5th lawsuit filed to fight Arizona immigration law

[JohnSmith2007 353]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#Obligations_under_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_laws

Well then, if they have a law that allows it and it hasn't been overturned by the SCOTUS then it is legal to ask for ID. What is the problem?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I've never been arrested, never committed a crime, not even been convicted of speeding...yet I've been stopped twice while on city streets and asked for ID. One of the times i did give my license, the other time all I had was a student ID... trust me it happens.

Well then, if they have a law that allows it and it hasn't been overturned by the SCOTUS then it is legal to ask for ID. What is the problem?

Read back to post 10.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#Obligations_under_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_laws

And here is the text of the Arizona Law:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Basically it says they have to be lawfully detained based on the reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Bob 4 Anna

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

And here is the text of the Arizona Law:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

Basically it says they have to be lawfully detained based on the reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Yes Arizona's law is one of the more reasonable one's on the books. (Check out Missouri). But the bold section is what worries most stop/ID opponents.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Yes Arizona's law is one of the more reasonable one's on the books. (Check out Missouri). But the bold section is what worries most stop/ID opponents.

Okay, I don't agree with "thought police" but if you're sitting in a running car behind a liquor store at 2am when the store closed at midnight then it would be reasonable for a cop to wonder what's going on. On the other hand it would be difficult for a cop to justify detaining you because he didn't see who you were waving "hi" to.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Okay, I don't agree with "thought police" but if you're sitting in a running car behind a liquor store at 2am when the store closed at midnight then it would be reasonable for a cop to wonder what's going on. On the other hand it would be difficult for a cop to justify detaining you because he didn't see who you were waving "hi" to.

Well, here is a less obvious scenario, yet equally used. Lets use Phoenix Az. in this example which has a metro area population of 4.3 million people. There is a sizeable hispanic population in Phoenix and the outlying areas. Now lets say that a residential burglary occurred the night before and the suspects were 2 hispanic males aged 18-30 wearing jeans, t-shirt and short hair, and a female hispanic aged 18-30 wearing jeans, t-shirt and having long hair. Sometimes, the discriptions really are that vague. None the less, police officers will be notified of this at their roll call and briefing at the beginning of their shift and told be be on the lookout. That is their "lawful" stop right there to stop and talk to just about anyone who remotely fits that description, and as long as it is a lawful stop, they can ask for their proof of status.....

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Has anyone actually read the AZ law? I get the feeling people opposed to the law are just open border fanatics.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Has anyone actually read the AZ law? I get the feeling people opposed to the law are just open border fanatics.

Yes, infact there were multiple threads opened with the full text included where we were discussing the law without getting into partisanship, or silly statements such as "open border fanatics". Interestingly enough I don't recall you commenting on the more level headed threads. Therefore I must ask, Have you read the law?

[Darnell 8,478]

"Police are put in an impossible situation because an officer cannot form reasonable suspicion of an individual's immigration status just by looking at that person," Perales said. "Police will be forced to investigate based on skin color, the language they speak or the type of people with whom they are standing." Not impossible at all - in fact - dead easy - simply ask 'Are you here legally?' and 'Show me your papers'

I love the way that language is used to skew the issue.

Illegal Alien is Illegal Alien. stfu, move on.

Well, here is a less obvious scenario, yet equally used. Lets use Phoenix Az. in this example which has a metro area population of 4.3 million people. There is a sizeable hispanic population in Phoenix and the outlying areas. Now lets say that a residential burglary occurred the night before and the suspects were 2 hispanic males aged 18-30 wearing jeans, t-shirt and short hair, and a female hispanic aged 18-30 wearing jeans, t-shirt and having long hair. Sometimes, the discriptions really are that vague. None the less, police officers will be notified of this at their roll call and briefing at the beginning of their shift and told be be on the lookout. That is their "lawful" stop right there to stop and talk to just about anyone who remotely fits that description, and as long as it is a lawful stop, they can ask for their proof of status.....

I love this scenario, and think it will be helpful for 'the round up'. No, I'm not being snarky.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

"Police are put in an impossible situation because an officer cannot form reasonable suspicion of an individual's immigration status just by looking at that person," Perales said. "Police will be forced to investigate based on skin color, the language they speak or the type of people with whom they are standing." Not impossible at all - in fact - dead easy - simply ask 'Are you here legally?' Yes and 'Show me your papers' I am a USC and have none....now what?

