Analysis of Arizona Immigration Bill

[AuH20]

Under the 4th amendment a requirement to provide anything other than a name for purposes of identification is a unreasonable.

So library card registration is unconstitutional?

 

[John Taylor]

Bullshit. Like I said last night, you have NO clue in how police officers abuse laws to get what they want. Technically they can pull you over for a broken tail light then ask to search your car, and if you turned them down they can ask for your papers and search your car anyways. How fucking hard is this to understand?

I do have a clue. You have no idea about what the constitution actually requires. Police cannot search your car unless there is probable cause or you give them permission. "Papers"? You must be an illegal immigrant, because with the exception of a few loons who drive around with cardboard license platesproclaiming their sovereignty, everyone else has a driver's license.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

No!!! You're reading a different thread if that's what you're getting out of this.

This law only enforces the perfectly constitutional preexisting federal immigration law, which requires that migrants carry their documentation with them. AZ is just enforcing the law that the feds, because of folks like you, hasn't enforced in decades.

"folks like me?" You don't KNOW me at all so stop throwing accusations. As Danno has previously stated many times over, we are not trying to ignore the status of illegals in the country. We are just saying that the way they are going about this is very wrong, and will be another blow towards liberty. The Patriot Act, and FISA bills are a PRIME example of this and how the govt. takes advantage of a law and uses it to their advantage.

 

[John Taylor]

Citation?

You made the assertion, defend it.

 

[dannno]

So library card registration is unconstitutional?

Wow, no, that's voluntary.. you people really are uneducated about this crap.

 

[John Taylor]

"folks like me?" You don't KNOW me at all so stop throwing accusations. As Danno has previously stated many times over, we are not trying to ignore the status of illegals in the country. We are just saying that the way they are going about this is very wrong, and will be another blow towards liberty. The Patriot Act, and FISA bills are a PRIME example of this and how the govt. takes advantage of a law and uses it to their advantage.

This bill is nothing like FISA or the "Patriot Act", it is simply a mechanism for allowing the enforcement of constitutional, federal law controlling immigration.

 

[John Taylor]

Wow, no, that's voluntary.. you people really are uneducated about this crap.

Immigrants who chose to come here live under immigration law. They are obligated by law to carry their nauturalization and/or legal documents with them.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

I do have a clue. You have no idea about what the constitution actually requires. Police cannot search your car unless there is probable cause or you give them permission. "Papers"? You must be an illegal immigrant, because with the exception of a few loons who drive around with cardboard license platesproclaiming their sovereignty, everyone else has a driver's license.

Excuse me? I have worked with law before unlike the crap you have picked up at Fox News Groupthink sessions so don't even get me started about the constitution. I know my rights. I know how the system works. You obviously can't pull your head out your ass far enough to figure out that the govt is fucking you from behind at the same time. As for being an illegal, thats pretty funny. As far as Im concerned you are on MY land bro. I am the one that is of native american ancestry so you need to totally back down on that one you statist fuck.

 

[MelissaWV]

My comment wasn't refering to EVerify, it was relating to the pre-existing federal law which the AZ law will be enforcing.

You said the law's been on the books for 50 years. The law includes e-verify. E-verify has not been around for 50 years.

Your logic does not hold, or else you expressed yourself incorrectly, which would be understandable.

* * *

Why would I want to live in Venezuela? I've already posted precisely what I think should happen, and actually it would be more likely to catch forgeries (which this really doesn't do, and in fact complicates matters, because if someone using your identity and you are a citizen, and they are illegal, the difference is not going to be readily apparent). I don't believe driver's licenses are adequate as a form of identification, and in fact I don't think any identification one can have on their person should be accepted as enough to demonstrate legality.

In situations where you KNOW you need to bring identifying documents, however, you will know ahead of time to have them secure and on your person, at which point they may be copied and spot-checked for authenticity via the agency that issued them, NOT via a third party database that introduces another layer of potential error (I actually have documents in three different names because systems are introduced that don't allow hyphens, that don't allow accents, that don't allow Cyrillic characters, that don't allow the ever-popular ñ, and that otherwise exclude common letters that could easily show up as erroneous. Adding another layer means adding another version with more "difficult" names, and the Government seldom cares enough to fix any of that.

