papers, please - once again republicans are working against freedom

[blu]

Do you read the posts? check the links? How many times must I post this?

1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

SB1070 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet

legitimate contacts just like "reasonable suspicion" I can't see that being abused just to then ask for papers

in other words, you know what I said is correct and that it will be abused

 

[SFC Ollie]

legitimate contacts just like "reasonable suspicion" I can't see that being abused just to then ask for papers

in other words, you know what I said is correct and that it will be abused

In other words I doubt it will be abused as the State doesn't really have the funds to do these arrests unless they have to. But damn someone needs to enforce the law.

 

[Si modo]

This is a federal jurisdiction. But, instead of addressing laws already on the books, the federal government, run by Demcrats, is too busy telling all of us what products we NEED to purchace. Don;t give me this "Republicans working against freedom" crap when the Dems are doing a fine job infringing on MY freedom to live MY life as I see fit. I don't live in AZ, so I don't care except the fact that AZ thinks they need to do this because the feds won't act.

 

[blu]

This is a federal jurisdiction. But, instead of addressing laws already on the books, the federal government, run by Demcrats, is too busy telling all of us what products we NEED to purchace. Don;t give me this "Republicans working against freedom" crap when the Dems are doing a fine job infringing on MY freedom to live MY life as I see fit.

are dems and repubs really mutually exclusive here? both are working for it in case you can't read

 

[WillowTree]

so,, being asked for an idea is inconvenient for libruls huh..


do you show your ID at the airport? or do you refuse?

do you take your shoes off at the airport or do you refuse?


do you walk through a scanner at the airport or do you refuse??


do you prove your age when buying alchohol or do you refuse??


vhen you register to vote in your state to you have to prove citizenship or do you refuse??

In all those cases, there is an implied contract. ID at the airport? Fine. I realize it's for our safety. yes, well,, IDing criminal illegals will save a few lives too.. I hazard a guess that more Americans are murdered yearly by criminal illegals than by terrorists on airplanes. What say you?

Buying alcohol? Sure. I agree to show my ID to prove I can buy a restricted product.

Register to vote? Absolutely. No one is calling for the vote for illegals. Are you stupid enough to think illegals don't vote?

But this is stopping people and asking for ID without probable cause. Anybody can be stopped and asked for papers. In a land that's known as "Freedom", how can such a thing be fair?

If you read the bill it specifically says ID will be asked for after being stopped for "probable cause."

 

[WillowTree]

This is a federal jurisdiction. But, instead of addressing laws already on the books, the federal government, run by Demcrats, is too busy telling all of us what products we NEED to purchace. Don;t give me this "Republicans working against freedom" crap when the Dems are doing a fine job infringing on MY freedom to live MY life as I see fit. I don't live in AZ, so I don't care except the fact that AZ thinks they need to do this because the feds won't act.

Amen Sistah!

 

[blu]

so,, being asked for an idea is inconvenient for libruls huh..


do you show your ID at the airport? or do you refuse?

do you take your shoes off at the airport or do you refuse?


do you walk through a scanner at the airport or do you refuse??


do you prove your age when buying alchohol or do you refuse??


vhen you register to vote in your state to you have to prove citizenship or do you refuse??

In all those cases, there is an implied contract. ID at the airport? Fine. I realize it's for our safety. yes, well,, IDing criminal illegals will save a few lives too.. I hazard a guess that more Americans are murdered yearly by criminal illegals than by terrorists on airplanes. What say you?

Buying alcohol? Sure. I agree to show my ID to prove I can buy a restricted product.

Register to vote? Absolutely. No one is calling for the vote for illegals. Are you stupid enough to think illegals don't vote?

But this is stopping people and asking for ID without probable cause. Anybody can be stopped and asked for papers. In a land that's known as "Freedom", how can such a thing be fair?

If you read the bill it specifically says ID will be asked for after being stopped for "probable cause."

which is already abused and this will just add to it

 

[Si modo]

This is a federal jurisdiction. But, instead of addressing laws already on the books, the federal government, run by Demcrats, is too busy telling all of us what products we NEED to purchace. Don;t give me this "Republicans working against freedom" crap when the Dems are doing a fine job infringing on MY freedom to live MY life as I see fit.

are dems and repubs really mutually exclusive here? both are working for it in case you can't read

YOU wrote the title, moron. YOU said Republicans are, once again, stepping on freedom.

