No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think you will find similar practices employed in various other first world countries that do not even have 1/10,000 the issue with illegals.

Arizona has a serious problem and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. Ultimately, looking out for the interests of America and Americans is more important than worrying about illegal aliens being inconvenienced.

It's also a joke that legal migrants have to [rightfully] go through screening and immigration hurdles, while illegal aliens in America are pretty much one step under citizens. Free to do as they please.

Funny, and here I was looking out for US Citizens without ID. Silly me.

[Heracles 417]

If in your attempt to 'protect' your way of life, you destroy the way of life you are seeking to protect; the price is far too high.

Strange as this has not happened in AUS. In fact, their Q.O.L is akin to being one of the best in the world - second actually. Furthermore, has illustrated that discrimination does not occur as law enforcement and any government programs require adequate identification and residency requirements to access any service.

The price is not high at all actually and quite reasonable. If you cannot produce ID and refuse to cooperate, you are then screened further. Had anyone been pulled over for a DUI, for example, and refused to produce ID, they too would be arrested period. The only difference is that ICE would be contacted if the person is illegal.

Or do you mean cost like residents do it too, therefore, we should just turn a blind eye - business as usual. Strange how no other first world country has this attitude, including your own mother country. Even as a legal resident from a commonwealth country, I'd be permanently deported for committing various crimes. The audacity of laws right.

[Heracles 417]

Funny, and here I was looking out for US Citizens without ID. Silly me.

When you drive you have to carry ID period. When you are arrested you have to produce ID or verify your identity period. Cops don't just take our word for who we are.

These what if you are jogging scenarios are ridiculous as you would have to commit a crime and be arrested to produce ID anyway. A straw man argument is that police would simply jump people having coffee at Starbucks or jogging because they are brown.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Hibel does not prohibit states from requiring more definitive proof other than verbally complying with a request for your name. The ruling is not as narrowly drawn as some seem to think. It is not out of the realm of permissibility for a police officer to request official ID, and, upon your inability or refusal to produce it, trigger "reasonable suspicion". In the case of SB 1070, OR federal law, which require that legal immigrants carry their status ID, it is possible that a lack of ID could trigger suspicion of legally.

While the claims are made that Hibel doesn't require official proof of ID it also doesn't provide for a prohibition.

Well the states have clearly interpreted that a person only provide a verbal identification. Do I need to post a few more state laws on the subject?

If an officer goes beyond this, they are overstepping their authority provided by the governing state within which they reside.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

When you drive you have to carry ID period. When you are arrested you have to produce ID or verify your identity period. Cops don't just take our word for who we are.

These what if you are jogging scenarios are ridiculous as you would have to commit a crime and be arrested to produce ID anyway. A straw man argument is that police would simply jump people having coffee at Starbucks or jogging because they are brown.

When you are driving, yes you must have a license. If you are being arrested it doesn't even matter at that stage, your in their hands. The police MUST take your word for it unless they have probable cause to believe otherwise. It is true they may detain you further if they have reasonable suspicion that you are hiding your true identity, but cannot arrest you until they have probable cause

I've personally been stopped under this law, so don't lecture me about such foolish things like jumping people etc.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Sousuke

[Heracles 417]

When you are driving, yes you must have a license. If you are being arrested it doesn't even matter at that stage, your in their hands. The police MUST take your word for it unless they have probable cause to believe otherwise. It is true they may detain you further if they have reasonable suspicion that you are hiding your true identity, but cannot arrest you until they have probable cause

I've personally been stopped under this law, so don't lecture me about such foolish things like jumping people etc.

Stopped? In San Fran? I have ticketed and pulled over a number of times, in counties actually that have Arizona equivalent laws, without any issue. Why? Because I carried appropriate ID and my PR card if need be. Then again, what sort of a fool in this day and age goes out without any sort of ID. To me, that's a no-brainer.

I am not the one who believes 1984-esque extreme scenarios and uses them to override any common sense on the issue. I guess it's a cultural thing as Americans tend to focus on the possible negative impact to 1 to 5 percent of people rather than the majority. As such, if a decision negatively affects 5 percent of people, then the positive effect for the 95 percent is discredited and ignored period. It's the other way around in most first world countries, thus their super-high Q.O.L. This common sense approach is also why they got rid of citizenship by birth idiocy.

