It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge upholds Arizona's 'show your papers' immigration law

page: 13
9
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   


Of course, no white folks commit crimes, do they?


That lame old argument doesn't work anymore. I never said one word about whether white people commit crimes or not. What I am saying is that people like you wont let cops target black people at all. Not because they are innocent, but because they are black. We know some black people commit crimes but you would have us ignore that just because they are black. That is the kind of sick logic that is starting riots and getting people killed. A black thug commits a crime, fights with a cop, and gets shot. Lets ignore the fact that momma's sweet little baby actually committed a crime. Lets ignore the fact that this sweet innocent little boy fought with a cop. Lets just focus on the fact that he is black and start riots because #hatecops.





That's just stupid. And not funny in the least.

You mean by respecting the rights of everyone (which is supposed to be the point, isn't it?), he might have to give up his job? Sort of like that woman in Kentucky?


You are missing the point completely. Say he does step down. Same question for the next guy? How can he proceed without either side going crazy on him?



That's just stupid. And not funny in the least.


I'm sorry you have no sense of humor. But it proved a point. You thought 'cops'. You targeted a specific group based on the circumstances surrounding the event. Either that makes you a cop hater (using your own logic) or you are in denial about falling victim to the same preconceptions as other people, including cops.



Because it infringes on the rights of citizens. It means anyone can be detained if they do not have an ID on them.


Anyone suspected of committing a crime can be detained up to 72 hours while it is determined if they committed a crime or not. That includes the crime of entering the country illegally. Illegally - get it? Is that sinking in yet? That is nothing new. But you cant admit that because it makes you a hypocrite.



So, everyone who looks Mexican is a criminal. Got it.


Its time to get off your stupid little race baiting horsey and put some big boy feet on the ground for once. The ruling stated specifically that is does NOT apply only to Hispanics. Period. Get over it. You lost that one.



I don't think you are aware of which direction that slope goes.


It doesn't matter. You are on a slope of your own. A very special one just for you.

edit on 9-9-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Because it affects me and I am a citizen.
Que the Niemöller quote.


How do you target criminal activity without targeting criminals?

Not by passing laws that make it so citizens have their rights taken away as well.

It is just like the NSA spying, the Patriot act and the NDAA were all passed with the 'safety' gift wrap, this is same thought process.


How are citizens rights being taken away? If you are suspected of committing a crime you can be held up to 72 hours while it is determined whether you committed a crime or not. 'Crime' includes entering the country illegally. ILLEGALLY - get it? If you are suspected of committing a crime and all you have to do is show an ID to prove you didn't, how does that equate to citizens losing their rights? What rights have you lost? The right to not be detained for suspicion of criminal activity? Guess what - you never had that right. Ever.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA spying and is in no way similar to it. NSA spying is snooping through emails and wiretapping phone calls without a warrant trying to find criminal activity to pursue. It has no similarity whatsoever to a person being suspected of criminal activity and detained while evidence is gathered. That happens every single day and it is not unconstitutional in any way. There is no comparison there at all. One has grounds for suspicion which justifies being detained. The other is just sneaking around peoples personal lives looking for something to call them out on. If you cant see the difference there you should stay off topics that involve concepts like constitutional rights because you don't get it.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
sorry - double post
edit on 9-9-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Come on Neo answer my question.
Also before you bleat the same old stuff it is not mandatory to carry an ID card in the USA.
Do you wish mandatory ID cards and the powers for police to stop and ask for them?.
It is simply yes or no.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Come on Neo answer my question.
Also before you bleat the same old stuff it is not mandatory to carry an ID card in the USA.
Do you wish mandatory ID cards and the powers for police to stop and ask for them?.
It is simply yes or no.


Facial scanners would end th eneed to even stop you at all.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Many ways around them.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
So we are at facial scanners and mandatory Ids that you need to produce on demand.

From the freedom loving folks.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So we are at facial scanners and mandatory Ids that you need to produce on demand.

From the freedom loving folks.


You know, if you address the real issue factually and truthfully...oh wait...you would have nothing left to say...

