# I Don't Understand Anyone Who Opposes The New Law



## Big-A- (May 16, 2010)

Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....

But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...


----------



## SW2SILVER (May 16, 2010)

Tell me , how is racial profiling "BAD"? Call me the devil's advocate. If the shoe fits...Most illegal aliens are Hispanic, Latino or Chicano. They are Mexicans, and they aren&#8217;t shy about it. Mexican cultural imperialism, that&#8217;s what it is. Like the  800 lb gorilla in the room, all these social reform advocates want us to pretend we don&#8217;t notice.


----------



## Big-A- (May 16, 2010)

SW2SILVER said:


> Tell me , how is racial profiling "BAD"? Call me the devil's advocate. If the shoe fits...Most illegal aliens are Hispanic, Latino or Chicano. They are Mexicans, and they arent shy about it. Mexican cultural imperialism, thats what it is. Like the  800 lb gorilla in the room, all these social reform advocates want us to pretend we dont notice.



I completely agree.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2010)

SW2SILVER said:


> Tell me , how is racial profiling "BAD"? Call me the devil's advocate. If the shoe fits...Most illegal aliens are Hispanic, Latino or Chicano. They are Mexicans, and they arent shy about it. Mexican cultural imperialism, thats what it is. Like the  800 lb gorilla in the room, all these social reform advocates want us to pretend we dont notice.



Well, in this case, since a huge proportion of our LEGAL population is Mexican, it isn't much of an elimination tool all by itself.


----------



## Zona (May 16, 2010)

Big-A- said:


> Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> 
> But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...



Legal Mexicans who will be asked for their paperz.  They will look just as illegal until they produce them and that is not the America I know.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 16, 2010)

Big-A- said:


> Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> 
> But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...



I dont care about racial profiling at all.. But I do care about violation of peoples' rights.

Even though I like the premise of the Arizona law, I cannot support it because it is unconstitutional. Im a caucasian male, and yet the law could theoretically have me arrested for failing to produce my papers even if Im minding my own business walking down a public sidewalk.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



And exactly how do you figure THAT?  And while you're at it, I'd be fascinated to hear how you get "Unconstitutional" out of something that was very carefully crafted with that very opposing argument in mind.


----------



## Paul_AZ (May 17, 2010)

There is nothing wrong with the law it is molded along the lines of federal immigration law. Read the law, you will see that media and special interest groups have greatly distorted it's intent. I can't post a link to the version of the Bill that the Arizona governor signed. I'm still working on that 15 posts before I can post a link rule. As soon as I get it out of the way I'll be back and post that link.


----------



## Paul_AZ (May 17, 2010)

Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE


----------



## California Girl (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



That's not true. If it was true, I would agree with you. Seems to me, you've been misled by  the media.... The media misleading people.... that's something that doesn't happen much... except that it does happen every day.


----------



## chanel (May 17, 2010)

There was a discussion about this on this board "papers" is actually an old-fashioned term in this computer era.  Police can check data bases as well if someone is not carrying their license or other form of ID.  And all you need is one of several acceptable forms of ID.  There are plenty of illegals with licenses.  They will still be safe from the big, bad police - unless they are committing another crime - which is why people will be stopped in the first place.

Also - there are stiff penalties for police who overstep their authority.  That in and of itself should prevent profiling.

As for the OP - opponents are few.  They just have really big mouths.


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



I could see someone calling this profiling if there was just some mexicans in Az, but more than half the people are mexican so no its not racial profiling, it is the enforcement of a law finally being enforced.


----------



## sitarro (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



What papers are those Zona? A valid drivers license, a green card? I am a white male with French and Spanish ancestry who was born here, whose parents were born here whose parents were born here, I pay my taxes and work hard for a living and yet I was stopped for no reason the other night in my car.......... guess what, I was asked for my driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration for the car I was driving. If, when the cop put my license into his computer and the information would have come back that it was invalid, I would have had to prove who I was........... doesn't bother me at all. I'm 56 years old and I have been stopped plenty of times, I always had to show my driver's license, why should it be such an imposition for Americans with Mexican ancestry?

I always carry an ID, it's just not a big deal, people that have a problem with it obviously have something to hide. What do you have to hide Zona?


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



We're in North America, Where are you.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



So cops can't pull us over in America for speeding anymore?

Because it may embarrass us?

Gee, that's not the America I know!!!!


----------



## mudwhistle (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



Or going to get ice-cream.


----------



## chanel (May 17, 2010)

I would say the Preident and AG spoke "stupidly". Maybe Brewer and Obama can sit down for a beer summit.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 17, 2010)

chanel said:


> I would say the Preident and AG spoke "stupidly". Maybe Brewer and Obama can sit down for a beer summit.



You got that right. 

Seems like they pulled the cork on a nasty bottle of something and can't or won't put the damned thing back in.

This is what happens when your President doesn't feel the need to hide his own prejudices from the public.....literally exposing himself as a bigot.

What was the motive...?

Could be the fact that his poll numbers were tanking and he needed to do some race-baiting to reverse the trend. Now they claim it worked and his approval numbers are back up to 50%.


----------



## Care4all (May 17, 2010)

I'll be damned if I am forced to carry ID with me  to walk down the street, in this land of the free....

I will NEVER accept this....till the day I die....


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> in this land of the free....
> 
> .



Quit fooling yourself.


----------



## Care4all (May 17, 2010)

I am not fooling myself, I will never accept that I have to carry PAPERS, like Nazi Germany, in order to walk down the street.....NEVER!


----------



## pinqy (May 17, 2010)

SW2SILVER said:


> Tell me , how is racial profiling "BAD"?


Because it is selecting people for suspicion based solely on their race and not based on anything that has to do with any particular offense.  And it's bad math.



> Call me the devil's advocate. If the shoe fits...Most illegal aliens are Hispanic, Latino or Chicano. They are Mexicans, and they arent shy about it.


While most illegal aliens are Hispanic, most Hispanics are not illegal aliens..that's where the math is bad.   If you took a random sample of illegal aliens, the majority would be from Mexico/Central/South America.  But is you took a random sample of people who have apparent ancestry from Mexico/Central/South America, the majority would be legal citizens or resident aliens.  

