Does anyone read anymore or just react RE: Arizona.

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL

IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/26/860946/-Which-version-of-Arizona-SB-1070-was-signed-UPDATED

Just as a FYI, Arizona passed laws making it criminal to hire illegal aliens. Businesses could lose their licenses. it's been in the court 7 times the past 2 years, and won every time. Usually, if it's tied up in the courts, it can't be applied.

the original case was Terry v. Ohio

i have made HUNDREDS of "terry stops' in my law enforcement career

whatever one thinks of the bill (i'm against it), the concept of reasonable suspicion is nearly as well established in case law as the concept of probable cause or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

in brief, RS is facts/circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent police officer to SUSPECT (not believe, which is a stronger standard) that a crime is being committed, was committed or is about to committed.

for example...

if i get a burglar alarm at a house at 3 am and upon turning down the residential street, i see a person walking away from the area of the house, that would be "reasonable suspicion". that's the standard i would need to make a "stop" (seizure) of that individual. it is FAR less than probable cause. the time/proximity and fact that very few people are normally walking down a residential street at 3 am would easily be enough to reasonably SUSPECT that the person was related to the alarm and that some sort of break-in or attempted break-in occurred.

it is certainly not enough to make a custodial arrest.

i would stop (detain), identify the person, question them, wait until another unit arrives on scene and determines if there is any evidence a crime occurred, etc.

and of course that person could refuse to answer questions (but generally not refuse to provide ID fwiw. )

could his silence be used against him? yes. it cannot be used against him IN A COURT OF LAW AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT. it can be used as part of the facts and circumstances that may or may not lead to probable cause

if i develop probable cause, i can make a custodial arrest, otherwise i must release the person. how long can i detain a person based merely on RS? there is no bright line, but ample case law that helps determine "reasonableness".

any detention that went too long or used too much force can be viewed as a constructive arrest, which would then be a false arrest unless there was probable cause

etc.

The officer asks everyone for an ID, if you can't produce, you give your info ( name, address, DOB, SS# ), he checks you at HQ.

If that doesn't pan out, reasonable suspicion.

the bill says he must have RS BEFORE he asks you for id.

not that they can ask anyone for ID.

read it again.

it is unconstitutional (and nowhere in the bill) that officers can randomly demand ID from people.

(i could get into social contacts, but suffice it to say that an officer can generally ASK for id from anybody (under federal law) as long as his behavior doesn't rise to the level of a seizure, but that was already case law long before this case. we are talking about subject stops and demand for ID which require RS)

hispanic. and many people who don't look hispanic won't care because it doesn't affect them.

thats one of the reasons i am against the bill

but the question was what the bill says. and i was correct, the OP was wrong in that regards. it requires RS

91% of those stops are black and Latino.

"Police stopped and interrogated New Yorkers 171,094 times between January and March, and more than 151,000 of those individuals were sent on their way without charges.
Approximately 89,000 of those stopped were black, 56,000 were Latino, and 16,000 were white. In 2008 police stopped New Yorkers 531,159 times.
"These New Yorkers’ personal information is now stored in an NYPD database. The NYPD is, in effect, building a massive database of black and brown New Yorkers."

Constitutional or not, the NYPD stops, IDs and frisks half a million people a year.

http://gothamist.com/2009/05/12/nypd_breaks_record_for_stop_and_fri.php

it's not like the officer can see someone jumping the steel fence at Nogales or crossing the border near Organ Pipe NM, both 100+ miles away.

hmmm.

weird, but then again, it's the AZ legislature.

Tucson is a city of 486,699, and the police chief has questions about how reasonable suspicion would be developed. How, then, are his officers to know?

that's entirely tangential to what RS means, as a legal concept.

apart from somebody TELLING me they were in the country illegally , i am not sure how i would have RS that a person i was contacting was in fact not here legally.

:(

in the circumstances?

You know...not ammerrcan..people that don't look like us.

Or just ask the governor...she said she didn't know...but she signed the bill anyway, you betcha!

A truck driver at a weigh station has his citizenship challenged so he shows his commerical license and other papers, then he is told that doesn't do it so he tells them he has his birth certificate at home but he is arrested and his wife has to leave work, go home get it, drive to the jail and show it to get the man freed.

Talk to some who have been stopped by Arpaio on sweeps and they will tell you that you better have your birth certificate if you don't want Joe to pick you up.

