SB 1070: Most Controversial Component IS Constitutional

[Scott-Land]

It does look like a driver's license will suffice. This is strange because normally licenses are not accepted as proof of citizenship. I still have issues with the law. It IS still the first time that not having documentation of citizenship can be considered a crime.

And, sorry, but I don't trust the government enough to stay within the limits you claim.

As for the "emergency". Such is always the excuse when rights are eroded. You said as much regarding fire arms.

Driver's licenses are never used as proof of citizenship in the state of Arizona or any other state for that matter.... presumed to be lawfully present does not equate to being a citizen of the United States. You can be lawfully present (and obtain a driver's license or state ID) temporarily or otherwise without being one [citizen] i.e. visas, permanent residence, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

It does look like a driver's license will suffice. This is strange because normally licenses are not accepted as proof of citizenship. I still have issues with the law. It IS still the first time that not having documentation of citizenship can be considered a crime.

And, sorry, but I don't trust the government enough to stay within the limits you claim.

As for the "emergency". Such is always the excuse when rights are eroded. You said as much regarding fire arms.

Driver's licenses are never used as proof of citizenship in the state of Arizona or any other state for that matter.... presumed to be lawfully present does not equate to being a citizen of the United States. You can be lawfully present (and obtain a driver's license or state ID) temporarily or otherwise without being one [citizen] i.e. visas, permanent residence, etc.

Read the laws again. Anybody merely suspected to not be a citizen can be hauled in and asked to demonstrate proof that they are a citizen.

[Scott-Land]

It does look like a driver's license will suffice. This is strange because normally licenses are not accepted as proof of citizenship. I still have issues with the law. It IS still the first time that not having documentation of citizenship can be considered a crime.

Driver's licenses are never used as proof of citizenship in the state of Arizona or any other state for that matter.... presumed to be lawfully present does not equate to being a citizen of the United States. You can be lawfully present (and obtain a driver's license or state ID) temporarily or otherwise without being one [citizen] i.e. visas, permanent residence, etc.

Read the laws again. Anybody merely suspected to not be a citizen can be hauled in and asked to demonstrate proof that they are a citizen.

What does it have to do with your statement : It does look like a driver's license will suffice. This is strange because normally licenses are not accepted as proof of citizenship.

I fully understand the law-- but I don't think you do. There is a difference between being lawfully present and a citizen of the United States. A driver's license may indeed prove one to be lawfully present but in no way does it suffice as proof of citizenship! They are not one of the same.

[PLAYER57832]

It does look like a driver's license will suffice. This is strange because normally licenses are not accepted as proof of citizenship. I still have issues with the law. It IS still the first time that not having documentation of citizenship can be considered a crime.

Driver's licenses are never used as proof of citizenship in the state of Arizona or any other state for that matter.... presumed to be lawfully present does not equate to being a citizen of the United States. You can be lawfully present (and obtain a driver's license or state ID) temporarily or otherwise without being one [citizen] i.e. visas, permanent residence, etc.

Read the laws again. Anybody merely suspected to not be a citizen can be hauled in and asked to demonstrate proof that they are a citizen.

What does it have to do with your statement : It does look like a driver's license will suffice. This is strange because normally licenses are not accepted as proof of citizenship.

I fully understand the law-- but I don't think you do. There is a difference between being lawfully present and a citizen of the United States. A driver's license may indeed prove one to be lawfully present but in no way does it suffice as proof or mean that you are a citizen!

You are taking this out of context. I was answering a point put forward by someone else. However, your argument, if anything is another reason to question this law. This gets into what I mean by "careful language". The law speaks of "unlawful reason" but the only thing that would make someone "unlawfully present" is violating a restraining order and lack of citizenship. I doubt they have enough restraining orders issued to warrant this change.

The bottom line is that now Arizona is the only state in the union where you are required, by law, to have ID OR you can face getting hauled into jail on supicion of not being there legally. That is the kind of behavior we expected from the old Soviet Russia, not the US.

[PLAYER57832]

... Another of our elected dunderheads, a Kennedy this time, shows the world his idiocy.

"So, this idea of, you know, racial profiling, takes us backwards and really goes to the worst character of our nation and it’s, it’s demeaning to our country that we would move in that direction," said Kennedy. "It’s beneath us as a people.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66467

... It's 17 pages.. How hard could it be to read it before jumping in front of a camera to talk about it?

... And I wonder if he feels that way with regard to federal law ...

... In truth, I would bet he knows that the bill specifically prohibits racial profiling in any way. He is counting on our obsession with Dancing with the Stars, A Minute to Win It, and 24 to keep us too busy, too uninterested and too complacent to know any better.

...