An individual is not a statistic..Let's say that 1 out of every 5 Hispanics is illegal (I made that number up, it's probably a lower percentage).  That means that if you randomly selected enough Hispanics, on average 1 out of every 5 would be illegal.  What it does NOT mean is that if you pick a Hispanic at random, there is a 1 out of 5 chance he's illegal.  That's not how it works...his chances are either 100% or 0%.  So what racial profiling does is to knowingly stop innocent people without any particular reason in order to eventually catch violaters.  And in the meantime, you're stopping large numbers of legal Hispanics and ignoring the illegal Irish, Albanians, Canadians, Norwegians, Guyanans, Ethiopians etc because they're the wrong color.  How does that make sense?

In other words, all racial profiling does is to unnecessarily harrass a large number of people who have done nothing wrong in order to find some who have, and ignoring others who have done wrong because they don't have the same skin color as the majority.  That's contrary to the 4th ammendment.  Do you really think that if there's a serial killer the police should stop every single white male between 25 and 45 and ask for their alibi?  It's ridiculous and pointless and all it does is demonize whatever group is selected.


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> I am not fooling myself, I will never accept that I have to carry PAPERS, like Nazi Germany, in order to walk down the street.....NEVER!



So if your ran over and kill you next of kin will go through a lot more worry wondering where you are until you Jane doe body can be identified.


----------



## Angelhair (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



_You must stop paying attention to your president.  They will not ask for your 'papers'!  They will ask for an ID i.e. driver's license, auto ins proof; car registration; if and when you have committed an infraction!  And if there is cause for concern, they WILL ask for more proof.  So, if you are a legal resident, and as the FEDERAL law mandates, make sure you have your residence card ready.  If here ILLEGALLY, then you will be reported and maybe deported. It's that simple.  If practically ALL of Mexico, Central/SoAmerica had not decided to enter this country illegally, a lot of what is going on would not be._


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...



Because the law violates the 4th amendment. Like I said... Im all for illegals being deported legally.. But to make not showing one's papers a crime violates the constitution.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

chanel said:


> There was a discussion about this on this board "papers" is actually an old-fashioned term in this computer era.  Police can check data bases as well if someone is not carrying their license or other form of ID.  And all you need is one of several acceptable forms of ID.  There are plenty of illegals with licenses.  They will still be safe from the big, bad police - unless they are committing another crime - which is why people will be stopped in the first place.
> 
> Also - there are stiff penalties for police who overstep their authority.  That in and of itself should prevent profiling.
> 
> As for the OP - opponents are few.  They just have really big mouths.



It has already happened. A Drivers license wasnt enough and the cops demanded a guys birth certificate.. he told them it was home, so they arrested him.

the arizona law is illegal


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > There was a discussion about this on this board "papers" is actually an old-fashioned term in this computer era.  Police can check data bases as well if someone is not carrying their license or other form of ID.  And all you need is one of several acceptable forms of ID.  There are plenty of illegals with licenses.  They will still be safe from the big, bad police - unless they are committing another crime - which is why people will be stopped in the first place.
> ...



Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

froggy said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



The constitution says nothing about 'reasonable suspicion' only probable cause.  Just because somebody's been using 'reasonable suspicion' as some 'accepted process' doesnt make it right or constitutional...

The problem with this law is that it violates peoples' privacy...Now, I like Jan Brewer.. I do. and I like all the other laws Arizona has done to exert its 10th amendment rights.. But imagine the next governor of Arizona is Mexican  and wants to use this law to hassle white people.. 

*Its like my Republican friends who are horrified on learning that the feds under obama can look up their medical records without a warrant.. When they ask me where Obama got such power from I tell them - the Patriot Act under George Bush. *


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

froggy said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Here is a quote from the highest law of the land. If any other law contradicts this highest law, then that lesser law is automatically null and void and of no force. It is no law at all, and neednt be followed by anybody.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

*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.*


----------



## Nate (May 17, 2010)

It seems some people have come on here to bitch about how anti american this law is without knowing anything about it, come on people knowing is half the battle!!!



> *1. Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?*
> 
> SB1070 says police cannot solely consider race, color or national origin.
> 
> ...


Is federal immigration law different from Arizona's new law? - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Nate said:


> It seems some people have come on here to bitch about how anti american this law is without knowing anything about it, come on people knowing is half the battle!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read the actual bill and not somebody's explanation of the bill. Go to the 2nd page and read lines 20-22... Thats where I have a problem with it.

Like I said.. a citizen was already arrested for showing his DL but not having his birth certificate.. and thats without the law even technically taking effect yet. If you want to see the video.. Ill be happy to show you


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



but not for contraband like drugs.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

froggy said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Unless somebody has a warrant to come into my house to search, or to search my personal effects, then yes.. even for drugs too.. for ANYTHING.


----------



## Zona (May 17, 2010)

Paul_AZ said:


> Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE



I am going to guess....you are not Hispanic.  You wont be pulled over and asked for paperz.....

OH and did you know our gov is asking Palin for idea's on how to change our image.  Palin!  

Remember the MLK Birthday celebration thing a few years ago?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Big-A- said:


> Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> 
> But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...



Those against the law has never read it, including Obama and Holder.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



Legal citizens of all colors are asked for ID every fucking day you stupid fuck!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



Are you saying federal immigration law is unconstitutional? Just point ot one aspect of Arizona law that in your opinion is unconstitutional.


I willing to bet you haven't read the bill.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> I'll be damned if I am forced to carry ID with me  to walk down the street, in this land of the free....
> 
> I will NEVER accept this....till the day I die....



Oh brother another idiot chimes in. Hey stupid if you are a legal citizen you have nothing to fear. But according to federal law if you are a noncitizen you are REQUIRED BY LAW to carry your papers with you at all times! Why are liberals so damn stupid!


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Paul_AZ said:


> Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE



I take it this is the new bill with the changes? I havent read this one yet, and will have to do so. Appreciate the link.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...


There are plenty of federal laws which are unconstitutional,,90% of what the federal govt does is unconstitutional, so I doubt immigration would be any different.

I read the original law. But the new one with the changes I havent yet. I just saw the link now.


----------



## Nate (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> > It seems some people have come on here to bitch about how anti american this law is without knowing anything about it, come on people knowing is half the battle!!!
> ...





> 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,
> ...


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Whats wrong with it? Especially line 22, if the person doesn't speak a lick of english and has no proof of identification on him then I see nothing wrong with police taking extra steps to prove he/she is legal to be in our country. As someone has already pointed out on this thread just because they use the term "papers" doesn't mean they have to track down a carbon copy of the the person's naturalization papers. 
As for the rest of your post, are you talking about the Trucker?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Paul_AZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE
> ...