Does that say anything?

It was not Arizona cops who stopped him, it was immigration ( FEDERAL ), ICE.

You got a problem with that, ask them about it, not Arizona.

http://www.ice.gov/

Their spokesperson said it was SOP.

Besides that, if this law does go into effect, a drivers license will work, and you can show Joe that, if he doesn't take it, sue his ass.

If he pulls the shit, I hope someone does.

These incidents are examples of what will happen. I don't know where you are but something tells me you have never talked to someone who has been victimized by, or been to one of Arpaio's sweeps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8223727&mesg_id=8223762

As per Arpio, sounds like he's going to be hanging himself.

I could say the same about you. How about we don't pass ANY laws cause they could be abused by jackasses.

reasonable suspicion in certain circumstances (border checks) etc.

similar to how they can stop you AT the border.

federal agents have done this in (for example) the port angeles area, over the last few years, which has pissed people off, but according to law that is as old as our country (almost) it's legal

being from another state, I do not have a valid AZ driver's license, therefore I would not be able to produce anything beyond my Missouri License, which (again based upon what is written here) tells me not to visit AZ.

I have a nephew who lives in Arizona. What if I'm there visiting him and am asked to show my papers? The only papers I typically carry with me are my Swiss work permit, my Swiss driver's license, a health insurance card and a credit card. I guess if I go visit my nephew in Arizona, I'll bring along my US birth certificate, Social Security card and voter registration card. :shrug:

That is valid federal ID.

Legal resident aliens ( not that you are one ) are required to carry their papers at all times by the federal government.

and soon will have a Swiss passport. Oddly enough, in the decade I've lived in Europe, I've only been asked to show my US passport when renewing my work permit, but never when traveling between countries--probably because Switzerland (while not a member of the EU) joined the Schengen bloc's passport-free travel zone. :shrug:

And also on the return to Switzerland.

I believe the law now says that I _must_ use my US passport for travel between the US and Switzerland; in other words, if I'm understanding correctly, it will be illegal (under US law) for me to travel to/from the US on a Swiss passport, since I'm a US citizen.

"Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country."

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

I only live in Phoenix and have for 3 years, done progressive talk here since I got here, so please don't think I have much knowledge to advice anyone after all why should I know, but yeah I would advice it if you feel something will cause you to be challenged. I was born in New Orleans and lived in Mississippi before moving here thanks to my Katrina work, white skin, blue eyes, blond hair, but with a southern accent so I am probably safe. However the vice mayor of Phoenix did say last week that they are considering checking everyone out just because the possible lawsuits are so invited by that this bill it might be the way to keep lawsuits from becoming overwhelming.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

where do you live and what do you know about Arizona?

As far as I don't understand Arizona? I don't understand because I don't have to put up with Joe Arpio?

I never had to deal with asshole cops? I've never been stopped by the INS or ICE or whatever?

Oh, BTW some off these things are not like the others. Some, all or none may be be true, half-true, or false.

I live here in Arizona and have for 3 years, I have covered Arpaio's sweeps, talked to people who have been challenged about their citizenship, so I just wondered if your statements are based on something more that reading, which they aren't.

By the way your response was defensive, that told me enough. Thanks

Never give out more information then necessary.

Deflect the point if possible. Looks like I did better then I expected.

I'll be nice though. My family has been in Arizona since 1965. I have Hispanic cousins, one of whom I lived with for 7 years, and another who cried when I moved out, 'cause she thought she'd never see me again ( honestly, she was a little drunk at the time )

OH, I just thought I'd add, I have been stopped by immigration, since I have dark brown hair, dark skin ( during the summer ) and eyes so dark that you have to shine a light in them to see that they are brown. Otherwise they are black.

"You seem to be so intense on the topic I was wondering"

The topic of the post might have been a hint:

Does anyone read anymore or do they just react.

When I heard about the law, I checked it out. Said you needed a driver's license for proof of "legal residence"

Everybody was screaming about papers. which was not in the bill. did anyone read it?

More then anything, I hate being lied to, or people repeating lies. You don't need papers.

If you want to talk about the racial profiling aspects, minus the reactionary impulse, I'll be more then happy.

It was Barry Goldwater who said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

He was full of shit.