Yes, it prohibits racial profiling... and then goes on to allow so many things that can be easily used as back-handed racial profiling that it makes it pretty obvious racial profiling will be used.... unless, of course your mind is numbed by Dancing with the Stars or whatever.

... You keep saying that. Be specific. I have a copy of the bill, show where it is you see such potential for racial abuse.

...

All, ALL that is necessary to haul someone in is for the cop to suspect the person is in the country illegally. Sure, the law says "no racial profiling", but looking at specific behaviors, having and accent, etc are all perfectly legal.

Some parts of Arizona already have a deservedly bad reputation when it comes to treatment of Mexican Americans. This law gives those idiots even more justification to target whomever THEY wish. If you think race is not a big part of that.. you are truly naive.

[Nobunaga]

... Another of our elected dunderheads, a Kennedy this time, shows the world his idiocy.

"So, this idea of, you know, racial profiling, takes us backwards and really goes to the worst character of our nation and it’s, it’s demeaning to our country that we would move in that direction," said Kennedy. "It’s beneath us as a people.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66467

... It's 17 pages.. How hard could it be to read it before jumping in front of a camera to talk about it?

... And I wonder if he feels that way with regard to federal law ...

... In truth, I would bet he knows that the bill specifically prohibits racial profiling in any way. He is counting on our obsession with Dancing with the Stars, A Minute to Win It, and 24 to keep us too busy, too uninterested and too complacent to know any better.

...

Yes, it prohibits racial profiling... and then goes on to allow so many things that can be easily used as back-handed racial profiling that it makes it pretty obvious racial profiling will be used.... unless, of course your mind is numbed by Dancing with the Stars or whatever.

... You keep saying that. Be specific. I have a copy of the bill, show where it is you see such potential for racial abuse.

...

All, ALL that is necessary to haul someone in is for the cop to suspect the person is in the country illegally. Sure, the law says "no racial profiling", but looking at specific behaviors, having and accent, etc are all perfectly legal.

Some parts of Arizona already have a deservedly bad reputation when it comes to treatment of Mexican Americans. This law gives those idiots even more justification to target whomever THEY wish. If you think race is not a big part of that.. you are truly naive.

... The section you want to read begins on line 20. Read that and get back to me. Until you've read it, take a break, please.

... The words you want to pay particular attention to are, "THROUGH LAWFUL CONTACT". (and yes, those are all capital letters in the bill).

...

[PLAYER57832]

... Another of our elected dunderheads, a Kennedy this time, shows the world his idiocy.

"So, this idea of, you know, racial profiling, takes us backwards and really goes to the worst character of our nation and it’s, it’s demeaning to our country that we would move in that direction," said Kennedy. "It’s beneath us as a people.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66467

... It's 17 pages.. How hard could it be to read it before jumping in front of a camera to talk about it?

... And I wonder if he feels that way with regard to federal law ...

... In truth, I would bet he knows that the bill specifically prohibits racial profiling in any way. He is counting on our obsession with Dancing with the Stars, A Minute to Win It, and 24 to keep us too busy, too uninterested and too complacent to know any better.

...

Yes, it prohibits racial profiling... and then goes on to allow so many things that can be easily used as back-handed racial profiling that it makes it pretty obvious racial profiling will be used.... unless, of course your mind is numbed by Dancing with the Stars or whatever.

... You keep saying that. Be specific. I have a copy of the bill, show where it is you see such potential for racial abuse.

...

All, ALL that is necessary to haul someone in is for the cop to suspect the person is in the country illegally. Sure, the law says "no racial profiling", but looking at specific behaviors, having and accent, etc are all perfectly legal.

Some parts of Arizona already have a deservedly bad reputation when it comes to treatment of Mexican Americans. This law gives those idiots even more justification to target whomever THEY wish. If you think race is not a big part of that.. you are truly naive.

... The section you want to read begins on line 20. Read that and get back to me. Until you've read it, take a break, please

... The words you want to pay particular attention to are, "THROUGH LAWFUL CONTACT". (and yes, those are all capital letters in the bill).

...

I already read it, more than once...

Now, define "lawful contact" for me...

Or, no.. let me just provide the definition. You might believe that means only if someone is arrested or stopped for another reason, but it does not. It means exactly what I said. The police have the right to stop anyone they wish, anyone they "suspect" is committing a crime. Suspecting someone is not in the state "lawfully" is enough reason for the police to stop that person.

I am not an attorney, but I ran the language by folks who are, in addition to listening to many commentaries on the subject, reading quite a few articles on it. I think even greekdog's wife (an attorney) told him.

[GabonX]

Why shouldn't authorities be allowed to ask whether or not a person has permission to be in the country?

This seems like a foundation of nationhood to me..