To complicate matters, you CAN present a whole lot of FORGED documentation to get a REAL license, or you can have a valid driver's license from another state without proof of documentation.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the federal government implemented heightened security measures when obtaining state-issued identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a social security number. As such, new federal laws were introduced that made it a requirement to show proof of legal residency status and identity in order to obtain a state driver’s license or any other state-issued id. Legislation was also passed that stated as of May 2008, driver's licenses issued by states that do not meet the federal requirements will not be accepted as legal identification to gain entry into a federal building or to board an airplane in the U.S. However, the government recently granted an extension until 2012, in order to allow ample time for states to comply with the new measures.

I admit, that one is a stretch, because hopefully officers would know which states are which on the issue if they are to accept...

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

...as evidence.

The only real, verifiable proof one has of being a citizen is either one's birth certificate (which is why you don't see Birthers going "show us your state-issued ID!"), or one's immigration papers, which you are already required to carry. Both of these pieces of paper are readily verified by the agencies that issued them, especially if they are local. The company will certainly have an interest in spot-checking to make sure the paperwork they receive is not invalid, and that they don't shove any "Mexican-sounding" names under the table. Of course, if they're paying under the table anyhow, how would any of this catch them, other than to just nab them off the street? Catch 22. If they are making under-the-table wages, chances are they're also milking welfare (very popular). Once again, welfare can collect copies of birth certificates and, if applicable, immigration papers. Once again, these are easily verified.

Look! no one's been stopped at random on the street! The I-9 is done away with, because let's face it --- it's worthless! No e-verify layer is added to introduce even more potential for citizens to be caught up by a clerical mistake!

I am quite sure one can forge birth certificates and immigration papers, but then we are back to the beginning. The point should be to minimize the number of papers that are acceptable, minimize the layers between the issuing agency and the inquiring agency, and to catch illegals where they are actually hurting citizens: when they've already done something that you can rightfully suspect them of (not just "hey he looks illegal!"), when they are applying for welfare (which should be the standard, but so many forgeries and very little checking of documents go on), and when they are applying for jobs (which, again, should be the standard and replace the worthless I-9 form.

But keep saying I'm for amnesty, and keep pushing e-verify, and keep saying it's the same thing that's been on the books for 50 years.

 

[dannno]

WRONG. YOU are the one advocating an immigration system which will inevitably lead to the creation of a banana republic here in the United States. You have ZERO understanding of the law, of this proposed law, of the U.S. Constitution and its original construction, and you fail to distinguish a perfectly reasonable questioning of someone stopped for breaking the law with Gestapo tactics.

You fail miserably on all counts.

Ok, this is like the 29th time I've had to explain that i oppose open borders with our current welfare state.

As I said, I will explain this stuff 100 times if that is what it takes to show people how dense you are.

You can't see how this violates the fourth amendment, because all you can think about are illegal aliens. You don't consider American Citizens being in this equation, because your brain is hyper-focused on 'them'. That is why I said you have a psychological problem. It's not a race thing, it's a group thing. That's great you date latino women, but you have an irrational fear of illegal aliens. Not pulling the racist card, pulling the fear card. And it's true. Because your brain doesn't think about American citizens rights, it is unable to. Your brain is cutoff from thinking rationally, and this is the only explanation of why.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

Ok, this is like the 29th time I've had to explain that i oppose open borders with our current welfare state.

As I said, I will explain this stuff 100 times if that is what it takes to show people how dense you are.

You can't see how this violates the fourth amendment, because all you can think about are illegal aliens. You don't consider American Citizens being in this equation, because your brain is hyper-focused on 'them'. That is why I said you have a psychological problem. It's not a race thing, it's a group thing. That's great you date latino women, but you have an irrational fear of illegal aliens. Not pulling the racist card, pulling the fear card. And it's true. Because your brain doesn't think about American citizens rights, it is unable to. Your brain is cutoff from thinking rationally, and this is the only explanation of why.

He's a statist that belongs over at stormfront. He just doesn't know it, and is not a defender of Liberty. What a god damn tyrant.

 

[AuH20]

Wow, no, that's voluntary.. you people really are uneducated about this crap.

So I'm violating my own fourth amendment rights when I show a LEO my driver's license after being stopped for an infraction? I never knew that.

 

[dannno]

So I'm violating my own fourth amendment rights when I show a LEO my driver's license after being stopped for an infraction? I never knew that.

No, you can't violate your own rights...that would also be a voluntary action..or you were doing something illegal and they can demand it. They can't say "I think you crossed the border.. I mean... I think you were speeding back there but I didn't see.. but I have reasonable suspicion to believe you were speeding because you have a fast car.."


sigh..