MLK? Here's another example of leftwing idiocy. They can't argue the merits of the AZ bill so they bring up something that happened over 20 years ago.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Be specific, what is unconstitutional about the Federal immigration law?


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Nate said:


> [
> 
> 
> > B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
> ...


Well, because basically for any lawful contact you need probable cause.. Reasonable suspicion is some subjective misnomer.  To me, anything is unreasonable unless somebody has a warrant.

Who decides whats unreasonable? The police... no good.. and no matter how many people can justify it; its still a violation..

Now perhaps this has changed in the new law; perhaps not. Ill have to go thru it...

But I dont let people tell me its legal just because they want to see the illegals go home anymore than I let people tell me its ILLegal because theyre offended by racial profiling.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I havent read any federal immigration laws so I wouldnt be able to tell you. I can only tell you whats unconstitutional about SB1070.


----------



## Nate (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Well here ya go then, this may help you out a bit;


> State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.28
> 
> *Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous or erratic behavior, dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship, and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.*29 Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employers consent to enter work places or residences.30


The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Any of the bolded area sound familiar?


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Nate said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


No, they dont. But all that bold-faced type looks unconstitutional to me.

That being said.... Im reading the amended SB1070, and so far so good. They got rid of my problem with the original bill and even the section 6 problem of a cop arresting without a warrant...

Im almost done reading it.


----------



## GHook93 (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



Hey Liberal Facist, you and I as white Americans can be asked for identification at any time if the police things we are committing a crime. Guess what we are required to identify ourselves with identification, mostly a driver's license or State ID card. It is no different for Legal Latino Americans in Mexico. If they are stopped all they need to show is their ID card or driver's license, just like you or I, they need to care legal identification at all times.

A requirement for a Green card holder is that they carry their greencard at all times. 

So what does this law do! Requires people to carry identification! Face who doesn't carry identification on them? People up to NO good!


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Paul_AZ said:


> Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE



Hey thanks again for your link on the updated text.. Im no longer against this law as it now appears all changes have made it constitutional...

The only technical 'problem' I have with it is here:



> E.  Notwithstanding any other law, in the enforcement of this section a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.



"Reasonable suspicion" should technically be probable cause.. But in this case its moot, because even under the auspices of 'probable cause' a cop can always pull you over and just claim you were swerving, or your taillight was out, etc.

I dont see anyway around this regardless.


----------



## Care4all (May 17, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...



NOT TRUE Gh!

No citizen walking on the street is REQUIRED to carry identification with them and NO COP can require them to produce id, if walking on the street, if in the zone of an area where a crime was committed or at ANY TIME....

the cop CAN REQUIRE YOU TO GIVE YOUR name.....that's it????

Why are you saying that a cop can require ID from us?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



SB1070 mirrors federal law. But please do tell what you find unconstitutional with SB1070.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Looks unconstitutional?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot be serious!

Let me refer to Terry v Ohio,  the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop; some states (e.g., Colorado) require that a person detained provide additional information, but as of April 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.

Although U.S. Customs can do routine suspicionless searches of people and effects crossing the border (including passing through airport customs), non-routine searches, like slashing the spare tire of a car, require reasonable suspicion. United States v. Flores-Montano. Anything even more intrusive, like compelled surgery of a suspected balloon swallower, requires probable cause. United States v. Montoya De Hernandez.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Nate said:
> ...



Okay how about definitely, 100% unequivocally unconstitutional!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



You are correct that you do not have to provide an ID, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. Which would more than likely be detainment until you can be properly identified.

It should be noted that you could be arrested for hindering an officer and/or obstruction of justice. See Terry v Ohio.


----------



## SCSO19 (May 17, 2010)

Being in this country illegal is ..well..ILLEGAL i understand a legal hispanic citizen might be offended if they are asked to show proof. However this illegal problem is getting out of hand...we welcome anyone from any country...just do it legally, learn english and get your papers. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop or something EVERYONE is asked to show i.d so i dont see any problem with having a law against checking papers for any reason. Get over it


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

SCSO19 said:


> Being in this country illegal is ..well..ILLEGAL i understand a legal hispanic citizen might be offended if they are asked to show proof. However this illegal problem is getting out of hand...we welcome anyone from any country...just do it legally, learn english and get your papers. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop or something EVERYONE is asked to show i.d so i dont see any problem with having a law against checking papers for any reason. Get over it



It's quite obvious that none of these idiots have ever been out of the US.


----------



## Nate (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Took the words right out of my mouth Lonestar. Instead of just saying "it's unconstitutional" Mike why not provide some proof as to why it's unconstitutional.


----------



## Angelhair (May 17, 2010)

'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.' 
__________________
_A warrant has to be ISSUED!!!  And by whom? A JUDGE calls it!  The cops in AZ are not going to be given a search warrant carte blanche!  Geez people, CHILL._

Search warrant, in law, written order by an official of a court authorizing an officer to search in a specified place for specified objects and to seize them if found. The objects sought may be stolen goods or physical evidences of the commission of crime (e.g., narcotics). The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, provides, in effect, that a search warrant may be issued only on oath or affirmation that a crime was probably committed. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961) the U.S. Supreme Court mandated states to exclude from trial evidence obtained in illegal searches, such as those without a proper warrant. This exclusionary rule has been the subject of great controversy and subsequent litigation. In recent years, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the rule, in many circumstances permitting the introduction of any evidence gathered in good faith. Courts have ruled that a wiretap and the use of a thermal-imaging device to examine a private home from a public street constitutes a search that requires a warrant. Warrants are not required for the gathering of evidence in some circumstances. These exceptions include evidence gathered after a lawful arrest, inspections by customs or border officials, searches made with the suspect's consent, searches of items in plain view, and searches of the belongings of secondary students on school property.
The Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2001-09 Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.


----------



## jillian (May 17, 2010)

California Girl said:


> That's not true. If it was true, I would agree with you. Seems to me, you've been misled by  the media.... The media misleading people.... that's something that doesn't happen much... except that it does happen every day.



so if you don't agree then it must not be true, hon? hmmmmmmmmm....

you have to look at the actual effect of a law to see how it can be applied and misapplied before you can draw the conclusion that you do.

and you're not... you're stopping at the words on the page and not thinking about the potential abuses.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> '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.'
> __________________
> _A warrant has to be ISSUED!!!  And by whom? A JUDGE calls it!  The cops in AZ are not going to be given a search warrant carte blanche!  Geez people, CHILL._
> 
> ...



Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians


----------



## Nate (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



So how does this;


> Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous or erratic behavior, dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship, and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.


