Arizona will require Obama to provide birth cert if he wants to be on ballot

[Againsheila]

Sniper Kitty, you know I love you a great deal, but on this one we're gonna just have to disagree.

If they could have defined illegal activity as it applies to immigration, I'd be all for it, but trouble is, not even the governor can tell you what an illegal looks like.

You know what a drug dealer looks like, they profile the behavior all the time. You see someone on a streetcorner acting furtive, you've probably got a drug dealer.

You see a woman shaking her hips in a known prostitution area, she's probably hooking.

How do you define the behavior of someone who is here illegally?

Well I don't know the exact wording of the law, but it seems to me, if they pull you over for a legitimate reason, they have a right to use that as an opportunity to make sure you are a legal resident or citizen of this country. I include jaywalking and loitering as a legitimate reason for asking for your ID.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sniper Kitty, you know I love you a great deal, but on this one we're gonna just have to disagree.

If they could have defined illegal activity as it applies to immigration, I'd be all for it, but trouble is, not even the governor can tell you what an illegal looks like.

You know what a drug dealer looks like, they profile the behavior all the time. You see someone on a streetcorner acting furtive, you've probably got a drug dealer.

You see a woman shaking her hips in a known prostitution area, she's probably hooking.

How do you define the behavior of someone who is here illegally?

Well I don't know the exact wording of the law, but it seems to me, if they pull you over for a legitimate reason, they have a right to use that as an opportunity to make sure you are a legal resident or citizen of this country. I include jaywalking and loitering as a legitimate reason for asking for your ID.

You know, if they would have said that in addition to checking your identification WHEN YOU ARE PULLED OVER FOR A CRIME, they would check your citizenship, I'd have no problem.

Why? You've pulled them over for something else, so with the probable cause of the first crime, it should be natural to check their citizenship THEN.

However, the law doesn't read like that, it just states "illegal immigrant", and gives no behavior to check, nor does it state specifically that you have to be pulled over for something else FIRST.

Nope, this law sucks, because they didn't think it out very well before enacting it. Like I said, when the person enacting the law doesn't know what it covers, theres a problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sniper Kitty, you know I love you a great deal, but on this one we're gonna just have to disagree.

If they could have defined illegal activity as it applies to immigration, I'd be all for it, but trouble is, not even the governor can tell you what an illegal looks like.

You know what a drug dealer looks like, they profile the behavior all the time. You see someone on a streetcorner acting furtive, you've probably got a drug dealer.

You see a woman shaking her hips in a known prostitution area, she's probably hooking.

How do you define the behavior of someone who is here illegally?

Well I don't know the exact wording of the law, but it seems to me, if they pull you over for a legitimate reason, they have a right to use that as an opportunity to make sure you are a legal resident or citizen of this country. I include jaywalking and loitering as a legitimate reason for asking for your ID.

You know, if they would have said that in addition to checking your identification WHEN YOU ARE PULLED OVER FOR A CRIME, they would check your citizenship, I'd have no problem.

Why? You've pulled them over for something else, so with the probable cause of the first crime, it should be natural to check their citizenship THEN.

However, the law doesn't read like that, it just states "illegal immigrant", and gives no behavior to check, nor does it state specifically that you have to be pulled over for something else FIRST.

Nope, this law sucks, because they didn't think it out very well before enacting it. Like I said, when the person enacting the law doesn't know what it covers, theres a problem.

The way I read the law is they can't just arbitrarily detain somebody just to check them out. They have to have probable cause that the person is in the country illegally. Suspicious behavior is license for any police officer to further investigate--that is true in all 50 states. If a person does not have positive ID, then the Arizona law (and every other state law) allows the officer to verify his identity. The Arizona law goes one step further to ensure that the cop won't be held liable for some civil rights infraction if he also verifies the person's citizenship status.

Again, I cannot see how that should be a problem for anybody other than those who are already breaking the law.

 

[Againsheila]

Okay, perhaps this law does take things too far, however, it's obvious they have to do something. When people in my city in the state of Washington are being threatened by Hispanics and told to leave because this is their city now, something has to be done. I can't believe I live in a sanctuary state and we actually give them licenses which makes it that much harder for the cops to do anything about illegals, not that they will anyway.

Check my sig line if you don't think things have already gone too far and it's time to start pushing back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay, perhaps this law does take things too far, however, it's obvious they have to do something. When people in my city in the state of Washington are being threatened by Hispanics and told to leave because this is their city now, something has to be done. I can't believe I live in a sanctuary state and we actually give them licenses which makes it that much harder for the cops to do anything about illegals, not that they will anyway.

Check my sig line if you don't think things have already gone too far and it's time to start pushing back.

The AZ law, very well unconstitutional, may still work to citizens' benefits in that it starts and continues such a storm of outrage that Congress will have to act. 1) secure the border; 2) punish the businesses, owners, and managers that knowingly hire and encourage the recruitment of illegals; and 3) comprehensive reform.

 

[Againsheila]

Okay, perhaps this law does take things too far, however, it's obvious they have to do something. When people in my city in the state of Washington are being threatened by Hispanics and told to leave because this is their city now, something has to be done. I can't believe I live in a sanctuary state and we actually give them licenses which makes it that much harder for the cops to do anything about illegals, not that they will anyway.

Check my sig line if you don't think things have already gone too far and it's time to start pushing back.

The AZ law, very well unconstitutional, may still work to citizens' benefits in that it starts and continues such a storm of outrage that Congress will have to act. 1) secure the border; 2) punish the businesses, owners, and managers that knowingly hire and encourage the recruitment of illegals; and 3) comprehensive reform.

what reform? Send all illegals home. No more amnesty. All previous amnesties have only led to an increase in illegal immigration. I do, however, agree with numbers 1 and 2.

The only comprehensive reform I want to see is a reduction in legal immigration and a change so that we allow an equal makeup of immigrants so that people from Europe have the same chance to get here legally as people from Mexico.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The immigrants are not going to be rounded up, period: that is a non-starter. You won't have to worry about new illegals if we can control the borders and make business behave. Then we can work on what we have here.

Take a break: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZORh66A90]YouTube - Amazinglly amazing ukulele playing[/ame] This is the most amazing arrangement of George Harrison, "When My Guitar Gently Weeps."