That thought that I can rush over to Canada [for example] and pop out a child, who is then granted citizenship and can one day even become the prime minister is lunacy; thus, why I simply cannot do it.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Heracles

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I guess I'm that fool. And it was on a dark sidewalk in Kansas. I didn't drive at the time so I had no license. My student ID was at home.

[Peikko 1,575]

I guess I'm that fool. And it was on a dark sidewalk in Kansas. I didn't drive at the time so I had no license. My student ID was at home.

I don't believe that people who don't want to have to carry ID around 24/7 are the 'fools'.

[Heracles 417]

I don't believe that people who don't want to have to carry ID around 24/7 are the 'fools'.

Anything can happen. You go for a jog and are hit by a car, how are you identified? It's not a mandatory requirement but more along the lines of common sense. Wallet, keys and cell phone are the norm; well for me anyway.

Then again, does anyone go for jogs on a pubic street in the US anymore? I've read about more kidnappings here in the past 6 months than my entire life in a city of 4 million. A young girl was kidnapped the other day, ironically while jogging. Media hysteria? Try telling that to her parents.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Heracles

[Peikko 1,575]

Anything can happen. You go for a jog and are hit by a car, how are you identified? It's not a mandatory requirement but more along the lines of common sense. Wallet, keys and cell phone are the norm; well for me anyway.

Then again, does anyone go for jogs on a pubic street in the US anymore? I've read about more kidnappings here in the past 6 months than my entire life in a city of 4 million. A young girl was kidnapped the other day, ironically while jogging.

I don't think in that way - I never worry that I am going to be so badly hurt that I will not be able to identify myself in order to receive help or be tagged at the morgue. I never have liked carrying ID and I never will do it routinely - in the UK there is no requirment at all to do so - if the police want to know who you are you have 3 days? (last time I checked it was) to bring ID to your nearest station, including driving - your license is not required to be on your person.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well the states have clearly interpreted that a person only provide a verbal identification. Do I need to post a few more state laws on the subject?

If an officer goes beyond this, they are overstepping their authority provided by the governing state within which they reside.

Not necessarily. Judicial decisions make law. Hibel exists because a suspect believed that his rights had been violated, but the court found for the police officer instead. There is no reason to indulge in absolutism, as you are doing, because that doesn't work in the legal field. Having worked in legal arenas for three decades, I subscribe to incrementalism, and don't take for granted that I am safe doing "just enough" for law enforcement. Law is not settled territory.

I was stopped for speeding once, and was asked to produce my auto insurance card. The one I was carrying was expired, so, I ws given a court date to appear and prove that I had current insurance. Did the officer take my word that I was insured? No, he didn't have to; I had to prove it. I also had to prove who I was when I got to court. A court date is a kind of detention in that it is mandatory. A verbal verification was not sufficient.

Most of us are law abiding and not experienced with the kind of authority law enforcement exercises or how it ramps up as you pass through levels of interaction. Doing "just enough" is, in reality, naive, and can engender attorney and court costs, and find you helping to make new law.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Heracles 417]

I don't think in that way - I never worry that I am going to be so badly hurt that I will not be able to identify myself in order to receive help or be tagged at the morgue. I never have liked carrying ID and I never will do it routinely - in the UK there is no requirment at all to do so - if the police want to know who you are you have 3 days? (last time I checked it was) to bring ID to your nearest station, including driving - your license is not required to be on your person.

Some drive at 100mph and it's their choice, however, that does not change the fact that it is stupid and dangerous. Different strokes for different folks.

Once again you guys are clinging to extreme scenarios rather than the norm. I guess you have been here long enough that you have started to do it too. That is, focus on the 5 percent than the 95 percent. No police officer is going to stop a Hispanic male and ask for their ID. If they did, it would be profiling and they would not only be sued but the case would be thrown out; thus, their time would be wasted and possibly their job.