The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Go against the 4th amendment? 


> '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.'


Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained

Or even better how do you define "probable cause?"


----------



## StoneageHippy (May 17, 2010)

Racial profiling was quite rampant during the 60's but it did not stop Lee Harvey Oswald from killing JFK.


----------



## jillian (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians



I think everyone is behind the 'constitution'. Some of us just find certain views of the constitution to be incorrect and in some cases, pretty embarrassingly so. Given that scholars have been arguing constitutional issues for hundreds of years, don't you find it a bit arrogant for anyone to think he or she "knows' what "THE CONSTITUTION" says and how it should be interpreted?


----------



## GHook93 (May 17, 2010)

jillian said:


> I think everyone is behind the 'constitution'. Some of us just find certain views of the constitution to be incorrect and in some cases, pretty embarrassingly so. Given that scholars have been arguing constitutional issues for hundreds of years, don't you find it a bit arrogant for anyone to think he or she "knows' what "THE CONSTITUTION" says and how it should be interpreted?



Very true, like most people find the birthright clause incorrect! However, its in the constitution and should be followed, until later amendments change it. Note: I also don't like the sufferage for 18 yr olds. They don't have enough life experience to make a rational and educated vote. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## GHook93 (May 17, 2010)

StoneageHippy said:


> Racial profiling was quite rampant during the 60's but it did not stop Lee Harvey Oswald from killing JFK.



LOL, as a hippie, I'm shocked that you believe the official story! There is no method to stop every crime and in AZ its not racially profiling, its seeking out and illegals!


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

jillian said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians
> ...



Yeah, but I dont mean to sound like *I* am superior to *YOU* as far as interpreting is concerned.. What I mean to get across is that  'WE THE PEOPLE" are the deciders on what is and what isnt constitutional.. nobody else..

But everybody seems to think its the courts who are the sole arbiter of deciding what is and what isnt constitutional.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Are you really as dense as you look? Let me ask this again, and I'll type slow so that maybe you can understand. 

What specifically is unconstitutional about AZ's immigration law? 

You remarked earlier about "reasonable suspicion" I and gave you the case history of Terry v Ohio (among others) where SCOTUS has ruled that  a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a _reasonable suspicion_ of involvement in a crime. 

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 17, 2010)

sitarro said:


> I always carry an ID, it's just not a big deal, people that have a problem with it obviously have something to hide. What do you have to hide Zona?



they might find out he is an idiot....


----------



## jillian (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



oh...i wasn't referring to you specifically. apologies if you thought that. but this board is so full of fake constitutionalists that it's kind of funny.

i am, however, going to refer you to Marbury v. Madison.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And in response to your 'we the people' comment, if that were true, then the majority would be determining the appropriate interpretation of the constitution and what laws are constitutional and unconstitutional. yet, that can't be correct because one of the primary purposes of the constitution is to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. If it were put to a vote, segregation would still be approved by voters in many parts of this country. Yet, segregation certainly isn't constitutional.

It IS the court that is the final arbiter of constitutionality because that is the only way to effectuate the mandates of the constitution.  They are not always correct (see Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott) but their errors ultimately get corrected.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Nate said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I put the part in red that contradicts.. and the other stuff about somebodys dress being grounds for interrogating is plain silly.

Ill even give probable cause the nod when theres evidence a crime has been committed. But without evidence or a warrant there is no probable cause


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> '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.'
> __________________
> _A warrant has to be ISSUED!!!  And by whom? A JUDGE calls it!  The cops in AZ are not going to be given a search warrant carte blanche!  Geez people, CHILL._
> 
> ...



Oh please don't be like these other idiots and read Terry v Ohio where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. 

If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Stop reading court cases and start reading the constitution and then make up your own mind. Stop letting judges tell you what to think. You dont let Keith Olbermann tell you what to think right? Dont let anybody.

Maybe you missed my earlier message where I said the new SB1070 that had been amended WAS constitutional. Its the original bill which was not. I am happy to see that it has been changed.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



The Supreme Court acts as the highest authority in the 3rd branch of our government---the judicial branch. Its job is to interpret the Constitution and in doing so, it decides cases in which there needs to be an important clarification in the law.

Earlier I asked if you were as dense as you looked. I withdraw my question, the answer is blatantly obvious.


----------



## jillian (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



I agree with lonestar on very little. but what you SHOULD be reading is the caselaw... NOT just the constitution. We are a common law country... not a 'code state' like France, both statutes and caselaw form our body of law.



> The system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws.



common law: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

so while your view may be interesting, it isn't the sytsem under which we live or the one we were intended to live under.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

jillian said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Since you brought up Marbury v. Madison... Are you are aware that Jefferson ignored the court's decision?

I dont believe it is the court that is the final arbiter of constitutionality - but the jury. However we have a big problem in America with education. Juries are allowed to nullify any law they disagree with.. but most people arent even aware of this.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



You're for ignoring the law and Supreme Court precedents because it doesn't fit your ideology?

Do you realize how hypocritical you sound? You say don't listen to the Supreme Court, (the judical branch of our government ) while at the same time you say listen to what our founding fathers say in the Constitution.


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



What the constitution says or doesn't say, its the law that has to be obeyed or changed.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


The Supreme Court's job is nothing of the sort. its not supposed to interpret the constitution.. Its supposed to interpret the lower laws against the constitution. If the SCOTUS were able to "interpret the Constitution" is would be able to shape and mold the constitution anyway in which it wanted to.. (oops.. looks like thats already happened)

And the SCOTUS is no higher than the president or Congress when it comes to deciding constitutionality. They all take an oath to defend the constitution and can do so whatever they personally believe to be the best action to that end..


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


No.. not because it doesnt fit my ideology.. because it doesnt fit the constitution.

The founding fathers would be ashamed at us for what we're putting up with.


----------



## hboats (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



You're a complete moron.  Immigrants are REQUIRED BY LAW to carry their "papers" on them at all times.  There is nothing in this law that violates the 4th amendment.  The police can not just walk up to someone and say "Show me your papers."  It is clearly written in the law that there has to be some kind of "lawful contact" before that happens.  Maybe you should try reading the law so that you actually know what you're talking about, because it's obvious you have no clue currently.

Rick


----------



## hboats (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > There was a discussion about this on this board "papers" is actually an old-fashioned term in this computer era.  Police can check data bases as well if someone is not carrying their license or other form of ID.  And all you need is one of several acceptable forms of ID.  There are plenty of illegals with licenses.  They will still be safe from the big, bad police - unless they are committing another crime - which is why people will be stopped in the first place.
> ...