I love the way that language is used to skew the issue.

Illegal Alien is Illegal Alien. stfu, move on. except when of course the Illegal Alien is not an Illegal Alien

I love this scenario, and think it will be helpful for 'the round up'. No, I'm not being snarky. I'm just supporting actions similar to what the Waffen SS might do because that's the credible person I am. Go Waffen SS! Round up those Jews...er I mean Hispanics....er I mean "illegals"

Edited May 18, 2010 by Sousuke

[Darnell 8,478]

except when of course the Illegal Alien is not an Illegal Alien

Ya know, I love Venn Diagrams - helps me sort out what's in the final result.

Apparently I've missed something, yes? When is an Illegal Alien NOT an illegal Alien ? No, successful AOS puts different spin on it, so don't include that, should you deign to answer me.

'Show me your papers'I am a USC and have none....now what?

Seriously? Or are you being devil's advocate here? You'd be detained until proof of USC can be shown, right?

I'm just supporting actions similar to what the Waffen SS might do

Again, I pray yer only playing devil's advocate here. You do realise, yes? The 'hand over' from the search the Waffen SS (did), resulted in burning to ash or forced labour and concentration camps. It's not the same 'hand over' at all (but you knew that, already, yes?)

No, I'm not arguing with ya, I just think there's some holes in what yer trying to posit on my post. Just saying.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Darnell

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I'm just supporting actions similar to what the Waffen SS might do because that's the credible person I am. Go Waffen SS! Round up those Jews...er I mean Hispanics....er I mean "illegals"

I am assuming you added this part to Darnell's post. What kind of drugs are you on anyway? How do we go from protecting our borders, enforcing our laws and wanting those that break our laws to leave to Nazis and the Holocost? Give me a break. That has to be the most disgusting thing I have seen. You don't agree? Fine. Just don't start throwing around the Nazi comparison. Shame on you!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

except when of course the Illegal Alien is not an Illegal Alien

Ya know, I love Venn Diagrams - helps me sort out what's in the final result.

Apparently I've missed something, yes? When is an Illegal Alien NOT an illegal Alien ? No, successful AOS puts different spin on it, so don't include that, should you deign to answer me.

'Show me your papers'I am a USC and have none....now what?

Seriously? Or are you being devil's advocate here? You'd be detained until proof of USC can be shown, right?

I'm just supporting actions similar to what the Waffen SS might do

Again, I pray yer only playing devil's advocate here. You do realise, yes? The 'hand over' from the search the Waffen SS (did), resulted in burning to ash or forced labour and concentration camps. It's not the same 'hand over' at all (but you knew that, already, yes?)

No, I'm not arguing with ya, I just think there's some holes in what yer trying to posit on my post. Just saying.

And all i'm saying is that when you start assuming everyone is illegal and that USC citizens have to prove they are citizenship on the way to the store you basically have got the Waffen SS looking over you.

I am assuming you added this part to Darnell's post. What kind of drugs are you on anyway? How do we go from protecting our borders, enforcing our laws and wanting those that break our laws to leave to Nazis and the Holocost? Give me a break. That has to be the most disgusting thing I have seen. You don't agree? Fine. Just don't start throwing around the Nazi comparison. Shame on you!

Shame on Arizona you mean. They wrote the law saying you have to prove your citizenship.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Sousuke

[JohnSmith2007 353]

And all i'm saying is that when you start assuming everyone is illegal and that USC citizens have to prove they are citizenship on the way to the store you basically have got the Waffen SS looking over you.

Shame on Arizona you mean.

No, shame on you. There is a huge gap between enforcing our immigration laws and genocide. If you don't see the difference you need to go back to school.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, shame on you. There is a huge gap between enforcing our immigration laws and genocide. If you don't see the difference you need to go back to school.

If you think all they did was genocide, then well...I'll stop there as I don't want to get into a personal attack.

At any rate i'm not talking about the actual genocide, I'm talking about the methods that were used to "round people up" as Darnell mentioned earlier.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Sousuke