Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 326
  1. #181  
    I support it, and wish the rest of the nation would. Speaking as a black man, born and raised in Gary, IN./South Side Chicago, who cares! If you get pulled over, you have to have proof of insurance, a driver's liscence, and that now tack on proof of citizenship... Who cares! The only one's that do care, are the illegals! It killed me that Mexico issued a statement on the US immigrant policy. What right do they have to ***** and moan that we will enforce a law that prohibts un-documented residents of their country from entering ours? And just for all the "brown" people out there, that feel this will exclusively target them, what difference does it make if your a citizen? There are a crap load of Irish people that this bill will effect as well, I don't see them up in arms over it.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcmaster48
    After a review of this law, have you not touted that probable cause was central to initiating a look into one's citizenship status, secondary to an initial offense?
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No. I have not.
    "Lawful contact" does not mean "casual observance". It means that the officer is engaged with the individual already in some lawful engagement, like pulling them over for a traffic violation. Additionally, there has to be probable cause to suspect, after the "lawful contact" has occured. And then, they have to refer the matter to someone authorized to legally access that person's immigration status (e.g., the feds).
    http://forums.precentral.net/2410151-post128.html

    Try again?
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcmaster48 View Post
    Thanks for making my case for me. It's after "lawful contact", and only after that, that probable cause can come under play.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by scribe4food View Post
    I support it, and wish the rest of the nation would. Speaking as a black man, born and raised in Gary, IN./South Side Chicago, who cares! If you get pulled over, you have to have proof of insurance, a driver's liscence, and that now tack on proof of citizenship... Who cares! The only one's that do care, are the illegals! It killed me that Mexico issued a statement on the US immigrant policy. What right do they have to ***** and moan that we will enforce a law that prohibts un-documented residents of their country from entering ours? And just for all the "brown" people out there, that feel this will exclusively target them, what difference does it make if your a citizen? There are a crap load of Irish people that this bill will effect as well, I don't see them up in arms over it.

    See, there's this little thing called the Fourth Amendment...
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Thanks for making my case for me. It's after "lawful contact", and only after that, that probable cause can come under play.
    You had no case, as just shown.

    The issue is what constitutes probable cause where one's citizenship is concerned. Focus helps.
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcmaster48 View Post
    You had no case, as just shown.

    The issue is what constitutes probable cause where one's citizenship is concerned. Focus helps.
    Actually, I don't need a case. It's an Arizona case, and other states are rushing to follow suit.

    And my focus is fine, thanks.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. #187  
    You make no valid point... Oohhh the 4th amendment. I'm sure the 4th amendment is applied when cops pull people over and discover a justifiable cause to search someone's vehicle, only to discover keys of cocaine. The 4th amendment isn't be all, end all arguement. If there is a justifiable cause, then I support a cop inquiring of your legal status. if you feel that your "God given rights" were violated, i'm sure Internal Affairs will assist you, as well as a lot of non-profit groups that specialize in Amendment violations.
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    .... which is actually an argument for this law. We all know that instances of profiling will be screened for with a fine toothed comb.

    It's an argument for the law? If racial profiling is really not used, and the police can only ask for papers if the person is committing a crime, then it makes no sense to pass it, since that is currently the situation.

    This was written for Congress in 2004:

    [QUOTE]
    Current Practices [ka1]
    Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers’ authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general criminal enforcement authority.
    For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of [ka2] someone they have detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the suspect’s immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the needs of local law enforcement, and solely designed to aid in enforcement of federal immigration laws, may be unlawful.6
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.votolatino.org/reports/th...nforcement.pdf

    So the police can already ask for ID in someone who is stopped for law enforcement reasons; thus this law adds nothing....unless they are going to stop people who are NOT stopped for other law enforcement reasons. Seems clear to me.
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by scribe4food View Post
    You make no valid point... Oohhh the 4th amendment. I'm sure the 4th amendment is applied when cops pull people over and discover a justifiable cause to search someone's vehicle, only to discover keys of cocaine. The 4th amendment isn't be all, end all arguement. If there is a justifiable cause, then I support a cop inquiring of your legal status. if you feel that your "God given rights" were violated, i'm sure Internal Affairs will assist you, as well as a lot of non-profit groups that specialize in Amendment violations.
    So....if I get your drift, you're saying the Fourth Amendment should be ignored? You better tell the Supreme Court that quickly. Just because 1. you don't like it and 2. the police ignore it doesn't make the Fourth Amendment any less important, now, does it?
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Actually, I don't need a case. It's an Arizona case, and other states are rushing to follow suit.

