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.

 

ACLU issues travel alerts for Arizona

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mooseinhisglory
 


You two?? So I am lumped in with another man .. Only because we dont agree with you?? Pathetic!!!!

Its a problem ... They dont obey the law...Kill a few of them and they will get the hint... Do it legally or GET THE F OUT!!! End of story.. any other argument is baseless and weak!




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mooseinhisglory
 


Weak argument.. All of the people ... Or a good amjority are only worried about getting out .. they forget their heritage...
I bet their GDP is smuggling supplies! Wake up my friend.. They are abandoning ship like rats.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I only read the first two pages before posting, so if this has been brought up then excuse please . . .

I live in AZ and I can tell you that the only "random" stops you will be encountering in AZ (aside from the usual holiday DUI checkpoints that every state has) are run by the federal government. What's that sigh of disbelief from the ACLU nutjobs? Yes, the Feds have about 6 checkpoints on various HWY's . . . as they do in CA, as well. These are border patrol checkpoints (nowhere near the border) looking for drugs and illegals!!

What . . . crickets . . . Where is the ACLU and La Raza outrage at CA and AZ running BP checkpoints as much as 160-200 miles from the US-Mex border? Why no protests about the harrasment of individuals driving on the interstates.

OH . . . that's right . . . because they know everyone will laugh at their ascertion that it's "unconstitutional" and "racist".

I just travelled to one the the cities boycotting AZ . . . Beautiful San Diego. There and back went through a total of 6 (3 in CA and 3 in AZ). Each time I had to state my citizenship, from, to, and plans . . . pop my trunk and let dogs walk around the car.

Phoenix PD isn't doing this . . .

Please every other state and ACLU . . . Save these poor immigrants from us bastards in AZ, who harass them constanly . . .


You people in other states need to stop believing what you read in the papers and what Latino special interest groups cry about.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


You would do better to have said that to a brick wall.

Nothing on your post mind you, it was well written and thought out. The problem is that there are those who chose to remain unintelligent and flat out stupid. These are the people who scream racism every time someone disagrees with someone of another race and those who scream the same when a good law is actually passed.

As I said in another post if it were truly unconstitutional, the Federal government would not be suing AZ they would just shoot down the law as such. The funny thing is the DC cannot touch the law because it is very much the same as the federal law already on the books. I hope more states follow AZ.

Raist



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


They are not doing random stops.
They have to stop you for some other reason, lik a car full of illegal looking aliens.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Don't worry Raist . . . I certainly didn't think I would touch the hearts and minds of the mindless propaganda drones.


I certainly don't expect this nation's citizens to use their minds . . . Hell, even in AZ you can't get through to the apologists. They're too far washed.

It's funny you say that the AZ law "almost" mirrors the federal law . . . You know where they differ? The Feds can actually "harass" anyone they want without cause . . . In AZ, the LEO's can't. (But, AZ's law is "racist" . . . and the Fed's aren't . . . seems the very people protesting the law are cozying up to the wrong agencies. Maybe, this is the Fed's plan. Trick them into thinking they are the good guys, right before they round them all up and stick them in camps!!)



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 

How do you profile yourself?



I have to wonder with 47% of the police forces in Arizona racially being Hispanic...... Just how do you profile yourself? You know someone who looks like you. Sounds tough and being a police officer is tough enough as it is.

Robert A Heinlein: He is one of those people who will be much improved upon death.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Warning: Last Chance to donate money for next 400 miles.


I noticed that on the day the Governor signed SB1070, Human Rights Watch held a news conference in San Francisco and stated that the Arizona Law violated a 1994 UN Treaty banning racism for individuals who were citizens of any nation. I am sure the HRW attorneys knew the US withdrew from that treaty in 2002 but issued a news bulletin anyway as "it is such a good money maker" and after all isn't that what this is all about.

If it was about human rights HRW would be having news conferences about all the crimes against women and children in Mexico since most of the men left. I mean isn't rape, robbery, murder and vivisection and sale of your body organs at least as important as an ID check.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingpaddy
reply to post by solomons path
 


Warning: Last Chance to donate money for next 400 miles.