A police officer has the right to detain a criminal suspect. It has always been that way. That is not trampling constitutional rights n any way, shape, or form. If you are suspect of criminal activity a police officer has the right to ask for identification and detain you for up to 72 hours while they gather and examine evidence. If they find enough to charge you that is what will happen. If they don't, they have to let you go. It has always been that way. And being here illegally IS criminal activity. ILLEGAL = criminal. If you are suspected of criminal activity you can be asked for id and be detained. It happens every single day all over the country and no one complains about it.

Apparently you are ok with it happening to legal citizens for any crime they are suspected of committing but for some reason you seem to think illegal aliens should be given a free pass on that process.

I think it is blatantly clear to everyone by this time that your agenda is far more important to you than our constitution and the rights of law abiding citizens.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
You should have to show ID to purchase anything.


I know of this AWESOME vacation spot for you... North Korea.

You'd fit RIGHT in there.

Derek



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is stop and frisk but with ID's IMO, that is my issue.
And just find all this "you must have ID for anything and everything" hilarious.
I bet if Barry had passed this type of law federally, we would see people calling for a damn military coup for his tyranny.
But since good ole boy Joe does it, it is fine somehow.



Apparently you are ok with it happening to legal citizens for any crime they are suspected of committing but for some reason you seem to think illegal aliens should be given a free pass on that process.

Please don't put words in my mouth, try and find me ever saying that. All I have said is that I don't agree with this law and the thought process used to defend it.


I think it is blatantly clear to everyone by this time that your agenda is far more important to you than our constitution and the rights of law abiding citizens.


Ditto



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is stop and frisk but with ID's IMO, that is my issue.
And just find all this "you must have ID for anything and everything" hilarious.
I bet if Barry had passed this type of law federally, we would see people calling for a damn military coup for his tyranny.
But since good ole boy Joe does it, it is fine somehow.



Apparently you are ok with it happening to legal citizens for any crime they are suspected of committing but for some reason you seem to think illegal aliens should be given a free pass on that process.

Please don't put words in my mouth, try and find me ever saying that. All I have said is that I don't agree with this law and the thought process used to defend it.


I think it is blatantly clear to everyone by this time that your agenda is far more important to you than our constitution and the rights of law abiding citizens.


Ditto


You can have your opinion, just don't mistake it for fact or correctness. It is wrong. You keep skirting the issue. Its not 'ID's required for anything and everything'. Its about a police officer having the right to ask a criminal suspect for identification and to detain them while evidence is being gathered and examined. This is nothing new and is certainly not Sheriff Joe's fault. It has always been that way. Always.

At some point throughout the process of criminal investigation, probably very near to the beginning, I am willing to bet they will want to know who you are. You cant deny that. The first question a cop will ask is. "Do you have an ID?" I don't see how you can even try to argue that. We are not talking about cops just goose step up to people and demanding to see their papers for no reason. Its not the same thing at all. If it ever becomes that, I will be right there with you saying its wrong. But at this point, that is simply not the case.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I can draw conclusions from your statements. It only seems like its an issue when illegal aliens are involved, of if it affects you. When you take a straightforward act of criminal investigation and assert that it is forcing people to produce ID's on demand, leaving out the fact that the request is made as part of a criminal investigation, it sounds like your agenda is speaking louder than you are.

I have nothing personal against you, nor do I wish to. But you post with a signature that says deny ignorance. Then you repeatedly either fail to understand or are determined to ignore the truth.

Honestly, it seems like you enjoy romanticizing the battle against tyranny, without actually having a real battle to fight. Its a very Quixote-esk stance you strike. Tilting at the windmills of imagined tyranny and all that. In the end, its just a cop investigating the possibility of criminal activity. You know, doing his job the same way cops have been doing that job for decades. That's all.

Peace.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Just some clarifying thoughts.

1) All LAWS are meant to be broken.

2) When we want to control behavior, we don't use LAW we use TECHNOLOGY. If you don't want the thief to enter your home, you don't write that down on a piece of paper and stick it on your door. You put a lock on the door.

3) There are no "illegals". Breaking a law does not make a person illegal. Else every American would be illegal. There are enough laws on the books, that every individual has broken some law during his lifetime. There are only "undocumented" persons with "illegal activity".




top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join