Got a link for this "story?"  As far as I know the law hasn't gone into effect yet.  So if this story is true, it has NOTHING to do with the new Arizona law.

Rick


----------



## Angelhair (May 17, 2010)

'I think everyone is behind the 'constitution'. Some of us just find certain views of the constitution to be incorrect and in some cases, pretty embarrassingly so. Given that scholars have been arguing constitutional issues for hundreds of years, don't you find it a bit arrogant for anyone to think he or she "knows' what "THE CONSTITUTION" says and how it should be interpreted?'

_Does the U. S. Supreme Court come to mind??  _


----------



## Angelhair (May 17, 2010)

_If one is required by law to carry a driver's license when driving; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of auto insurance; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of car ownership; if one is required by FEDERAL Law, when a legal resident, to carry proof of legal residency.....what in holy heck is the problem?????  Does any of the above infringe on our civil liberties?_


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Isn't that the same as interpreting?


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Some think Immigrants/illegals have more right than the average American.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



So now you're speaking for the founding fathers? What are you some kind of clairvoyant?


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> _If one is required by law to carry a driver's license when driving; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of auto insurance; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of car ownership; if one is required by FEDERAL Law, when a legal resident, to carry proof of legal residency.....what in holy heck is the problem?????  Does any of the above infringe on our civil liberties?_



IM a legal resident. I was born here. Im a citizen. 

I do not have to carry any sort of proof on me.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Have you ever read the constitution or the declaration of independence?

Theyre not written in Chinese. Theyre in English. Just read them.

IMO the main problem we have as Americans is that we get bombarded by so much bullshit from everybody.. TV, Radio, Newspapers, political pundits, spin doctors, bullshit politicians who lie, cheat and steal.

I tell everybody the same thing. Just unplug themselves from all media exposure for a week.  Then go back and listen. You will find your critical thinking ability greatly improved.


----------



## Terral (May 17, 2010)

Hi Zona:



Zona said:


> Legal Mexicans who will be asked for their paperz.



This "Show Your Papers" stupidity is nothing more than Open Border Lobby Disinformation Propaganda that helps unscrupulous American Employers continue 'hiring' Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals from the 20 to 30 Million-man Illegal Alien Labor Pool.  



Zona said:


> They will look just as illegal until they produce them and that is not the America I know.



Bullony! Every "American" stopped by the cops must show his State-provided Driver's License!!!! Zona is pretending that Illegal Aliens are free to steal American JOBS and steal American identities and drive anywhere they wish without ever having to show their driver's license to anyone!!! This is NONSENSE!!! God forbid that Illegal Aliens should have to show their driver's license like EVERY AMERICAN IN THE USA!!!! 

The Open Border Lobby spends billions of dollars every year bribing our corrupt politicians and filling the Media airwaves with this 'paperz' NONSENSE, as if Arizona has NO RIGHT to pass its own laws through the duly elected 'legal' American politicians! However, if the out-of-control Fascist Obama Regime would simply ENFORCE the perfectly good Immigration and Employment Laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, then Arizona would have no need to pass these State Immigration Laws making it Illegal to be in the State of Arizona ILLEGALLY! 

The New Arizona Immigration Law is GOOD for Arizona masons, carpenters, dry-wallers, painters and their helpers. The base of the socioeconomic pyramid will see higher wages, because Arizona Tradesmen and their apprentices will no longer have to compete against 20 to 30 Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals living in one house! The local American Consumer Base will have more disposable income and more real Arizona Citizens will be able to afford their house payments, avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy, and regain their ability to support local schools by paying their property taxes.

We should expect the number of Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals in Arizona to decrease, as the rats run from that State into neighboring States where the number of Illegal Aliens will go UP for sure. I say let's send all the Illegal Aliens to California to destroy their local job markets and tax bases and for free health care in California Hospitals. That is exactly what the Sanctuary State of California deserves ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## jillian (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> _Does the U. S. Supreme Court come to mind??  _



And even they don't agree... ever hear of a 5 to 4 decision?

I'm sure you thought that was pithy, though.


----------



## sitarro (May 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> I am not fooling myself, I will never accept that I have to carry PAPERS, like Nazi Germany, in order to walk down the street.....NEVER!



It's adorable how all of you leftist apologist have adopted the same tactic of calling legal identification........"papers". Are you people actually saying that the police officers of this country are a bunch of Nazis or just trying to make it look like they are? Go anywhere in the world and get stopped by the police for breaking the law, see what they ask for.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 17, 2010)

Christ people!....Knock it off with the "they're going to be ARRESTED" crap.

Nobody is going to be arrested for not providing ''papers". They will simply be DETAINED until proof is shown.

The ignorance of so many up here is absolutely amazing. It's a ten page law. Read it, or simply STFU already!


----------



## froggy (May 17, 2010)

Besides when they give false id a fraudulent charge will be added. State and federal crime.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



And HOW does it violate the 4th Amendment?  Just for the record, I have no intention of dragging this explanation out of you like I'm trying to pull hen's teeth.  This is the last opportunity I'm giving you to explain your position instead of giving me vague, throwaway lines.  After this, I'm just going to assume you're bullshitting and parroting some TV talking head.

And no one has "made it a crime not to show papers".  That would be the essence of my "where did you get THAT?" question, in that you're supposing something has happened which hasn't.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > There was a discussion about this on this board "papers" is actually an old-fashioned term in this computer era.  Police can check data bases as well if someone is not carrying their license or other form of ID.  And all you need is one of several acceptable forms of ID.  There are plenty of illegals with licenses.  They will still be safe from the big, bad police - unless they are committing another crime - which is why people will be stopped in the first place.
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> > It seems some people have come on here to bitch about how anti american this law is without knowing anything about it, come on people knowing is half the battle!!!
> ...



You said, you said, you said.  And I'm taking your word for it because why?  Proof, Sparky.  Let's see some.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Paul_AZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE
> ...



You mean to tell me that you've been in here issuing pronouncements about how the law is "Unconstitutional", and you haven't even read it?!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well, apparently you let people tell you it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL without even bothering to read it, so you're not impressing anyone with how measured and thoughtful you are, if that was your plan.  Here's a thought:  why don't you shut your flapping cakehole either way until you've actually READ the freaking thing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Yes I've read them I have a copy of both right here at my desk courtesy of the Heritage Foundation. And I'd like you to read Article 4 Section 4 of the US constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). 