You're a partisan hack.

 

[blu]

This is a federal jurisdiction. But, instead of addressing laws already on the books, the federal government, run by Demcrats, is too busy telling all of us what products we NEED to purchace. Don;t give me this "Republicans working against freedom" crap when the Dems are doing a fine job infringing on MY freedom to live MY life as I see fit.

are dems and repubs really mutually exclusive here? both are working for it in case you can't read

YOU wrote the title, moron. YOU said Republicans are, once again, stepping on freedom.

You're a partisan hack.

was my title incorrect? are republics not stepping on freedom by doing this? and in case you haven't read my other posts I was also against the democrat freedom stripping moves such as the insurance buying mandate . you were the one who brought up the other party, making me believe you are in fact the hack

 

[Si modo]

are dems and repubs really mutually exclusive here? both are working for it in case you can't read

YOU wrote the title, moron. YOU said Republicans are, once again, stepping on freedom.

You're a partisan hack.

was my title incorrect? are republics not stepping on freedom by doing this? and in case you haven't read my other posts I was also against the democrat freedom stripping moves such as the insurance buying mandate . you were the one who brought up the other party, making me believe you are in fact the hack

Really? What part of my post was inaccurate? Hacks hate facts.

 

[blu]

YOU wrote the title, moron. YOU said Republicans are, once again, stepping on freedom.

You're a partisan hack.

was my title incorrect? are republics not stepping on freedom by doing this? and in case you haven't read my other posts I was also against the democrat freedom stripping moves such as the insurance buying mandate . you were the one who brought up the other party, making me believe you are in fact the hack

Really? What part of my post was inaccurate? Hacks hate facts.

where did i say any of your post was inaccurate? all I said is that both parties work to restrict freedoms

 

[Si modo]

was my title incorrect? are republics not stepping on freedom by doing this? and in case you haven't read my other posts I was also against the democrat freedom stripping moves such as the insurance buying mandate . you were the one who brought up the other party, making me believe you are in fact the hack

Really? What part of my post was inaccurate? Hacks hate facts.

where did i say any of your post was inaccurate? all I said is that both parties work to restrict freedoms

Both parties do. Although your title doesn't show that at all. Hmmm.

 

[blu]

Really? What part of my post was inaccurate? Hacks hate facts.

where did i say any of your post was inaccurate? all I said is that both parties work to restrict freedoms

Both parties do. Although your title doesn't show that at all. Hmmm.

umm really? this post was about one issue, and in this one issue democrats are for freedom and republicans are against. if you want to make a thread that encompasses all things that both parties are doing to restrict freedom than go ahead.

 

[Si modo]

where did i say any of your post was inaccurate? all I said is that both parties work to restrict freedoms

Both parties do. Although your title doesn't show that at all. Hmmm.

umm really? this post was about one issue, and in this one issue democrats are for freedom and republicans are against. if you want to make a thread that encompasses all things that both parties are doing to restrict freedom than go ahead.

Yes, really. The title implicates Republicans only. But, your posts don't so, fair enough.

 

[Nosmo King]

If the statesmen in Arizona pass this law, tens of thousands of Arizonans could be stopped and asked for papers. Arizonans whose only infraction is being of Latino decent. If you look Latino, you're subject to this harassment.

Visiting your daughter at Arizona State? Don't be named Martinez! Mind you, if your name is Martin, no problem. But this law is designed to harass Latinos.

And Latinos are the largest minority in America.

What's next? Latinos should wear a badge identifying themselves as such? If a Latino fails to comply, they are subject to arrest and placed in a camp run by Sheriff Arpaio?

Welcome to Arizona! No Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the cradle of the Fourth Reich!

 

[Angelhair]

The illegal advocates are using scare tactics to try and stop this bill from being signed. Don't fall for their rhetoric! AZ is in danger of being taken over by drug cartels and the like. Politicians are pandering for the vote of those who oppose securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal entry.
Come here LEGALLY or don't come at all. Simple solution. Kudos to AZ for having the guts to address this problem head on!