Arizona Law violated a 1994 UN Treaty banning racism for individuals who were citizens of any nation. I am sure the HRW attorneys knew the US withdrew from that treaty in 2002

Wait , what? how do you ban thought?? I don't agree with racism, but you can't pre-judge people whose idea's differ. regardless of wether or not you agree with their thought. I have never before said this but F the UN, if a person wants to be a small minded racist bigot , its his call and in America, where we see the best and most useful parts of our population, the bigots will fall by the way side, not because of rules or laws, but because of common sense. Racists employee's are bad for the company. Seriously, F the UN, sorry for being late to the fight against the UN



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingpaddy
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 

How do you profile yourself?



I have to wonder with 47% of the police forces in Arizona racially being Hispanic...... Just how do you profile yourself? You know someone who looks like you. Sounds tough and being a police officer is tough enough as it is.

Robert A Heinlein: He is one of those people who will be much improved upon death.


Sorry. The correct answer was 1988. Robert A Heinlein died in 1988.



[edit on 7/2/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
I can tell you where it will end up. AZ being right.


If the law were anything but legal the Feds would not be attempting to sue them they would declare the law unconstitutional.



Er, well, technically...

The "Feds" don't control what is declared constitutional or unconstitutional. The courts do. How does one get the courts' attention? Bring suit. Pretty much exactly why the federal government is bringing suit--so the courts can decide.

It's pretty much a test case per se, a case to set precedent in our current times, though in this case, it's a test case being brought forward directly by the government instead of indirectly via a citizen (a la Miranda).



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Since reading the law itself is so hard for some people, here it is from the horses mouth. This guy co-wrote the law and he knows it as well as anyone else:




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are

Just a heads up to those who might have a need to know. I wonder where all this will actually wind up. Fed lawsuit and all. I understand the need for border security, especially in these strange days, but the Arizona law is IMHO a slap in the face to all Americans. Head to Cedar Point or Six Flags or something. Arizona is a toxic place to be right now.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7/1/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]


I DO NOT understand why you have a problem with this state law when it Is Already a nationwide Federal Law.


But Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other state officials say the law is necessary because of the increasing number of people illegally entering the state from Mexico. In addition, Brewer has said the law does not target an individual's specific ethnicity.

"It wouldn't matter if you are Latino or Hispanic or Norwegian," she said last month. "If you didn't have proof of citizenship and the police officer had reasonable suspicion, he would ask and verify your citizenship. I mean, that's the way that it is. That's what the federal law says. And that's what the law in Arizona says."


No matter where you are in the USA, if a cop asks you for your ID you are required to show it to him.. in fact, you are required to carry legal ID at all times as an American.

This is the same law that's already supported at the Federal level and has been for years. It is really No Big Deal that the state has this law because it can be enforced from the federal law anyway.

To say this law is a slap in the face to Americans (Who Must already obey the Federal Law) is Just Stupid.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


i think the reason you are so upset with my answers is because you believe i think illegal immigration is "ok."

i dont. i think that our leaders and business owners make decisions that exacerbate the problems on a daily bases, which is why im advocating for policy change, not just violence.

and i said "you two" because i use a laptop and going back and forth to post "reply to" for both of you is a pain in the arse. you guys both respnded to one of my answers, so yes, i in the name of simplicity, i will lump you two together for one post.

we are simply arguing on perspectives of history and non-violence vs violence. this as nothing to do with the thread, and from my life experience, arguing ideals is a complete waste of time. all i wanted to do was state my point, and ended up having to justify it to a few people here. honestly, i dont have to. like i said, do what you want. ill try do my part to fix this problem by peaceful means, and you can go shoot some "illegals" up. i cant convince you that its a bad idea, even though i think it is, and you cant convince me that peace is unattainable.

that being said, i do appreciate and value your opinions. i believe its important to learn why others feel and act the way they do, and strive for common ground.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   


No matter where you are in the USA, if a cop asks you for your ID you are required to show it to him.. in fact, you are required to carry legal ID at all times as an American.