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Notice how he just


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



Yea I noticed and I'm not surprised.


----------



## keee keee (May 17, 2010)

I don't see the problem. I am Legal and have nothing to hide. If I get pulled over I have to show my drivers licence. I have to show my ID now to buy a Airline ticked get dam near stripped searched to go on a plane and all the terrorists where middle easterners and muslims. If you don't like this rule stay in your hell hole of a country and do not break our immigration law,  Follow our immigration laws and come here legally. PS if you do this you will also be required to carry your ID 24/7 while you are here, till you become a legal citizen..Big deal if you do not like it. STAY IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY!!!!I don't like the fact that you are a criminal in my country and am stealing services and making me pay more in taxes because you and your like are here illegally..What really pisses me off is I don't get asked for ID to vote!!!!ILLEGAL voters wipe out my legal vote!!!! COME HERE, FOLLOW OUR LAWS, LEARN OUR LANGUAGE,ENGLISH) CUSTOMS AND GET A JOB!!! Do these simple things and you will be welcomed by all!!!


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 17, 2010)

We've essentially been living under the same law they passed in AZ in our county for over 2 years now. And OH MY was there a bunch of whining, crying, beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth when this went into effect here. The Mexican government even launched an investigation into our county (Prince William County, VA if you wanna Google all the heart-ache). Congress called our Chairman of the county board to testify. He shook his finger in their faces and told them this was ALL THEIR FAULT. I can't wait to vote for him again.

Same crap was trotted out about racial profile and all the other tired BS about unconstitutional etc. etc. In the end, there were no suits because they would have been frivolous. The illegals up and left, bound for sanctuary counties like Fairfax and Montgomery County, MD. The end result, Prince William county is trying to deal with the lowest crime rate in 15 years. Meanwhile the crime rate in Fairfax and Montgomery is surging. Yes it made the housing crisis worse here, but it's a good trade off. Low crime, less over crowding in school and emergency rooms. 

How do the cops do it? If they stop you for doing something wrong, they ask to see your "Real ID" Virginia driver's license. If you don't have one, you have some 'splaining to do.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Notice how he just
> ...



geez guys its only been like 90 mins since you last heard from him.....maybe the guy had to go to work....or someplace else.....some of us do leave the boards once in a while....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 17, 2010)

Harry Dresden said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



We'll see.


----------



## Angelhair (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> > _If one is required by law to carry a driver's license when driving; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of auto insurance; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of car ownership; if one is required by FEDERAL Law, when a legal resident, to carry proof of legal residency.....what in holy heck is the problem?????  Does any of the above infringe on our civil liberties?_
> ...



_Neither does anybody else who was born here - worry only if you entered this country without permission aka ILLEGALLY._


----------



## Angelhair (May 17, 2010)

_BTW - if you are a LEGAL resident of this country - you MUST carry your 'green' card with you - and that is by FEDERAL law!!!  AZ did not make this up._


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> _BTW - if you are a LEGAL resident of this country - you MUST carry your 'green' card with you - and that is by FEDERAL law!!!  AZ did not make this up._


It's truly sad that so many people up here are completely ignorant of the law.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...


heres the video... news story is from 0:41 to about 2:30

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc]YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill[/ame]


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Nate said:
> ...



Look idiot... the original SB1070 I read.. its clearly unconstitutional...

The new amended SB1070 is constitutional.. I just read that as well.

Theres a difference.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Harry Dresden said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Thanks Harry.. Thats exactly what happened.. work and lunch actually...

This is why I barely post here... This place is so busy just posting in one thread is like a full time job...


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...


It would be nice if SOME people up here could actually figure out the difference between "arrested" and "detained".


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Angelhair said:
> ...



The point Im making is that unless Im involved in a crime, or somebody has issued a warrant because of my involvement of a crime, no cop is allowed to ask for my identification.

Well they can ask, but I dont have to show it.


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Thats a nice spin eh? Guess the cops can just slap handcuffs on you next time you dont carry your birth certificate around in your car with you huh?

Youd stand for something like that? really?


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...


The cuffs are protocol. It's for the protection of the officers. 

So tell me, was this guy charged with anything?

Did they verify his citizenship and release him. Or did they toss him in jail and throw away the key?

LMAO!


----------



## Mike Mitrosky (May 17, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Does that make it legal if they let him go? Do you want to be going out to a dinner party with your wife and get pulled over for a traffic stop only to have a cop demand your birth certificate and when you cant produce it (because its home) he DETAINS you in handcuffs until you get some relative or friend to come down and show them your birth certificate??

I mean really.. This is silly.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 17, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...


If they let him go, then obviously the law worked as designed.

And no, if there is reasonable suspicion that I may be here illegally I have no problem with the cops doing their jobs. If I give answers that don't jibe, the cops should investigate further.

Fact is, you have no idea what actually happened.


----------



## Zona (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...



They are asked for birth certificates while going to church or the supermarket?  Stupid fuck indeed.


----------



## Zona (May 17, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I'll be damned if I am forced to carry ID with me  to walk down the street, in this land of the free....
> ...



What the fuck do you not understand...if you are a legal Hispanic here and are stopped and you have no PAPERZ...you will be arrested!  

How is this america?  You are an idiot......oh and god bless.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


No dipshit, you will be DETAINED. 

Christ, liberals are fucking idiots!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2010)

Angelhair said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Angelhair said:
> ...



Seriously, who leaves the house without some form of ID, anyway?  Why would you do that?

Like I've said before in other threads, most people over the age of 16 in Arizona drive, because our cities are very spread-out.  Which means they have to carry a driver's license, anyway.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 17, 2010)

Zona said:


> What the fuck do you not understand...if you are a legal Hispanic here and are stopped and you have no PAPERZ...you will be arrested!
> 
> How is this america?  You are an idiot......oh and god bless.



zona....the guy shows his Drivers Licence and away he goes....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2010)

Harry Dresden said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > What the fuck do you not understand...if you are a legal Hispanic here and are stopped and you have no PAPERZ...you will be arrested!
> ...



And if he doesn't have it with him, he gets to hang around a bit while the officer verifies his identity.  If he's driving, that delay was going to happen anyway.  It's not exactly the Nazis carting away Jews to the concentration camps, to borrow the popular "non-comparison" we keep hearing from the left.


