Breaking: Judge grants injunction on most vehemently opposed parts of AZ law!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

QFT.

Stevie, stop proving that we're right and you're clueless. If I haven't read it yet, so it's not possible that I'm upset about it. Besides, I won't just read it, I'll put it in context.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stevie, stop proving that we're right and you're clueless. If I haven't read it yet, so it's not possible that I'm upset about it. Besides, I won't just read it, I'll put it in context.

We? Are you more than one person now?

[^_^ 5,021]

We? Are you more than one person now?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Sorry Arizona. You're illegal.

[dluke77 9]

Well, it makes sense that a temporary injunction on such a contervisial subject is put in place. Lets just hope that a way to balance civil rights of legal residents and citizens against those that are here illegally.

The bottom line is your required to carry identification anyway. So if your a citizen or legal resident than where would the problem be in providing your identification/problem when asked for it.

In a related article on CNN.com asking why a 2.5 billion dollar fence doesn't work? Well thats simple: Put a major minefield within its perimeter and it would be alot more effective deterent. Well marked of course so that we could prevent the lawsuits by those that are willing to break our laws rather than to stand up for themselves and change the ways of their own country.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The bottom line is your required to carry identification anyway.

No you are not. You are required to have a driver's license when driving, but even driving without one is not a criminal offense. If an officers asks you to identify yourself, depending on the circumstances, you are are required to do so, but most often stating your name (if you were a passenger in the car during a traffic stop) is sufficient.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well, it makes sense that a temporary injunction on such a contervisial subject is put in place. Lets just hope that a way to balance civil rights of legal residents and citizens against those that are here illegally.

The bottom line is your required to carry identification anyway. So if your a citizen or legal resident than where would the problem be in providing your identification/problem when asked for it.

In a related article on CNN.com asking why a 2.5 billion dollar fence doesn't work? Well thats simple: Put a major minefield within its perimeter and it would be alot more effective deterent. Well marked of course so that we could prevent the lawsuits by those that are willing to break our laws rather than to stand up for themselves and change the ways of their own country.

There is currently no law requiring citizens to carry ID. That may change. Perhaps even as a result of this law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is currently no law requiring citizens to carry ID. That may change. Perhaps even as a result of this law.

Never. The Constitution prevents such draconian measures in a free society.

[Heracles 417]

Never. The Constitution prevents such draconian measures in a free society.

Being asked to identify yourself when interacting with law enforcement or any government agency is hardly draconian. It's actually common practice in most civilized first world countries, particularly those that rank higher than you in terms of both freedom and Q.O.L.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Heracles

[JohnSmith2007 353]

No you are not. You are required to have a driver's license when driving, but even driving without one is not a criminal offense. If an officers asks you to identify yourself, depending on the circumstances, you are are required to do so, but most often stating your name (if you were a passenger in the car during a traffic stop) is sufficient.

If you are an alien you are required. And that is what this law is about, aliens.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Being asked to identify yourself when interacting with law enforcement or any government agency is hardly draconian. It's actually common practice in most civilized first world countries, particularly those that rank higher than you in terms of both freedom and Q.O.L.

And in the US you must identify yourself. But the "identity document" is another story. Last time I checked Australia had rejected similar ideas, the National ID went down in flames right?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Being asked to identify yourself when interacting with law enforcement or any government agency is hardly draconian. It's actually common practice in most civilized first world countries, particularly those that rank higher than you in terms of both freedom and Q.O.L.

Identifying yourself to a law officer and presenting an ID are not equal. It's really not difficult to understand the fundamental difference or what kind of civil rights problems exist if a law ever required that you carry on your person, identification 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you are an alien you are required. And that is what this law is about, aliens.

How a law officer can know the difference between a USC and an immigrant (documented or not) is where the problem with SB1070 lies. That is why the U.S. District Court Judge enjoined that part of SB1070.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Here we come supreme court! With there being fed. presidence on carrying ID. get out those GC's! Sotomayor will blow a gasket

[Heracles 417]

And in the US you must identify yourself. But the "identity document" is another story. Last time I checked Australia had rejected similar ideas, the National ID went down in flames right?

Yes, but I am not talking about the police stopping you for no reason and asking me to provide ID. I'd be the first against that, however, this is not what the legislation entails so identity cards are not the issue.

Anyone attempting to use absolutely any tax-payer funded government service must pass residency tests in AUS period. Yep even to attend school. Not only is this is the case in AUS but a range of other countries I have traveled to.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Heracles