This is the same law that's already supported at the Federal level and has been for years. It is really No Big Deal that the state has this law because it can be enforced from the federal law anyway.

To say this law is a slap in the face to Americans (Who Must already obey the Federal Law) is Just Stupid.


flexyourrights.org...

"Frequently Asked Questions - ID"

"When do I have to show police my ID?"

"This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind."

"Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required if you’re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly."

"From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves."

"As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity."

"But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You could do this by saying "Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions."

Sorry. The correct answer was:
"In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind."




[edit on 7/2/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
P.S.

I started a thread on this issue back in April:

"Papers Please! (Papiere bitte!)"
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 





Sorry. The correct answer was:
"In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind."



Where do you get your information? My wife is a legal immigrant with a green card, and she is required to have it available for any authority who might want to see it. My wife's sister also lives with me and has a student visa. She also has the same requirement with her papers. Legal immigrants have papers, illegal immigrants do not. Even myself, a natural born citizen, must have identification available upon request by authorities. If I do not, and a law enforcement offical wants to see my id, they will detain me until they figure out who I am. I know this, because it happened to me. I've been to many countries, and the same is true there. In Japan, for example, I had to have my "gaijin card' ready to go if someone in authority wanted to see it.

edit for sloppy spelling

[edit on 2-7-2010 by tamusan]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 





Sorry. The correct answer was:
"In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind."



Where do you get your information? My wife is a legal immigrant with a green card, and she is required to have it available for any authority who might want to see it. My wife's sister also lives with me and has a student visa. She also has the same requirement with her papers. Legal immigrants have papers, illegal immigrants do not. Even myself, a natural born citizen, must have identification available upon request by authorities. If I do not, and a law enforcement offical wants to see my id, they will detain me until they figure out who I am. I know this, because it happened to me. I've been to many countries, and the same is true there. In Japan, for example, I had to have my "gaijin card' ready to go if someone in authority wanted to see it.

edit for sloppy spelling

[edit on 2-7-2010 by tamusan]


answers.yahoo.com...
"First, what the United States Supreme Court said. What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet."

"Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada"
en.wikipedia.org...

"On the evening of May 21, 2000, the sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada received a report that a man had assaulted a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. The responding deputy found a truck parked on the side of the road. A man was smoking a cigarette beside the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The deputy observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe the vehicle had come to a sudden stop."

"The deputy explained to the man that there had been a report of a fight between the man and the young woman, and asked the man if he had any identification on him. The man protested that he had no reason to provide identification, and became ill-tempered when the deputy continued to press him for his identification. The man then asked the deputy what crime he was being accused of, as the deputy continued his requests for identification, stating that he was “conducting an investigation”. The man persisted in his refusal to provide identification, asking instead to be handcuffed and taken to jail. The deputy continued to ask for the man’s identification, stating that the man would face arrest if he did not cooperate and provide identification.[3] In response, the man declared he would not cooperate because he had not committed any crime. He then turned around and was arrested by the deputy."

"3. ^ From the opinion of the Nevada Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., as well as the State of Nevada’s brief to the Supreme Court (Brief for Respondent, p. 4), the Court understood the statute to require only that the suspect state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means. The majority opinion noted that Hiibel was asked to provide identification, which the Court understood as a request to produce a driver’s license or some other form of written identification, 11 different times; however, it did not indicate that Hiibel was ever asked simply to identify himself"


[edit on 7/3/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Also:


"Is it a law that you have to carry state ID with you at all times?"
Read more: www.letsrun.com...

"The supreme court ruled in Kolender v. Lawson that a law requiring persons to carry "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity, and that provides "means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." was unconstitutional."

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 7/3/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


These cases of course apply to U.S. citizens. ID requirements for immigrants are as you described in your post.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join