[Nobunaga]

<PLAYER>

... So, basically, you know what it says, but you choose to assume cops are dicks.

... That's your choice, I suppose.

...

[Timminz]

So, basically, you know what it says, but you choose to assume cops are dicks.

Cops are dicks. It's their job.

[PLAYER57832]

<PLAYER>

... So, basically, you know what it says, but you choose to assume cops are dicks.

... That's your choice, I suppose.

...

YOU think it means cops are only to stop those they already cite. I explain that no, that is not the case and that means I think cops are dicks?

[Nobunaga]

<PLAYER>

... So, basically, you know what it says, but you choose to assume cops are dicks.

... That's your choice, I suppose.

...

YOU think it means cops are only to stop those they already cite. I explain that no, that is not the case and that means I think cops are dicks?

Some parts of Arizona already have a deservedly bad reputation when it comes to treatment of Mexican Americans. This law gives those idiots even more justification to target whomever THEY wish. If you think race is not a big part of that.. you are truly naive.:

... You answered your own question.

...

[Phatscotty]

I already read it, more than once...

Now, define "lawful contact" for me...

Or, no.. let me just provide the definition. You might believe that means only if someone is arrested or stopped for another reason, but it does not. It means exactly what I said. The police have the right to stop anyone they wish, anyone they "suspect" is committing a crime. Suspecting someone is not in the state "lawfully" is enough reason for the police to stop that person.

I am not an attorney, but I ran the language by folks who are, in addition to listening to many commentaries on the subject, reading quite a few articles on it. I think even greekdog's wife (an attorney) told him.

player, thank you for correctly, and calmy pointing out the "lawful contact" phrase. That is exactly the part of the bill that was amended a week later (3 weeks ago) to mean....

"Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police."

[PLAYER57832]

player, thank you for correctly, and calmy pointing out the "lawful contact" phrase. That is exactly the part of the bill that was amended a week later (3 weeks ago) to mean....

"Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police."

And obviously, since it was changed, I was not the only one who saw a problem with the old wording.

[PLAYER57832]

<PLAYER>

... So, basically, you know what it says, but you choose to assume cops are dicks.

... That's your choice, I suppose.

...

YOU think it means cops are only to stop those they already cite. I explain that no, that is not the case and that means I think cops are dicks?

Some parts of Arizona already have a deservedly bad reputation when it comes to treatment of Mexican Americans. This law gives those idiots even more justification to target whomever THEY wish. If you think race is not a big part of that.. you are truly naive.:

... You answered your own question.

...

That you apparently decide not to read? Because I never said all cops are jerks. I said some are, and that "some" is the portion we need to worry about.

Or are you somehow naive enough to think that ALL cops are "nice guys".

[PLAYER57832]

Why shouldn't authorities be allowed to ask whether or not a person has permission to be in the country?

This seems like a foundation of nationhood to me..

Yes, the USSR.

[Phatscotty]

Why shouldn't authorities be allowed to ask whether or not a person has permission to be in the country?

This seems like a foundation of nationhood to me..

Yes, the USSR.

Player wants a country that has no laws, therefore, there can be no reason possible to ever ask for someones identification.

[PLAYER57832]

Why shouldn't authorities be allowed to ask whether or not a person has permission to be in the country?

This seems like a foundation of nationhood to me..

Yes, the USSR.

Player wants a country that has no laws, therefore, there can be no reason possible to ever ask for someones identification.

I rarely cite Star Trek, but Next generation actually did a nice episode on this subject. Picard was under investigation. At one point, he refused to answer some minor information. It worked, because everyone (who watches Star Trek next generation anyway) knows that the Picard Character is, while not perfect, pretty impeachable. Yet, in the course of a half hour or so, you were left with serious doubts. It was resolved, of course, being TV.

I was not at all being facetious when I said the old USSR was a country where carrying ID, having to obtain permission to be anywhere was the rule. It has never before been the rule here, in the US.

You, of all people, with your paranoia about government takeovers and the like, seem to have slipped a cog on this one when you claim there is nothing to fear here. It doesn't matter that the target is Mexicans. The law will impact us all.

And, for a lot of reasons is very unlikely to come close to solving illegal immigration issues at all.

[Phatscotty]

player, thank you for correctly, and calmy pointing out the "lawful contact" phrase. That is exactly the part of the bill that was amended a week later (3 weeks ago) to mean....

"Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police."

And obviously, since it was changed, I was not the only one who saw a problem with the old wording.

Then we can agree that the government in arizona actually works...