 

[SFC Ollie]

If the statesmen in Arizona pass this law, tens of thousands of Arizonans could be stopped and asked for papers. Arizonans whose only infraction is being of Latino decent. If you look Latino, you're subject to this harassment.

Visiting your daughter at Arizona State? Don't be named Martinez! Mind you, if your name is Martin, no problem. But this law is designed to harass Latinos.

And Latinos are the largest minority in America.

What's next? Latinos should wear a badge identifying themselves as such? If a Latino fails to comply, they are subject to arrest and placed in a camp run by Sheriff Arpaio?

Welcome to Arizona! No Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the cradle of the Fourth Reich!

The law is designed to check the citizenship status of those stopped for other legitimate reasons. Honest citizens have nothing to fear. Read the damn thing. I've posted it often enough.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

detain /dɪt'eɪn/
Synonyms:
verb: delay, stop, hold, keep, arrest, withhold, restrain, retain
detains 3rd person present; detaining present participle; detained past tense, past participle
When people such as the police detain someone, they keep them in a place under their control. VERB formal
The act allows police to detain a suspect for up to 48 hours. V n
He was arrested and detained for questioning. V n
To detain someone means to delay them, for example by talking to them. VERB formal
Thank you. We won't detain you any further. V n


arrest /ər'est/
Synonyms:
verb: stop, apprehend, detain, seize, check, capture, catch
noun: detention, apprehension, custody, capture, seizure
arrests plural, 3rd person present; arresting present participle; arrested past tense, past participle
If the police arrest you, they take charge of you and take you to a police station, because they believe you may have committed a crime. VERB
Police arrested five young men in connection with one of the attacks. V n
The police say seven people were arrested for minor offences. 'be' V-ed + 'for' Also V n 'for' n
Arrest is also a noun. N-VAR oft 'under' N
...a substantial reward for information leading to the arrest of the bombers.
Police chased the fleeing terrorists and later made two arrests.
Murder squad detectives approached the man and placed him under arrest.
If something or someone arrests a process, they stop it continuing. VERB formal
The sufferer may have to make major changes in his or her life to arrest the disease. V n
The law could arrest the development of good research if applied prematurely. V n

See the difference between arrested and detained?

And no you have no idea what I go through or what cattle ranchers on the border go through. Have you ever had your fences cut and your cattle scattered throughtout three counties? Ever had your livestock slaughtered or your camphouse ransacked?

No you have no idea what border ranchers go through or you wouldn't be arguing on the side of the illegals.

You do of course realize that the definitions you just supplied list arrest and detain as synonyms of one another, right?

Yes I do, but you can tell the difference, can't you?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Suppose one was blond and blue eyed. Would they still get asked by the cops to show ID? There are illegal immigrants from Scandinavia too.

Or is this little bit of totalitarianism used exclusively for Latinos?

Anything to erode liberty! That's the Conservative way!

Suppose a frog had wings, would it bump it's ass on the ground when it hopped?

I'm pretty sure in this case it would be exclusive to those that looked as if they may be here illegally. I personally can tell in under a minute if a person is here legally or not and I wouldn't need to ask for an ID.

How is enforcing the law eroding liberty? My liberty isn't affected at all. The liberty of those that are here illegally would certainly be affected.

The enforcement should be done by the employer, right? If the employer isn't being forthright, then it's the responsibility of the INS. The enforcement to the law should be done at the border, right?

It should not impinge on any law abiding person, be he citizen, immigrant, tourist or business woman. This sort of enforcement technique has trouble written all over it.

And not the legal precedents and rulings that have slapped this sort of action down before. The trouble will come from the largest minority in the country; Latinos.

You are supporting a Jim Crow on the Brown rather than the Black. Why can't you folks learn from your mistakes?

Employers are required to follow the law, not enforce it.

What is your solution in stopping illegal aliens from entering the country and what would you do with the ones that are already here illegally?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Both parties do. Although your title doesn't show that at all. Hmmm.

umm really? this post was about one issue, and in this one issue democrats are for freedom and republicans are against. if you want to make a thread that encompasses all things that both parties are doing to restrict freedom than go ahead.

Yes, really. The title implicates Republicans only. But, your posts don't so, fair enough.

I think what blu is saying is that Democrats are for freedom, freedom to let the illegal aliens do as they please while Republicans seek to apply the rule of law.