[Peikko 1,575]

Some drive at 100mph and it's their choice, however, that does not change the fact that it is stupid and dangerous. Different strokes for different folks.

Once again you guys are clinging to extreme scenarios rather than the norm. I guess you have been here long enough that you have started to do it too. That is, focus on the 5 percent than the 95 percent. No police officer is going to stop a Hispanic male and ask for their ID. If they did, it would be profiling and they would not only be sued but the case would be thrown out; thus, their time would be wasted and possibly their job.

Nothing dangerous about not carrying ID - not currently anyway.

I am not a 'you guys'. I have my opinion and I am not focusing on 'extreme scenarios, I have suggested that changing the focus of police attention from catching criminals first and determining legal status during the course of an investigation to determining legal status from the get go is a waste of limited resources for a non provable gain - how can it be anything else UNLESS the law is applied in a manner that is discriminatory? Apparently this law changes nothing and yet more illegals will be detained - how?

[Heracles 417]

Nothing dangerous about not carrying ID - not currently anyway.

I am not a 'you guys'. I have my opinion and I am not focusing on 'extreme scenarios, I have suggested that changing the focus of police attention from catching criminals first and determining legal status during the course of an investigation to determining legal status from the get go is a waste of limited resources for a non provable gain - how can it be anything else UNLESS the law is applied in a manner that is discriminatory? Apparently this law changes nothing and yet more illegals will be detained - how?

'You guys' is yank for more than one person holding a similar opinion. I am not painting people in a broad-brushed manner. More illegals will be detained because their status will be checked, since at present it is pretty-much not the case. Same way fraud is reduced when more checks are in place.

Just in case you have not realized but if anyone of us legal residents commits a crime, there is a chance we can be deported - permanently. Yet when it comes to illegals, they are pretty-much lawless and get to do as they please. You also still don't seem to grasp why an illegal should be on their best behavior and clearly still feel them committing a crime is no different to a citizen committing a crime.

Evidently much like your rationale behind carrying ID in your purse or wallet, you feel that if your spouse is to borrow your car and damage it, it's also no different to your neighbor doing the same; or a criminal borrowing it and doing the same. After all, they all simply borrowed your car and caused the exact same damage right? Very very different. Fact is that I am probably behaving more cautiously here as I am a resident. Had I been somewhere else as a tourist let alone an illegal alien, I wold be on my best behavior period. Nevertheless, everything is the same and a crime is a crime in your opinion, well until it comes to hate crimes. As in that case, even murder becomes different.

Before you say something like crime by IA is hardly an issue, California alone spends $1 billion a year incarcerating illegal aliens for non-immigration based crimes. Do you realize how many schools and teachers that would fund? How many people living in poverty that could assist?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Heracles

[Peikko 1,575]

'You guys' is yank for more than one person holding a similar opinion. I am not painting people in a broad-brushed manner. More illegals will be detained because their status will be checked, since at present it is pretty-much not the case. Same way fraud is reduced when more checks are in place.

Just in case you have not realized but if anyone of us legal residents commits a crime, there is a chance we can be deported - permanently. Yet when it comes to illegals, they are pretty-much lawless and get to do as they please. You also still don't seem to grasp why an illegal should be on their best behavior and clearly still feel them committing a crime is no different to a citizen committing a crime.

Evidently much like your rationale behind carrying ID in your purse or wallet, you feel that if your spouse is to borrow your car and damage it, it's also no different to your neighbor doing the same; or a criminal borrowing it and doing the same. After all, they all simply borrowed your car and caused the exact same damage right? Very very different. Fact is that I am probably behaving more cautiously here as I am a resident. Had I been somewhere else as a tourist let alone an illegal alien, I wold be on my best behavior period. Nevertheless, everything is the same and a crime is a crime in your opinion, well until it comes to hate crimes. As in that case, even murder becomes different.

Before you say something like crime by IA is hardly an issue, California alone spends $1 billion a year incarcerating illegal aliens for non-immigration based crimes. Do you realize how many schools and teachers that would fund? How many people living in poverty that could assist?

You seem to have drifted off into some kind of rant that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted in your quote, or in the course of this thread.