Extremism in any form is a vice. It requires you to shut you brain off. I hate it, whether it comes from the right or left.

:rofl:

I had a state ID at 14.

and asking for papers is a NAZI thing,

Why aren't you out protesting driver's licenses?

Not all states require a birth cert for driver's licenses...

I've shown my US Passport, but never my birth certificate.

Of course, you do need to show a birth certificate to get the US Passport.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

According to AZ driver licensing requirements, those five states "do not verify lawful presence" in the U.S. (WA verifies only for credentials labeled as "enhanced").

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

AZ driver licensing requirements identify 5 states "that do not verify lawful presence" in the U.S.: HI, IL, NM, UT, and WA (WA verifies only for credentials labeled as "enhanced").

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

Excellent post, BTW. We need some accuracy and precision, not hysteria.

Like a US passport, military ID, etc.

That's very interesting information, pinboy3niner.

I checked the requirements for New Mexico, and found this page:

http://www.tax.state.nm.us/pubs/chartnmdlid.pdf

Looks like NM accepts a Matricula Consular card, which is worthless as ID.

Check this "unofficial" site out:

http://www.dmv.org/apply-license.php

A license from any of the other 45 states (as well as U.S. Territories and Possessions) would be recognized by AZ as proof of legal presence.

That unofficial site can be a handy reference--thanks for the info, slackmaster.

passport to safely travel in AZ?

Good to know. I'll avoid it.

(of course, on the issue of racial profiling, which is likely to be how this law will end up being applied - how else would you choose to establish "reasonable suspicion" in this case? - I'm highly unlikely to be questioned, as I'm pale and red-haired and while I speak German, somehow I don't think they're too worried about illegal Germans in the country, and I don't speak Spanish at all - I can understand a bit, I don't actually speak it)

The application requires certification of residency in Illinois.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/Smart%20FOID%20Application.pdf

If you're not a gun owner, don't have a passport, and are not in the military you may be SOL.

so I can travel to Arizona.

And, just for the record, I do have a US passport.

Based on the language cited above, a drivers license issued by a state where proof of legal presence is needed to obtain the license is sufficient. According to this, Missouri requires proof of legal presence.

http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/idrequirements.pdf

That being said, I don't think allowing random stops -- and I don't care what the statute says -- and forcing someone to produce any form of ID -- is appropriate.

I have to show it to use my charge card. But people think it's a federal crime to show id to prove you are not here illegally? Wth?

Seriously what is the offense that I'm accused of? Trying to purchase merchandise or a single glass of wine? And what about the many times I had to show my id to travel? Or to rent my videos?

We are a society that constantly asks for proof of ID yet we want to prevent this to protect people who are here illegally.

I don't get it.

Which I'm sure you know, you're just being disingenuous.

The problem is with the racial profiling that will target anyone who is brown and doesn't speak fluent English.

God forbid you should be of born in the US of Mexican heritage and leave your wallet at home one day when you're rushing to pick your kids up from daycare.

I expect if I travelled to certain parts where this law is in effect I could be asked to show ID.

My experience with people here illegally is mainly with females of my ancestry who come here and overstay their student visas. Then they find some military guy to knock them up so they don't have to go home. Seriously it's pretty common.

I guess I don't understand why there is this suspicion that there is no illegal alien situation but just an effort to harrass Hispanics that are here legally. Why go through all that effort to bug people?

because they support illegal immigration.

The denunciation comes because of the obvious racial profiling that is rolled into the bill and the obvious FACT that it will affect people of Hispanic decent to an extremely disproportionate degree.

It's not a suspicion that it's an effort to harass Hispanics here legally, it's a suspicion that all Hispanics will be harassed based merely on a set profile that determines who should or should not be asked for ID.

If you truly believe that this will not target legal residents in disproportionate numbers based on their race, then you either (a) are fooling yourself; or (b) have never spent any significant amount of time in Arizona (I grew up there, lived there for almost 20 years and know what the police there are like).

Once again, it comes back to the adage regarding trading essential liberties for temporary safety. So tell me, do you also support racial profiling of people of Middle-Eastern decent?

And was done in an unbiased manner to catch Anyone here illegally you could support that?

I have to admit I think the Democratic party is guilty of looking away to buy the Hispanic vote. I find the thought stomach turning.