    And my focus is fine, thanks.
    What constitutes probable cause where a person's citizenship is concerned?

    That's the question.
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It's an argument for the law? If racial profiling is really not used, and the police can only ask for papers if the person is committing a crime, then it makes no sense to pass it, since that is currently the situation.

    This was written for Congress in 2004:

    Current Practices [ka1]
    Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers’ authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general criminal enforcement authority.
    For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of [ka2] someone they have detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the suspect’s immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the needs of local law enforcement, and solely designed to aid in enforcement of federal immigration laws, may be unlawful.6
    http://www.votolatino.org/reports/th...nforcement.pdf

    So the police can already ask for ID in someone who is stopped for law enforcement reasons; thus this law adds nothing....unless they are going to stop people who are NOT stopped for other law enforcement reasons. Seems clear to me.
    Not in Los Angeles or many other cities with similar directives.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcmaster48 View Post
    What constitutes probable cause where a person's citizenship is concerned?

    That's the question.
    I answered you several posts back, mcmaster48. You can stop asking it now.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #193  
    This does not apply only to when you are driving your car but can be used in any situations such as walking down the street, or hanging out at you favorite corner. How many U.S citizens have documentation that proves that they are one, passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate, social security? My guess would be that at least 1/4 of U.S citizens do not have documentation proving their citizenship. Next thing we know is they will require micro chips embedded in your skin with all your information to save you from this immigrants that are committing the crimes and stealing the jobs.This is after all the state that wants to pass legislation for the President of the United States to prove that he is in fact born in Hawaii, the so called birthers.

    Freedom is one the mantras of current conservatives (Republicans from Arizona), as in free-trade but not the freedom to have an abortion or the right to have as many guns as you want but not the right to have dignity. They jump up and down when China does not play by the rules that they set when it curtails American investment in its economy.Free trade does not only mean the free movement of capital but also the free movement of labor, thus if you want to invest in other countries you should let other people work in your economy. Cannot have your cake and eat it too!
  14. #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Not in Los Angeles or many other cities with similar directives.

    So....the point is....what? The state of California (or Arizona) needs to pass a law to get it's own police to do what they are already allowed to do? Face it...this law is either 1. unnecessary or 2. racist and politically expedient.

    Great legislators in Arizona.
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by baby-huey View Post
    My guess would be that at least 1/4 of U.S citizens do not have documentation proving their citizenship. Next thing we know is they will require micro chips embedded in your skin with all your information to save you from this immigrants that are committing the crimes and stealing the jobs.

    Don't worry; the conservatives have already thought of that.

    GOP candidate’s call to microchip immigrants draws backlash « Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media.

    Discussing immigration policy on Monday, Pat Bertroche, an Urbandale physician and candidate for Congress, told a Republican forum, “I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I microchip an illegal? That’s not a popular thing to say, but it’s a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under.”
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So....the point is....what? The state of California (or Arizona) needs to pass a law to get it's own police to do what they are already allowed to do? Face it...this law is either 1. unnecessary or 2. racist and politically expedient.

    Great legislators in Arizona.
    Actually, my point was simply that in Los Angeles they're not allowed to ask about immigration status when detaining a suspect in a criminal investigation. It's not that they don't; they can't.
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Of course that's a hasty generalization but don't let logical fallacies stop you.
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So....if I get your drift, you're saying the Fourth Amendment should be ignored? You better tell the Supreme Court that quickly. Just because 1. you don't like it and 2. the police ignore it doesn't make the Fourth Amendment any less important, now, does it?

    No that is not what I'm implying. What I'm saying is that the 4th is being adhered to now. There is no reason why it should change police procedures when the cops feel there is a justifiable reason to question someone's citizenship. And I never implied that the police were ignoring the 4th.
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I answered you several posts back, mcmaster48. You can stop asking it now.
    You have no answer. Got it.
  20. #200  
    lets face it, there is only one way to stop the "illegals" in your country. Stop paying them. Its Americans who hire them, at lower pay scales. Its Americans who drive the need for these people to come across the border. If there was no work for them, then they would not come. At least the vast majority of them anyway. Why do they come, they come for the money. Slapping some fine American with a fine for hiring some poor ******* who is only trying to feed his family, is not enough if you really want to stop this. Throw these Americans in jail, and fine them. This will quickly stop the "illegals" from coming into your country.

    Now, they may stop trying to sneak in, they may just come across the border in their milions with ak47s and take what they want instead.. just food for thought.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions