over, but only if they have pulled you over for a legitimate reason. I too think, or remember, that you are always obligated to tell a cop who you are, and that they have the discretion to detain you until they can prove your identity. But they Can NOT pull you over, if you are driving, just to check you legal status.



Well. They *can* pull you over, if you are driving, just to check your legal status. And the only sometimes get caught.
 
2012-09-06 05:05:14 AM

DataShade: Uchiha_Cycliste: I believe that stands everywhere. But to be more clear, the cops in Arizona can't pull you over just to check your ID. IIRC they can demand your papers once they have pulled you over, but only if they have pulled you over for a legitimate reason. I too think, or remember, that you are always obligated to tell a cop who you are, and that they have the discretion to detain you until they can prove your identity. But they Can NOT pull you over, if you are driving, just to check you legal status.


Well. They *can* pull you over, if you are driving, just to check your legal status. And the only sometimes get caught.


Oh don't play that semantic argument, you know perfectly well I meant that they can't legally. Or in other words, they can (technically) but they are nut supposed to. If this wasn't fark, I'd be irked =P
 
2012-09-06 05:06:18 AM

ModernLuddite: The entire discussion about illegal immigrants avoids the fact that a huge number of people are willingly working for far, far less than minimum wage in the US. Maybe that's the real problem? Maybe our society needs to be able to function without slaves and indentured servants?


Name an example of someone working for less than minimum wage. Waiters don't count. GO!


....

....
 
2012-09-06 05:08:09 AM

Kahabut: ModernLuddite: The entire discussion about illegal immigrants avoids the fact that a huge number of people are willingly working for far, far less than minimum wage in the US. Maybe that's the real problem? Maybe our society needs to be able to function without slaves and indentured servants?

Name an example of someone working for less than minimum wage. Waiters don't count. GO!


....

....


Actors! If they are paid, say $450/week for a roll, and are working sun-up to sun-down for 5 straight days, they are getting screwed.
 
2012-09-06 05:08:55 AM
"I live seven miles off the Mexican border and I see all these 'Mexicans that are taking Americans' jobs'. You can see 'em every day. You watch Border Patrol dragging them eleven at a time out of a farkin' Ford Focus, like a clown car. And they got plastic cuffs on... And you're right, they don't speak the language and they probably have no education; they don't have farkin' shoes half the time. They've got tattered, Gilligan's Island shorts, they're filthy, they haven't had a drink of water in days... IF THAT GUY IS AS QUALIFIED FOR YOUR JOB AS YOU ARE, YOU ARE A LOSER OF SUCH EPIC PROPORTIONS..."
--- Doug Stanhope


No wonder the GOP can get their base whipped up so easily over illegal immigration, it's the base that would probably lose their jobs to these people. Mexican immigrants work harder and more honestly, with much less hassle, than the average Tea Bagger too.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report