One of my grandparents had a greencard til the day he died btw. He choose to not become a US citizen out of loyalty to his home country. I thought he was crazy to take that chance.

from anyone.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

I would urge you to read, re-read and, if possible, have someone explain to you the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Let's start with the Fourth:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What that means, in part, is that without a warrant supported by oath or affirmation, a person is secure in their person, house, paper and effect. That means that absent probable cause (not reasonable suspicion which is far more vague in it's definition) you can NOT be asked to show identification, as that violates your right to be secure in your person and papers.

The Fourteenth Amendment (section 1 in particular)protects both natural born and naturalized citizens:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This means that no law can be passed (including by individual states) which would infringe upon any right or privilege protected or granted by the Constitution. his means that a law which institutes any policy which unfairly targets a segment of the population is not permitted pursuant to the Constitution.

Your defense of the indefensible is duly noted.

However, if you wish to enjoy the privileges and rights which the Constitution serves to protect, you must also be willing to extend those same privileges and rights to the entire populace, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

And I'm sure someone is running my emails and posts through some anti terrorist screen.

If I truly believed this was the only encroachment being perpetrated maybe I could be more outraged. But we demand identification for everything else.

This argument about our rights is kind of a joke to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which requires carding. That's vastly different than being asked to show your birth certificate because you're brown and speak Spanish instead of English. The item you wish to buy has a legal age requirement. Sorry, but walking down the street does not share that requirement.

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of simple Constitutional protections is duly noted. Your complete disregard for the same is also duly noted.

When was the last time you were asked for ID just because someone thought you fit a profile? Not because you were doing something like buying an item that requires you to be a certain age.

I find it amusing that you think that buying alcohol is the same as merely walking down the street.

So how many rights are you willing to give up before you decide enough is enough? How many restrictions are you willing to accept?

How many times are you going to pretend that buying a substance with a legally mandated minimum age is the same as walking down the street?

While we're at it, how many adolescents do you know of that carry state issued picture ID's or birth certificates with them at all times so they can prove they are legal residents of the towns they were born and grew up in?

by the police to show their papers on a regular basis. If the police randomly stop every 10th person walking down the sidewalk on Main Street and detain those who don't have adequate papers, I don't think the local mayor and city council will keep their jobs for long.

In reality the police would probably look at my blue eyes and American accent and just give a cursory look at my papers, if I were the 10th person on the sidewalk. My wife, who is from the Philippines and still has a distinct accent, would not receive the same treatment. That might make the police behavior acceptable legally as not "profiling" (I don't know what the legal requirements are to avoid "profiling"), but it would still be profiling effectively because the police would really only be closely checking the papers of those who do not look or sound "American".

If the police stopped me while I was walking or jogging with no ID and detained me until my ID was produced, the mayor's job would not be very secure. I think she knows that. :)

I guess if you assume many cops are racist then we do have a problem.

But that doesn't start with immigration laws. It bleeds into everything.

of the probable behavior is a hell of a lot more realistic than yours is. The criminal justice system has always targeted people of color. Now we have a state that's demanding it by law. And you seem to think it's okay. It's not.

and then can't get back to the US because he doesn't have his wallet.

After the whole Obama flap I'm getting used to the idea of having easy access to a birth certificate.

by right-wing whackjobs, so they carry a certified copy of their birth certificate on them at all times (laminated of course so it doesn't get damaged while they work in the Arizona sun (hell, speaking from experience, I can tell you that any paper in your pocket that isn't laminated will be a blob of pulp after 8 hours in the Arizona sun being sweated on).

cops to prove your here legally. yeah, sounds like no big deal to me. sounds like harassment. and while the cops are busy stopping all these folks that look like they are here illegally, the criminals will be able to keep doing their criminal stuff without having to worry about the cops bothering them. showing id when you use your credit card or to buy alcohol is not the same as being able to be stopped at will and forced to produce your id.

a private business transaction, made by choice, such as renting another's property, and a forced, government demand based on nothing but your 'type'? Are you really that dense? You say, in your simplicity, 'to rent my videos' but dude, the point is they are not 'yours' they are 'the store's videos' and you are entering into a private contract by renting their property. You could not rent their property, you could purchase your own, or read a book, which seems like it might help.

You use your credit card knowing that you will be asked for ID.

