Oklahoma targets illegal immigrants with tough new law

[SMOKE 1,426]

blah blah blah...

Yup. That about says it all really

i see you're out of proofs

Well to reiterate - I made a point based on a set of general precedents, which is a perfectly valid argument.

It strikes me as somewhat less than reasonable to ask me to prove the impossible

well mr. "do you have a link to prove that" aka mr. "don't use generalizations" aka mr."don't take this out of context" doesn't have proof to back his generalizations which he made out of context. and yes its impossible because this law has not resulted in the targeting of any ethic groups.

[Peikko 1,575]

More states should conduct routine Check points for prrof of Dl & Insurnace

Are you advocating that police just stop people to check if they have a valid license regardless of whether they have broken another law or not? Just asking if that's your position. That would get up people's noses by the way, not just the noses of illegal immigrants.

Were you walking or driving ?

I was driving to go hiking...I know, an oxymoron.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

blah blah blah...

Yup. That about says it all really

i see you're out of proofs

Well to reiterate - I made a point based on a set of general precedents, which is a perfectly valid argument.

It strikes me as somewhat less than reasonable to ask me to prove the impossible

well mr. "do you have a link to prove that" aka mr. "don't use generalizations" aka mr."don't take this out of context" doesn't have proof to back his generalizations which he made out of context. and yes its impossible because this law has not resulted in the targeting of any ethic groups.

As I said - using general precedent is a perfectly valid argument - seeing as they relate to the same basic issue. I'm guessing that you can tell the difference between "has" and "could"

[SMOKE 1,426]

blah blah blah...

Yup. That about says it all really

i see you're out of proofs

Well to reiterate - I made a point based on a set of general precedents, which is a perfectly valid argument.

It strikes me as somewhat less than reasonable to ask me to prove the impossible

well mr. "do you have a link to prove that" aka mr. "don't use generalizations" aka mr."don't take this out of context" doesn't have proof to back his generalizations which he made out of context. and yes its impossible because this law has not resulted in the targeting of any ethic groups.

As I said - using general precedent is a perfectly valid argument - seeing as they relate to the same basic issue. I'm guessing that you can tell the difference between "has" and "could"

YES! i understand #6 has no proof to back his statement & if he could he would. but he can not. crystal clear

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

I was hoping that you'd see the parallels between what you have expressed as an encroachment of your 2nd Amendment rights with gun laws and requiring motorists to provide proof of citizenship to a traffic cop if they are pulled over. This is on topic because it is essentially part of the same, larger issue ...our civil liberties, which aren't exclusive to the 2nd Amendment. If you only stood by the rest of the Amendments as fervently as you do the 2nd Amdendment, we'd both be on the same side of the argument.

We are talking about a Privilege (driving) ... not a Right (2nd Amendment)

Apples and Oranges

Now ...

Proof of citizenship … or proof of legal presence (status). Which is it?

Oh btw ... don't LEOs check for Wants & Warrants when you are stopped for traffic violations?

(I think you have a good source for answering this question ... please ask ... I'd like to know.)

Oye, try to follow the logic. I am a U.S. Citizen. I am also legally licensed to drive in my state. If I get pulled over by a traffic cop, I'm not required to prove my citizenship to that cop. All I'm required to do is show him that I'm legally licensed to drive. My citizenship status has diddley squat to do with my legal ability to drive in this state - according to the DMV. If I'm visiting from another country and legally licensed there, I can legally drive here. In the case of my wife, from the time she was out of status (AOS process) until she received her Green Card, she had no legal proof that she was here legally. We had our marriage license and her NOA1 but really, she was in effect, out of status. She could have been later denied AOS.

As stated several times throughout this thread that we have to be careful that we're not creating laws and a bureaucracy that would further complicate our own immigration or infringe on our civil liberties as legal residents.

These laws will be thrown out as unconstitutional and they should be.

[SMOKE 1,426]

These laws will be thrown out as unconstitutional and they should be.

they already tried to block this law twice in federal court. no luck. its the law in OK.

Edited November 5, 2007 by tapout

[peejay 327]

These laws will be thrown out as unconstitutional and they should be.

Am I missing something...or when did you get appointed to the judiciary?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

blah blah blah...

Yup. That about says it all really

i see you're out of proofs

Well to reiterate - I made a point based on a set of general precedents, which is a perfectly valid argument.

It strikes me as somewhat less than reasonable to ask me to prove the impossible

well mr. "do you have a link to prove that" aka mr. "don't use generalizations" aka mr."don't take this out of context" doesn't have proof to back his generalizations which he made out of context. and yes its impossible because this law has not resulted in the targeting of any ethic groups.

As I said - using general precedent is a perfectly valid argument - seeing as they relate to the same basic issue. I'm guessing that you can tell the difference between "has" and "could"

YES! i understand #6 has no proof to back his statement & if he could he would. but he can not. crystal clear

Not really. As I said earlier - clearly you're not interested in having an honest discussion. But here's hoping you might surprise me and prove me wrong

And not to get technical about it - but perhaps you can highlight whatever explicit 'statement' it is that you feel I have made in regards to this law....?