----------



## Nate (May 18, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



That seems to be the first thing they'll scream when the police are only do the job they igned up for. To use "It's just like Nazi Germany" is not only disrespecting our fine men and women of the police department but also shows they have little knowledge of the autrocities that the Nazis did commit.
Also if this law is a problem for Hispanic(or any) immigrant then they should try to become naturilzed by another country. I hear Canada is nice this time of year.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 18, 2010)

Zona said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



No....they are asked to produce a *Drivers license, proof of registration, and proof of insurance* every time they are pulled over for a traffic violation.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 18, 2010)

Zona said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Show me one case where someone, anyone, was asked for their birth certificate while going to church or to the supermarket. 

Yes you are indeed a stupid fuck!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 18, 2010)

Zona said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



No you won't be arrested, show me one instance where a legal citizen was arrested for not having papers.

Damn your stupidity just keeps on shining.


----------



## Silvery (May 18, 2010)

So many fights about this new Law. My friends overseas keep asking what's going on.
Found one forum rather interesting immigration.civiltalks.com bout new AZ Law

 Felt like not only Americans and Mexican were involved in discussions.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 18, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Still waiting on the your evidence.


----------



## hboats (May 18, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



You are 100% WRONG.  A police officer may ask anyone they come in "lawful contact" with for identification.  You can as you stated refuse to offer it, but you will also be detained until your identity is successfully obtained.

A police officer may ask a passenger in a traffic stop for identification if he deems that passenger to be acting suspiciously.

Rick


----------



## LilOlLady (May 18, 2010)

Right-Wingers Lie on SB 1070, Claim (Falsely) That Majority of ...Right-Wingers Lie on SB 1070, Claim (Falsely) That *Majority of Hispanics Support *It. By Stephen Lemons, Saturday, May. 8 2010 @ 11:12AM ...
blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/.../right-wingers_lie_on_sb_1070_c.php - Cached


----------



## LilOlLady (May 18, 2010)

Zona said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



I can do without the white men that molest and kill our chidren and our young men and women. etc, Jeff Dahmar. Timothy McViegh. Columbind shooters, etc. KKK, shin heads, white supermacist, aryan nation,
A world without white men?

wrong post, meant for Amanda.


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 18, 2010)

hboats said:


> Mike Mitrosky said:
> 
> 
> > Angelhair said:
> ...



No you won't. It goes like this:

Me: Walking down the street on my way to an appointment. Not doing anything remotely illegal nor are there any wants or warrants for my arrest.

Police: Standing on the street waiting for a crime to occur.

Me: Walk past police

Police: "Hey, stop for a second sir."

Me: Stopping, turning around, "Yes, officer. Can I help you."

Police: "Yes, I need to see your drivers license."

Me: Wanting to help, but also insistent on maintaining my rights, "Why do you need to see my license?"

Police: "I'm asking the questions, now show me the license."

Me: "I'm walking and I don't have my license officer."

Police: "Well, I need to hold you here until you can prove your identity."

Me: "Are you placing me under arrest?"

Police: Knows this is a term of art meaning I'm not free to go. "Ummm....no, but you need to stay here until we establish your identity."

Me: "See ya....." walks, not runs, away.

Yes, they may try to intimidate you into staying, but the law says, they either must arrest you or let you go.


----------



## hboats (May 18, 2010)

Tech_Esq said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Mitrosky said:
> ...



And your little scene is in no way comparable to what I said, and by the way, can not happen under the Arizona law.

"Lawful contact" is not what you've just described.  Care to try again?

Do you have a point other than to make a statement totally unrelated to what I posted?

Rick


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 18, 2010)

hboats said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



Then perhaps I misunderstood what you were attempting to say. I'll take the hit for that.

I think I didn't recognize that you were using "lawful contact" as a term of art. That would be new terminology. So, on further research, I thought this line might prove helpful to people.



> "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agencywhere reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person"





> What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "*lawful contact*," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "*That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law,*" says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."



Washington Examiner Article

I'm not sure it's useful in layman's discussions to use the "lawful contact" terminology instead of saying what it is until people get used to it. So, what you were saying is that if the police have made a "stop" and are conducting a preliminary investigation related to the reason for the "stop" (i.e. a traffic infraction, spotted you walking down the street with burglary tools etc.), then he may ask you for identification and under the AZ law *may, "when practicable"* inquire after your immigration status.


----------



## hboats (May 18, 2010)

Tech_Esq said:


> hboats said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



You are correct, that is exactly what I was saying.  Sorry for the confusion, but that is also why I put "lawful contact" in quotes.  Because I was quoting the actual Arizona law about what must transpire before an officer of the law has ANY right to ask for identification.

And the reason I was making that point is because liars like Truthmatters and others keep saying that all you have to do is walk past a police officer while looking Hispanic to be asked for your "papers."  Which is a total lie pushed by the media and the White House and does not represent what is actually in the law.

Rick


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 18, 2010)

hboats said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > hboats said:
> ...



No problem. 

You have a tough row to hoe if you are going to try to make TM see the light or admit the truth. Neither are her strong suits.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 18, 2010)

Mike Mitrosky said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



Then you must not support the Fed law since this bill only mirrors that law. 2 questions have been asked and not answered relating to the Fed law v the Az law:

1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do? 

2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does already not place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?

Also, I urge you to read the bill (only about 10 pages) because no where in it states that one has to randomly shows their "papers" if they are "minding their own business". In the bill, they will be questioned about paperwork if stopped while being involved in a crime. This is just more false info, the same as Obama using the ice cream parlor analogy. It seems the incorrect info comes all the way from the top.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 19, 2010)

pinqy said:


> SW2SILVER said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me , how is racial profiling "BAD"?
> ...



Another falsehood. The bill clearly states that you will only be "selected" (to use your word). if you are involved in the commission of a crime whether it is speeding or robbery. You will then be asked for proper paperwork so there is nothing random or racially profiling to get to the initial stop. 
I realize this seems to be all emotion for many but I urge you to *Please read the bill* people so this misinformation will not continue.


----------



## Amanda (May 19, 2010)

Big-A- said:


> ...how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...



The AZ isn't _nice_. Surely you must be aware that effectiveness isn't nearly as important as making sure no 1 is inconvenienced or embarrassed.


----------



## Planet Justice (May 19, 2010)

It is a good idea to get all the illegal immigrants out of this country, but we have to find another way for doing that. Racial profiling is not the answer!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 19, 2010)

Planet Justice said:


> It is a good idea to get all the illegal immigrants out of this country, but we have to find another way for doing that. Racial profiling is not the answer!



Can you show evidence that this AZ will or has used racial profiling? If you had read the bill, which it's clear you haven't it specifically states: 

"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."