This is about being asked for your papers randomly while simply walking down the street. If the guy behind the counter at the liquor store thinks your ID is fake, he simply won't sell to you and you just go to the next store. If a cop demands your ID so that you can "prove" you are here legally and he thinks your ID is fake, you get handcuffed and tossed in a jail cell.

That is the difference.

I have none of the listed identifications, not being a resident of the state. (NY doesn't require a birth cert for Drvs Lic) I have been a frequent visitor.

ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

These are insanely convoluted, but I think its possible to get a license in NY under this standard without having to establish legal presence.

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter01-manual.htm#non-res

Proof of Identity and Age

For your own protection, we must be sure who you are. As part of the application, you must provide your social security card. You must present documents that prove your name and age. All proofs must be in English or accompanied by a certified English translation. If you do not have the proofs on the instruction list, a supervisor may have the authorization to examine and approve other documents. The most recent listing of acceptable documents and assigned point values, described below, is available on the publications License/Permit/ID Instructions (MV-44.1) and Proofs of Identity (ID-44). Each publication is available from the DMV Internet Office or from a DMV Call Center.

Proof of Name

Documents that prove your name are assigned a point value. You must present proofs that total six points or more. At least one of the proofs must have your signature. A few examples of common proofs and their point values are listed below.

Each document below has a value of 6 points:

New York State Photo Driver License/Permit/Non-Driver ID Card
The document below has a value of 4 points:

If Under Age 21 — statement of Identity by Parent/Guardian (MV-45) (see special instructions and requirements on DMV form). Proof of date of birth and an original social security card are required for the applicant.

U.S. Passport that is valid and is not expired.
Each document below has a value of 3 points:

Foreign passport - in English and with a U.S. Visa and valid I-94 or unexpired I-155 stamp attached. If not in English, a certified translation by the embassy or consulate of the issuing country is required. For details, see the publication Proofs of Identity (ID-44).

Valid U.S. Re-entry Permit (I-327)*

Valid U.S. Refugee Travel Document (I-571)*

Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Naturalization (N-550, N-560, N-561, N-570, N-578 or N-645)

Permanent Resident Identification Card (INS I-551, with photo)*

Valid U.S. Employment Authorization Card (INS I-688B or I-766, with photo)*

U.S. Military Photo Identification Card (issued to military personnel only)

N.Y.S. Medicaid/Benefit/Food Stamp Card, with photo (or, 2 points without photo)

*NOTE: Most documents issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must be issued for at least one year and valid for at least 6 more months. The USCIS was formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). See the publication Proofs of Identity (ID-44) for additional information.

Each documents below has a value of 2 points:

Photo Driver License issued by another U.S. State, jurisdiction, territory or possession, or, a Canadian province or territory (must be in effect at least 6 months and not expired for more than 12 months)

U.S. Military Dependent ID card

N.Y.S. DMV Non-Photo Interim License or Computer Generated Learner Permit

N.Y.S. Title of Vehicle Certificate

N.Y.S. Vehicle or Boat Registration Receipt

U.S. Social Security Card (must have your signature)

U.S. High School ID with Report Card

U.S. College ID With Photo and Transcript

U.S. Marriage or Divorce Record, or Court-Issued Name Change Document

N.Y.S. Professional License

N.Y.S. or New York City Pistol Permit

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe identification card
Each document below has a value of 1 point:

Valid U.S. Major Credit Card, or
U.S. Cash (ATM) Card (with pre-printed name and signature), or
U.S. Canceled Check (with your pre-printed name), or
U.S. Bank/Financial Institution Statement/Record

U.S. Employee Identification Card

U.S. Computerized Pay Stub (must include your name)

U.S. Supermarket Check Cashing Card (must have your pre-printed name and signature)

U.S. Insurance Policy (in effect at least two years)

U.S. Health Insurance Card/Prescription Card

U.S. Utility Bill (must have your name and address)

U.S. High School Diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED)

W-2 Form (must include Social Security Number)

U.S. Union Card

Veteran's Universal Access Photo Identification Card

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Reasonable Suspicion requirement is so vague as to be itself unreasonable. Only the dumbest cops would attempt to enforce what is unenforceable. It is nothing more than a display of just how disingenuous the Republicans have become in playing to the fears and prejudices of their base of Tea Party Ignoramuses.

