Big protests in Arizona

[jeffrockit]

The people are not happy in Arizona.

70% support the bill. I guess 30% are not happy. What constitutes a majority?
Baylor University || The Lariat Online || News

 

[Againsheila]

The people are not happy in Arizona.

70% support the bill. I guess 30% are not happy. What constitutes a majority?
Baylor University || The Lariat Online || News

"If you [are stopped by police] one too many times it's very burdensome. It's the sort of thing like if you are followed in a store because of the way you look," Hernandez said.

Okay, so two people walk into your store. One is a white guy in nice shorts and a polo shirt, with a nice haircut. The other is black wearing a jacket with lots of pockets...which one are YOU going to keep your eye on, and why is that or isn't it racist?

Yeah, getting stopped by the police is burdensome. It was a burden for me to have to go to court with my proof of insurance when I was caught with out it, but I did it. Big deal. There are laws, I object to cops just walking up to a person on the street and demanding ID, but I have no problems with them arresting someone when they were speeding and didn't have prof they were here legally.

 

[Againsheila]

Still waiting on an answer as to why people think that an Hispanic soldier with relatives here illegally deserves more rights than my brother and his mother in law......I'm beginning to think that Hispanics actually have MORE rights in this country be they legal or illegal, than the rest of us. This just isn't right.

 

[bodecea]

The people are not happy in Arizona.

70% support the bill. I guess 30% are not happy. What constitutes a majority?
Baylor University || The Lariat Online || News

"If you [are stopped by police] one too many times it's very burdensome. It's the sort of thing like if you are followed in a store because of the way you look," Hernandez said.

Okay, so two people walk into your store. One is a white guy in nice shorts and a polo shirt, with a nice haircut. The other is black wearing a jacket with lots of pockets...which one are YOU going to keep your eye on, and why is that or isn't it racist?

Yeah, getting stopped by the police is burdensome. It was a burden for me to have to go to court with my proof of insurance when I was caught with out it, but I did it. Big deal. There are laws, I object to cops just walking up to a person on the street and demanding ID, but I have no problems with them arresting someone when they were speeding and didn't have prof they were here legally.

Do your passengers have to have ID?

 

[froggy]

YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill

This guy showed his drivers license

That shows you e-verify doesn't work.

 

[Againsheila]

YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill

This guy showed his drivers license

That shows you e-verify doesn't work.

If I go to Arizona, I will be sure to bring my citizenship papers. When states give licenses to illegal immigrants and they steal social security numbers from Americans, a driver's license isn't enough proof anymore, is it?

Heck, do you have any idea what I had to go through to get my son an id in this state, and we allow illegals to get driver's licenses. His birth certificate and ss# weren't enough. Nor was his name on our insurance card, our ids, etc. We had to show his picture id from school, his medicaid card AND his special needs bus pass with his picture on it and even then they didn't want to give him an id, until the manager told the clerk to. Apparently they were mad at me for asking what I'd have to provide if he were illegal.

If we didn't allow illegals to get driver's licenses, I'll bet his birth certificate, social security number and the word of his parents would have been enough. It was sure enough when I got my driver's license, before we became a sanctuary state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this law opens up for racist, civil rights violtions etc... this law is as fucked up as it can be but only in the south would this happen. and other state have all the right to say something like this.

cause it will effect there state. there so much wrong with this. how do you find someone illegal immgration? color of skin=yes = stop= racist. = voiton of civil rights

Well, maybe in New Hampshire, you folks are racist enough to believe anyone you see with a different skin color is a possible illegal. Here in Arizona, somewhere around half of our population is non-white, and fully 30%+ are Hispanic, so we don't consider that particularly suspicious. To us, suspicious behavior is having ten people living in a two-room house, or trying to get a cab in the middle of nowhere with all your worldly possessions on you, stuff like that.

Perhaps you ought to try getting out of your provincial little bubble once in a while and see how the rest of the world lives before you start projecting onto us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The law specifically says that people can't be stopped simply to check their status.

If that was the case, why would immigrants need to have their papers on them at all times to produce on demand?

Because INS did have the right to check up on people's immigration status, and the immigrants had to be prepared to pony up if INS asked.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am 53, white and have to carry my ID. Why is this so difficult to understand. My grandchildren are half hispanic, one father was born here, one came here legally. They have no problem with this bill.

You HAVE to carry your ID? Really?

You must have your drivers license on your person if you wish to drive a car. It's not enforced worth a damn, but it is a crime. I believe you are also required to produce ID if requested by an officer of the law... so I guess yes, you must carry ID.

I'm not sure about "required" if asked by an officer, but if they're asking, there's a reason, so you stand a good chance of being detained until you can prove who you are.

For example: a friend of my husband's was walking down the street near his house, not doing anything in particular. The cops stopped him and asked who he was as part of a canvas for a suspect in a crime in that area who met the same basic description Joe's friend did. Had he not had his ID on him, they would - quite reasonably - have detained him until he could prove his identity, on the possibility that he was the suspected criminal they were searching for.

Moral of the story: it's always a good idea to leave the house with ID. You never know what's going to happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, there is no requirement to carry ID, only licenses for particular privileges, such as driving a vehicle. I can't believe other moderates and conservatives aren't screaming about this, BUT this will undermine any legitiamte argument from the far right that a national ID is somehow wrong. The right has forever given its approval to a national ID.

your right Jake....this question was asked to a Criminal defence attorney in an on-line legal advice forum....he answered thus....


A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.

My brother in law is from Canada and he's been told to carry his green card <which is actually pink, btw> at all times. Why is it only the whites have to obey the laws?

Who ever said that only white people have to obey the law? Where did you get THAT from?

 

[Againsheila]

your right Jake....this question was asked to a Criminal defence attorney in an on-line legal advice forum....he answered thus....


A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.

My brother in law is from Canada and he's been told to carry his green card <which is actually pink, btw> at all times. Why is it only the whites have to obey the laws?

Who ever said that only white people have to obey the law? Where did you get THAT from?

Something that comes logically from all the complaints of Hispanics having to show their proof of residency.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My brother in law is from Canada and he's been told to carry his green card <which is actually pink, btw> at all times. Why is it only the whites have to obey the laws?

Who ever said that only white people have to obey the law? Where did you get THAT from?

Something that comes logically from all the complaints of Hispanics having to show their proof of residency.

I see.