Arizonans and The Nation Torn On Immigration Bill

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm still trying to figure out what people are freaking out about.

If you're a USC - you've got no worries.

If you're a LPR - you've got no worries.

If you're an illegal - you're fvcked.

It's pretty simple under this law.

Carry your ID with you, and you're fine. If you don't carry you're ID and you seem of suspicious nature, you're going to be detained until you can prove who you are.

It's not hard and it's pretty simple.

This is something the state of Arizona has needed (and has been begging for) for a long time now.

It's time to clean the infestation up.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Bend over and grab your ankles, more like...

so i'm guessing you're not planning on going to lake havasu over the summer?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

grab both ears & jump.

its a well known fact that arizona is doing this. i would think people planning on traveling to or driving thru arizona would be prepared.

yet another sad attempt. really

It really is another sad attempt - on your part - to justfy this nonsense. As a US citizen, I am not required to carry a passport or any other proof of my citizenship when travelling within the nation. AZ has no right to change that. ** them.

Carry your ID with you, and you're fine.

How so? My ID gives no indication of whether or not I am a US citizen or lawful resident or whatever. It simply doesn't.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It really is another sad attempt - on your part - to justfy this nonsense. As a US citizen, I am not required to carry a passport or any other proof of my citizenship when travelling within the nation. AZ has no right to change that. ** them.

Within the borders of their state, they can require you to carry whatever form of ID they deem necessary.

Despite the rhetoric out there, state's still have the rights to make their own laws so long as they fit within constitutional boundaries. Requiring Identification doesn't violate anything constitutional.

[SMOKE 1,426]

It really is another sad attempt - on your part - to justfy this nonsense. As a US citizen, I am not required to carry a passport or any other proof of my citizenship when travelling within the nation. AZ has no right to change that. ** them.

ok we're checking the dog family off the havasu vacation plans too.

read my responces to this law in this thread. pay very close attention to parts where is said it likely won't ever be implemented...ok.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, my comment was solely restricted to Green Cards in response to JQ's original hypothetical situation of an employer asking me to produce a GC despite an unrestricted SSN and a D/L (which I get is illegal) which might not have been asked of another white American person applying for the same job.

I also laid out my reasons for not having any objections to it in post #488

Every employee must fill out an I-9 and produce two forms of identy, one from either section a or b and one from section c. A US passport, GC, etc are all on the a/b list and ss cards and the like are on the c list. This is not something that is only demanded of those who are not USC's.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm still trying to figure out what people are freaking out about.

If you're a USC - you've got no worries.

If you're a LPR - you've got no worries.

If you're an illegal - you're fvcked.

It's pretty simple under this law.

Carry your ID with you, and you're fine. If you don't carry you're ID and you seem of suspicious nature, you're going to be detained until you can prove who you are.

It's not hard and it's pretty simple.

This is something the state of Arizona has needed (and has been begging for) for a long time now.

It's time to clean the infestation up.

You are the oddest of libertarians. A real libertarian would balk at any government mandate that resulted in the restriction on freedom of movement because of the economic benefits of allowing those who are prepared to work for low wages to be able to do so.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are the oddest of libertarians. A real libertarian would balk at any government mandate that resulted in the restriction on freedom of movement because of the economic benefits of allowing those who are prepared to work for low wages to be able to do so.

The cons outweigh the benefits. "cheap labor" means nothing if you're paying for them in every other aspect as well along with their brats.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ok we're checking the dog family off the havasu vacation plans too.

read my responces to this law in this thread. pay very close attention to parts where is said it likely won't ever be implemented...ok.

It may not be implemented but do you or do you not agree with it (and why)?

[Heracles 417]

It's clear what some advocate. Checking these people for ID to ensure status in a state with a humongous problem with illegal aliens is apparently a human rights violation.

However, a state trying to protect it's people from foreigners that have no legal right or business of being there is wrong.

Not only are you ignoring all of the crimes committed by illegal aliens, or the fact that we know nothing about them but that it's a slap in the face for everyone on here. For all we know anyone of these aliens could have been a serial killer or wanted for a range of crimes in Mexico, yet they get a free pass in America. Spare me with the totally baseless assumption that they are all good honest people trying to make a living. When it comes to immigration, it's guilty until proven innocent. Also spare me with the idiotic rhetoric well citizens commit crimes too, so it's only natural they do it to' as not one immigration system would accept the #######. No it's not, hence the second we [as in those legally here] are charged with a felony, we are imprisoned and then deported.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It seems clear to me that "some" are emotionally invested in this issue that they will cheer on ANY old piece of legislation that comes down the pipe that promises to tackle illegal immigration; regardless of the practicality of implementing it or whether it leads to law enforcement being put in a position where they have a conflict of interest.

When it comes to immigration, it's guilty until proven innocent.

How can you possibly rationalise this? That's nuts.

More proof that you favor authoritarian government.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Yes, but an international driving license/permit is generally used in conjunction with the driving license from the country of origin. My husband had both with him, yet still confusion from the local officer. How could this be?

Because the cop had no idea if either an international driver permit or a license from another country was valid in Arizona (both are, by the way). I used the example of California in my previous post because many people seem to assume that an IDP is automatically valid everywhere.

Can you believe that this local police officer also did not know the difference and the relationship between "England" and "the United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" or the fact that they can actually be the same place all at once? I mean, after all they are highly trained in such things and will always seek clarification with a federal agency even though its 9pm and after office hours and it means losing face in front of someone they just pulled over.

I think you figured out the problem on your own. This cop was obviously not very bright. Most cops are not really "highly trained" in anything, and they certainly don't give them training in geography or geo-politics. Cops make mistakes all the time. I recently had an ordeal with the traffic court in the city where I live because my daughter was pulled over and given a ticket, but the cop cited the wrong section of the vehicle code on the ticket which held the vehicle owner responsible instead of the driver. I had to appear before the traffic court judge to get it straightened out. It's unfortunate that the cop screwed up. At the same time, it's fortunate that the cop isn't the one who determines innocence or guilt. They leave that up to judges, who really ARE highly trained.

Computer systems operate 24 hours, and that is how police always check out someone's documents. There's no risk of them losing face in front of anybody. They'll do what they always do - ask you to wait while they go back to their car to run the checks on their computer. I'll bet that, in most cases, if they run an immigration check you'll never know they did it.

[Heracles 417]

It seems clear to me that "some" are emotionally invested in this issue that they will cheer on ANY old piece of legislation that comes down the pipe that promises to tackle illegal immigration; regardless of the practicality of implementing it or whether it leads to law enforcement being put in a position where they have a conflict of interest.

How can you possibly rationalise this? That's nuts.

That's reality. Immigration is not a right it's a privilege. Apparently to the average Mexican, it has become their right to jump into the US. Many of us come from first world civilized countries and just like everyone else, have to have extensive background checks. Whereas, you actually advocate unknown individuals from a second to third world country, simple walk in and move about freely as they see fit - on the name of rights.

The fact is, had any other first world country had the same problem, they'd have things like a national card yesterday. They'd have amendments to ensure the police and their ICE equivalent had the legal authority to tackle employers to ensure they get them out. Whereas, the inept federal government here continues the forty year tradition of pandering to the few at the expense of the majority. About bloody time someone in this country stood up for the country and also stood up for the majority. Sure as hell how it works in every other civilized first world country.

1. Protect your borders and people.

2. Look out for the interests of the majority rather than pandering to the few.

Example of point 1 is ICE equivalent authorities being able to inspect a business, much like a health and safety inspector - in AUS. No warrant needed.

Example of point 2 is numerous European countries banning the Burka.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[SMOKE 1,426]

It may not be implemented but do you or do you not agree with it (and why)?

yes and no. i agree with it, because something has to be done to protect the states ability to provide services & security to the residents of arizona. i disagree with it. because it most likely will open the door to profiling & discrimination.

illegal immigration has been out of hand for quite some time. its a strain on state budgets, more so on border states. if the feds won't enforce the laws on the books, then the states have to enact some sort of protection for themselves. they can't keep turning the other cheek, its just not right to the residents of arizona or any state to keep taking on more & more obligations w/o funding coming in. that hurts everyone.

[Dan J 277]

I'm still trying to figure out what people are freaking out about.

If you're a USC - you've got no worries.

If you're a LPR - you've got no worries.

If you're an illegal - you're fvcked.

It's pretty simple under this law.

Carry your ID with you, and you're fine. If you don't carry you're ID and you seem of suspicious nature, you're going to be detained until you can prove who you are.

It's not hard and it's pretty simple.

This is something the state of Arizona has needed (and has been begging for) for a long time now.

It's time to clean the infestation up.

A real libertarian would never put up with the government intrusion of checking ones papers.