I would have suggested that a more effect means would have been to pass a law that requires every ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT to wear a Yellow Bullseye of not less than five inches in diameter clearly visible at all times. Now anyone who isn't wearing the Bullseye could possibly be an illegal who isn't complying with the law and is subject to being harassed by the cops.

is it gives the right because of someones ethnic background to demand a form of more detailed questioning hence reasonable suspicion.See they act as if only Latinos are the ones who come into this country and remain undocumented. Not true. Yes there needs to be immigration reform but not because of Latino folk. But on the part of homeland security.Because any undocumented citizen in our country needs to be identified. And might I say that it seems our domestic citizens pose more of a threat than our neighbors cross the border,can you say teabaggers?

The teabaggers haven't killed anyone ( yet )

A couple of ranchers in AZ were killed by illegals.

When the person signing the bill into law openly admits she doesn't know how it will be enforced, the police officers are openly confused about it (I think the chiefs were against it), and supporters claim the way you dress warrants suspicion, you know nothing good can come of it. Reading it, I still don't know what they're thinking. I can't imagine this thing holding up to a court challenge.

& Geez not the racist part either

it looks like he's one of those English-only Lou Dobbs types.

No need to do a search

Time to get the hearing checked.

Probably beyond a reactionary.

of either shitting on progressive ideals or defending the Reich.
Time will tell.

I just don't make a habit of joining the mutual admiration club when I agree.

What bothered me most was people spouting off about papers, when it wasn't even in the bill.

Number one: reactionaries. Can't stand them. Left or right.

Number two: If you're not going to tell the truth, why should I listen. I don't listen to the right, because they lie.

Now if you want to have some sort of discussion about the bill, such as racial profiling, without the reactionary bullshit, I'm listening.

And I know what I hear.

But you don't listen.

you made that more then obvious.

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
Confucius




Study the past if you would define the future.
Confucius

To see what is right and not to do it is want of courage.
Confucius

What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others.
Confucius

Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbors.
Confucius,

What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.
Confucius, The Confucian Analects

What bothered me most was people spouting off about papers, when it wasn't even in the bill.

Number one: reactionaries. Can't stand them. Left or right.

Number two: If you're not going to tell the truth, why should I listen. I don't listen to the right, because they lie.

Now if you want to have some sort of discussion about the bill, such as racial profiling, without the reactionary bullshit, I'm listening.

But by your post, that's probably not going to be possible. You guess why.

racism.

The Law is Racist and fascist................ period

I hate my 1/4 Sioux self.

I hate my Jewish best friend. I hated all the Jewish girls I dated. I hated the Asian and Hispanic girls I dated. I hate my Hispanic cousins.

Boy, I never realized!!

:sarcasm:

It's better than beating around the bush.

I gave you my reasons for posting this, you just don't want to believe them. Nothing I can do about that.

You're on a witch hunt, and by GOD, you're going to find a witch! If we end up burning a few innocent, well, them's the breaks.

You have your ideas, and you're going to stick to them, whether they are true or not.

Which is the exact opposite of me. I have have my views, and if proven wrong, I change them on introduction of new evidence ( True, proven evidence ).

The answer is yes, but you won't come out and say it.

"You're on a witch hunt, and by GOD, you're going to find a witch! If we end up burning a few innocent, well, them's the breaks."

Oh, look. It's a poor innocent victim.

:nopity:

As I said before:

I gave you my reasons for posting this, you just don't want to believe them. Nothing I can do about that.

Good luck on your witch hunt.

Look out for the flames, they have a way of bouncing back.

And since its common knowledge that all this hubbub is over immigrants from Mexico, we can all safely deduce that "reasonable suspicion" could be simply possessing a dark skin.

Yes, I read. And this still stinks.

Send MONEY to these DEMOCRATS running:

$$$$$$$$$$$$

Andrei Cherny for TREASURER

http://www.andreiforarizona.com /


Felicia Rotellini for ATTORNEY GENERAL

http://www.feleciaforarizona.com /


Sam Wercinski for SECRETARY OF STATE

https://www.sam4az.com /

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

OFFER TO HELP:


GODDARD, TERRY (Democrat)
PO Box 1792
Phoenix, AZ 85001
Telephone: (602)254-6342
Filerid: 201000311

Send him (non money) help, NOW.

Here is his website: http://www.terrygoddard.com /

Here is some info about him: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Terry_Goddard