[stahrgazer]

Thing is, law enforcement is already able to ask citizens for identification in most states. I'm sick and tired of ILLEGAL persons getting more rights than LEGAL persons. I wish Florida would pass a similar bill! But no, what happens in florida is, an illegal juvenile gets hit by a car, and our local hospital has to pay millions for his years-long care until he's stable enough to get the law to allow his extradition back to his home country... Then the hospital gets hit by lawsuits for acts equivalent to kidnap (because they legally extradited the kid), costing millions more, they end up settling a ton more dollars to support the kid back in his legal country, Guatemala, and cost of going to the E.R. here goes up so that LEGAL citizens can foot this illegal's health, extradition, court, and settlement bills. Meanwhile, people are bitching and moaning about the idea of giving LEGAL citizens healthcare.http://www.tcoasttalk.com/2010/03/17/hospital-gives-40000-to-guatamalan-mans-care-as-his-attorneys-drop-lawsuit/

Illegal immigrants in this nation are, by their very presence, committing a CRIME here - and should NOT be given the same rights as citizens of and LEGAL immigrants to this nation. Certainly they shouldn't be given MORE rights just because their presence here is illegal.

Asking someone who "looks like" he or she could be one of those "illegal presence" criminals is no different than police bringing in a variety of folks for a lineup because they may "look like" the description of someone who committed a more violent crime.

[PLAYER57832]

player, thank you for correctly, and calmy pointing out the "lawful contact" phrase. That is exactly the part of the bill that was amended a week later (3 weeks ago) to mean....

"Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police."

And obviously, since it was changed, I was not the only one who saw a problem with the old wording.

Then we can agree that the government in arizona actually works...

No, but we can agree that a lot of people had rose-colored glasses when they read the original bill.

I still don't like the bill. It is an improvement, but the entire intent is just backwards and targeted in the absolute wrong direction to really fix this problem. But, I have already made clear my position, as have others. You only care about knee-jerk rhetoric. Even in your answers you show you have never given real and true consideration to what I, or greekdog or even bradleybradley have said. Bradleybradley even pretty much agrees with this law, but his reasoning is far more insightful than yours.

And, unlike you, bradleybradly actually debates us, not just what he thinks any opponent to this bill "must think" based on right wing blogs.

[Phatscotty]

player, thank you for correctly, and calmy pointing out the "lawful contact" phrase. That is exactly the part of the bill that was amended a week later (3 weeks ago) to mean....

"Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police."

And obviously, since it was changed, I was not the only one who saw a problem with the old wording.

Then we can agree that the government in arizona actually works...

No, but we can agree that a lot of people had rose-colored glasses when they read the original bill.

I still don't like the bill. It is an improvement, but the entire intent is just backwards and targeted in the absolute wrong direction to really fix this problem. But, I have already made clear my position, as have others. You only care about knee-jerk rhetoric. Even in your answers you show you have never given real and true consideration to what I, or greekdog or even bradleybradley have said. Bradleybradley even pretty much agrees with this law, but his reasoning is far more insightful than yours.

And, unlike you, bradleybradly actually debates us, not just what he thinks any opponent to this bill "must think" based on right wing blogs.

Oh, because you read 1070b somewhere else right? not from me posting it? BTW, yes i considered what they said, I disagree with Greeky slightly on a few things, but just because I did not feel it worth my time to respond to them does not mean I did not consider their arguments.

I have no such care for knee-jerk rhetoric. As a matter of fact, and as usual, you have it completely backwards. The knee jerk reaction is the "end of the world racial profiling crowd", not the people that took/support the ACTION. This thread is 100% taking on the "knee jerk reaction" of the president, the head of the state department, the head of homeland security, and the head of the justice department.

the reality that none of them has even read the bill, yet screamed about it in detail from every sunday morning talk show for an entire month.....That, my chubby little player, was the knee-jerk reaction, and it was a reaction designed to divide people racially. I stand against that, no matter how much you support it

[Night Strike]

Asking someone who "looks like" he or she could be one of those "illegal presence" criminals is no different than police bringing in a variety of folks for a lineup because they may "look like" the description of someone who committed a more violent crime.

the reality that none of them has even read the bill, yet screamed about it in detail from every sunday morning talk show for an entire month.....That, my chubby little player, was the knee-jerk reaction, and it was a reaction designed to divide people racially. I stand against that, no matter how much you support it

[Phatscotty]

The CC awakening of Common Sense has hereby been Initiated!

[Woodruff]

Asking someone who "looks like" he or she could be one of those "illegal presence" criminals is no different than police bringing in a variety of folks for a lineup because they may "look like" the description of someone who committed a more violent crime.

No, it is a completely different thing. "Having folks in a lineup who look similar to a suspect" is done to ensure that the witness to the crime can specifically identify the suspect as having been there (or not). Those other individuals are in no manner of being in jeopardy of their independence in any way. In fact, they will many times be paid for doing it. I can't quite honestly even believe you made that comparison.