 

[John Taylor]

Excuse me? I have worked with law before unlike the crap you have picked up at Fox News Groupthink sessions so don't even get me started about the constitution. I know my rights. I know how the system works. You obviously can't pull your head out your ass far enough to figure out that the govt is fucking you from behind at the same time. As for being an illegal, thats pretty funny. As far as Im concerned you are on MY land bro. I am the one that is of native american ancestry so you need to totally back down on that one you statist fuck.

I have worked with the law as well, and am intimately familiar with federal and state law concerning the 4th amendment, unlike you, who has watched some "sovereignty" expert preach on how to write legal briefs and evade jailtime for driving with a card-board license plate.

Your land? Most "native American" tribes were nothing but bands of wandering vagrants excercising none of the bundle of private property rights prior to the settlement of this continent. In any event, I also have "native American" blood in my veins, so shut the fuck up.

These millions of pro-marxist migrants are in fact here illegally, they are in fact criminals, and they are in fact deserving of deportation.

This law merely allows for AZ law enforcement to ask for proof of status from people who are stopped. Nothing in this law is unconstitutional whatsoever.

 

[John Taylor]

He's a statist that belongs over at stormfront. He just doesn't know it, and is not a defender of Liberty. What a god damn tyrant.

Go live in some banana republic, and leave those of us dedicated to a revival of classical liberalism, laissez faire, non-interventionism, and constitutitonal governance to attempt to salvage this republic. God damned La Raza fuck.

 

[John Taylor]

Ok, this is like the 29th time I've had to explain that i oppose open borders with our current welfare state.

As I said, I will explain this stuff 100 times if that is what it takes to show people how dense you are.

You can't see how this violates the fourth amendment, because all you can think about are illegal aliens. You don't consider American Citizens being in this equation, because your brain is hyper-focused on 'them'. That is why I said you have a psychological problem. It's not a race thing, it's a group thing. That's great you date latino women, but you have an irrational fear of illegal aliens. Not pulling the racist card, pulling the fear card. And it's true. Because your brain doesn't think about American citizens rights, it is unable to. Your brain is cutoff from thinking rationally, and this is the only explanation of why.

Bullshit, I am extremely concerned with protecting the 4th Amendment's guarantees to all Americans their inherent right to be secure in their homes, persons, letters, and effects. I have never, and will never support the violation of any of those rights.

It is no constitutional violation to require people to present identification.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

I have worked with the law as well, and am intimately familiar with federal and state law concerning the 4th amendment, unlike you, who has watched some "sovereignty" expert preach on how to write legal briefs and evade jailtime for driving with a card-board license plate.

Your land? Most "native American" tribes were nothing but bands of wandering vagrants excercising none of the bundle of private property rights prior to the settlement of this continent. In any event, I also have "native American" blood in my veins, so shut the fuck up.

These millions of pro-marxist migrants are in fact here illegally, they are in fact criminals, and they are in fact deserving of deportation.

This law merely allows for AZ law enforcement to ask for proof of status from people who are stopped. Nothing in this law is unconstitutional whatsoever.

I bet you have! Don't tell me to shut the fuck up either you god damn statist piece of shit. A native american jackboot hahahaha I bet you have wet dreams about controlling the world. Keep spewing your lies. You have done nothing but troll since you've been here. Look how long you have been here and you have more posts than people that have been here from the beginning. Pathetic.

 

[Paulitey]

Grover Norquist (I think that is how you spell it) is against the bill, which is (or was) Ron Paul's advisor on tax reform.

 

[MelissaWV]

When do I have to show police my ID?
This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required if you’re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.

http://flexyourrights.org/faq

From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You could do this by saying "Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.

If you're detained, you'll have to decide whether withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you're on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state's laws can help you make the best choice.

Keep in mind that the officer's decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion is a vague evidentiary standard, which lends itself to mistakes on the officer's part. If you're searched or arrested following an officer's ID request, always contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.

So we are back, once again, to reasonable suspicion... which seems, again, to be where you are hanging out or who you are hanging around with. You think that's reasonable, I think that's ridiculous.

 

[dannno]

It is no constitutional violation to require people to present identification.

Actually it is, that is an illegal search. That is the definition of the fourth amendment. It is the most basic premise of the amendment. It's not that you don't understand it just a little bit, you don't understand it AT ALL.