----------



## pinqy (May 19, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVER said:
> ...


What specifically in my post is false?



> The bill clearly states that you will only be "selected" (to use your word). if you are involved in the commission of a crime whether it is speeding or robbery.


I never said anything different.  In fact I didn't mention the bill at all.  I was answering the question about why racial profiling is wrong.




> I realize this seems to be all emotion for many but I urge you to *Please read the bill* people so this misinformation will not continue.



Please read people's posts before you respond to them.  I spread no information about the bill because I wasn't talking about the bill...I was talking about racial profiling.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 20, 2010)

pinqy said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



Then what is the "IT"you were refering to in your post when you state "Because it is selecting people for suspicion based solely on their race and not based on anything that has to do with any particular offense". looked like to me you were referring to the bill, if not, my apologies. BTW the OP  is about the Az bill.


----------



## pinqy (May 21, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



The "IT" is "racial profiling," which I thought was clear since the question was what is wrong with racial profiling.  Since I never mentioned the bill, even in the quotation, wouldn't it be odd if I had meant the bill when I said "it?"

As for the bill, while it does not explicitly allow racial profiling, neither does it explicitly prohibit it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 21, 2010)

Big-A- said:


> Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> 
> But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...



I fail to see how they are a burden to our society. They come here to work.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 21, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



Hey stupid read this, Illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.


----------



## hboats (May 21, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...



Don't try to muddle up the left's emotional B.S. with facts.  They are immune to facts anyway.  They just want to spew the lies.  You know, illegal immigration is all about jobs, and it's just going to hurt the children, it's all about the children.  That's the liberal way, no facts, just emotion.

Rick


----------



## Zander (May 21, 2010)




----------



## driveby (May 21, 2010)

Care4all said:


> I am not fooling myself, I will never accept that I have to carry PAPERS, like Nazi Germany, in order to walk down the street.....NEVER!



But being forced to buy healthcare is acceptable ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 21, 2010)

Planet Justice said:


> It is a good idea to get all the illegal immigrants out of this country, but we have to find another way for doing that. Racial profiling is not the answer!



Good thing we weren't suggesting it, then.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 21, 2010)

pinqy said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



And WHY, precisely, are you talking about racial profiling?  In case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about SB 1070, so if you're not talking about racial profiling in connection to that, why talk about it HERE at all?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 21, 2010)

pinqy said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



Yeah, it does.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 21, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...



I am so damned sick and tired of people up north peddling this Disney fantasy of happy little brown people, wandering across the border - no doubt singing "Zippa Dee Doo Da" as they come - just looking for jobs.  If that were the case, they wouldn't be sucking our social service systems dry, not to mention crowding our jails and prisons.


----------



## bodecea (May 21, 2010)

Big-A- said:


> Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> 
> But, how can any person in this country who pays taxes, and who's future is being sacrificed by the debt we're in, oppose the idea of keeping people out of this country who aren't here legally and who are being a burden on our society...



Excuse me.  The law does not allow profiling.   And I have no problem with the law and have faith in those who will enforce it.

What I have a problem with is those who are using this law as an EXCUSE for Mexican-American bashing.


----------



## Wicked Jester (May 21, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...


UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!

Go check out my "Illegal alien crimes" thread over in the immigration section. Then come back and tell me they are not a burden on our society.

How can people possibly be so fucking clueless?


----------



## BolshevikHunter (May 21, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Big-A- said:
> 
> 
> > Sure profiling can be a bad thing and can be abused by some and possibly also make some people uncomfortable because of the generalization when it comes to who looks like they could be illegal or not....
> ...



Yeah, But do you have a problem with illegal Alien bashing bod? We are not bashing Mexican - Americans. We are bashing people who don't respect our laws. I know that you and I agree about felony prosecution for anyone who hires them, but you can't just give the illegals themselves a pass for breaking the Law when so many other folks who want to come to America are in line and don't. Know what I am sayin? ~BH


----------



## Murf76 (May 21, 2010)

Zander said:


>







Jan Brewer's advice to Eric Holder et al... 

[youtube]O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 21, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...



Or he can check out any of my numerous posts on how much money they're costing the state of Arizona in social services and law enforcement.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 21, 2010)

BolshevikHunter said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Big-A- said:
> ...



I got news for all you northern liberal dunderheads.  While most of the illegals coming across the Mexican border are - quite naturally - Mexican, by no means are ALL of them Mexicans.  Any of you flatliners catch the news about Somali terrorists being snuck across the Mexico-Texas border?  No?  How about the mentions I've made of Arizona ranchers finding Korans and prayer rugs abandoned on their property?  The news stories about Mexico's draconian illegal immigration policies against people passing through their country on their way to the US from Central and South America?

We know perfectly well that there are others, although they're a small percentage compared to the Mexicans.  And I don't like THEM coming here, either.  I don't give a rat's ass if redhaired Irishmen are flying to Mexico and sneaking across the border.  They don't belong here, and their asses need to go back.

Get over your kneejerk cries of "Racist!" because your projection says everything about you, and nothing at all about the people you're projecting onto.

By the way, let me add that I'm not talking TO Bolshevik, but rather bouncing off of his post in order to speak to the aforementioned liberal dunderhead flatliners.


----------



## syrenn (May 21, 2010)

I cant help myself  ! And totally off topic but I think funny anyway. 

Could it be that the reason obama is so against this new hard line policy in AZ is that he might be stopped and asked for prof of citizenship?


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 22, 2010)

Riddle me this, o' holier than thou ancestors of WASPS who invaded this continent...  Who are the indigenous people of the Americas... well?  THIS is why many people in this country (including me, of Cherokee heritage) and Mexican indians and South Americans have a problem with racial profiling and HARASSMENT due to this law.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 22, 2010)

Mr. Peepers said:


> Riddle me this, o' holier than thou ancestors of WASPS who invaded this continent...  Who are the indigenous people of the Americas... well?  THIS is why many people in this country (including me, of Cherokee heritage) and Mexican indians and South Americans have a problem with racial profiling and HARASSMENT due to this law.



Okay, first of all, "ancestors" are those who came BEFORE, not after.  We would be "descendants".  Second of all, there's no such thing as an "indigenous people of the Americas".  Only immigrants who got here sooner.  Third, nobody's talking about racially profiling anyone, let alone harassing, except for dipshits like you who clearly can't READ English any better than you can WRITE it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 22, 2010)

By admitted you don't understand, you are already on your 1st of 12 steps to recovery!


----------