As far as I am aware I pointed out two general precedents - that basically illustrate how stop and search laws have a tendency to expose institutional racism on the part of the authorities. In case you missed it, that would be a criticism of similar laws that essentially legislate discrimination in all but name. In fact, aside from that I actually made clear that this was also largely my opinion, but an opinion with some foundation - based on the aforementioned historical precedents.

Will it happen in OK? I'm not saying it will... but suggesting that we should bring in laws with little regard for how similar solutions have worked in other countries, or indeed in other parts of this country is well.... rather naive...

[Bootylicious!! 2]

Steven: Just let it go. They are so blinded by the "let's ship all their illegal @sses back" that they can't see the bigger picture. I'm just sitting here thinking to myself. These are all supposed to be reasonably intelligent people. How in the heck are they missing this? It's not about the fact that we want illegals to have preferential treatment. It's that we can see how this might hurt other immigrants and USC's that might look "illegal". And for everyone who says, "are you insinuating they will racial profile?" Hell yeah that's what I'm insinuating. It's happening every day. You're crazy if you think it doesn't. I for one would be extremely pi$$ed if I got pulled for something as simple as not wearing my seat belt and was asked my immigration status.

[russ 1]

And I need to show ID to purchase ... and pay for a background check to PROVE who I am and that I am not a criminal or illegal alien. Also I need to show proof of CCW and ID if/ when requested.

Not having a CCW on your person (even while carrying) here in FL is a $10 fine. Carrying without having a valid CCW at all is probably 10 years in prison. There is no requirement to inform police you are carrying here or to produce a CCW, though common sense says it is a good idea. Statistically it is pretty rare for CCW holders to be in trouble with the criminal justice system anyway.

I think the penalty for driving without a license on your person is similar - maybe a $10 fine. People do get mugged, and it is unreasonable to expect them not to drive until a license is replaced.

And even for your firearm purchase - no ID necessary if it is a private sale. You just need to know that that are a resident of your state and not know of any reason why they can't buy a gun from you. It is only FFL holders that have this burden. Even flying on an airplane - no ID necessary. (I lost my wallet out of town a year ago). Not a big deal, happens every day.

Pilots are required to have a driver's license with them now - they weren't in the past, just a license and medical were enough.

National IDs are the first step to a police state, which is not something I want to see happen. Though most of us have passports, drivers licenses and social security cards, we shouldn't be required to. It doesn't make anyone safer.

[SMOKE 1,426]

blah blah blah

anything of truth or substance to add?

Steven: Just let it go. They are so blinded by the "let's ship all their illegal @sses back" that they can't see the bigger picture. I'm just sitting here thinking to myself. These are all supposed to be reasonably intelligent people. How in the heck are they missing this? It's not about the fact that we want illegals to have preferential treatment. It's that we can see how this might hurt other immigrants and USC's that might look "illegal". And for everyone who says, "are you insinuating they will racial profile?" Hell yeah that's what I'm insinuating. It's happening every day. You're crazy if you think it doesn't. I for one would be extremely pi$$ed if I got pulled for something as simple as not wearing my seat belt and was asked my immigration status.

so i'm guessing Oklahoma isn't in your travel plans.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

blah blah blah

anything of truth or substance to add?

Yeah - stop acting like a baby.

P.S. Thanks for proving my point though - you really aren't up for an honest or indeed any sort of discussion.

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

More states should conduct routine Check points for prrof of Dl & Insurnace

Are you advocating that police just stop people to check if they have a valid license regardless of whether they have broken another law or not? Just asking if that's your position. That would get up people's noses by the way, not just the noses of illegal immigrants.

IN CA THEY ALREADY DO CONDUCT ROUTINE CHECKS FOR DL & INSURANCE,

They set up cones along the a busy route and traffick is diverted in a similair way as a dui checkpoint.

I see them a few times / year as they always have one close to my work along the road i take to get to work.

It is perfectly legal and yes a minor inconvenience but neccesary to take unliscensed drivers off the streets.

They mostly juts ask you to show DL & proof of insurance and if you can present DL & Inurance they send you on your way,

If not they look further into status.

[SMOKE 1,426]

blah blah blah

anything of truth or substance to add?

Yeah - stop acting like a baby.

P.S. Thanks for proving my point though - you really aren't up for an honest or indeed any sort of discussion.

not when we've had this discussion & variations of this discussion countless times, & you still don't have a clue...others don't agree w/ you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

not when we've had this discussion & variations of this discussion countless times, & you still don't have a clue...others don't agree w/ you.

I don't recall saying that anyone did or had to.

Nor do I remember having this discussion, or any variant of it with you before. At all actually - but there you go...