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.

 

Illegal or Immigrant and Double Standard

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


I don't know about you, but some don't like being hassled by police. If you read this board you will see that there is an overwhelming resentment towards police powers as it is, and you want to willingly give them even more authority?




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 


We are the only country who is expected to have open borders. Try traipsing into Mexico and see what it gets you. Everyone talks open borders trash when it only applies to the United States.


Well here's what you could expect.

An American’s Lament: ‘I Was Deported, Too’

I like this part:


Not one to be told what to do, Crash stayed in the United States about 15 minutes, he said. He then walked back across into Tijuana and, as is the case with most Americans, no official asked him for identification to get in.


Can we stop with the BS.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

Where I live (you too, as a matter of fact) police have always been able to ask for identification. How are they getting power they never had?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 


They used to have to have a valid reason for asking for your identification. If they didn't have one, you don't have to give it to them. Now just having a good tan is reason enough for the police to take your papers.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
another thing not mentioned thus far in this discussion
is those LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who aid those coming
across the border. If you aid an illegal, then you
are also in violation of the law and you are a criminal
too.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Can you please show, and highlight, the portion of the law that allows the police to stop anybody and ask for identification?

As I have read it, the police need to have already detained you for a crime before they can ask for identification.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


You know quite well that the law does not say anywhere that a cop can just come up to you with no reason and ask you for your papers.

You also know that there is no law that allows cops to slap, beat, shake down and plant some dope on someone they want to mess with, but it happens.

Just cause the law says something doesn't mean that's the way things will get done.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by whatukno
 


Can you please show, and highlight, the portion of the law that allows the police to stop anybody and ask for identification?

As I have read it, the police need to have already detained you for a crime before they can ask for identification.


Then can you explain the point of the law to me? Cops already have to ask for ID when detaining you for a crime so what does this bill do?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Agreed! Those who aid, employ and harbor illegal aliens need to be caught and prosecuted! If they truly wanted to help with immigration they would encourage a lawful way to gain entry into this country.

I know that Mexico has a low standard of living. I know that there are opportunities here in the states even given the current economy. I also know there are right and wrong ways to avail oneself of those opportunities. My grandparents figured it out. It's not easy, I won't say it is, but to do it lawfully is definitely worth it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Then by your standards we should have no laws. Why, because there will always be some one that abuses it...your arguement is pretty poor.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


I didn't say their shouldn't be any laws. Just that you should not ask for people, who are worried that a law may lead to abuse, to point out something that everyone knows isn't there.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


The point of the law is to allow the state police to do a job the federal government is neglecting.

If the feds had just done what they are supposed to do, by their own laws!, there would never have been a need for Arizona's law in the first place.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


The point of the law is to allow the state police to do a job the federal government is neglecting.


No, I want a real answer. How does it help them do that? If it only allows them to check ID in cases where they were already required to check ID anyway?


If the feds had just done what they are supposed to do, by their own laws!, there would never have been a need for Arizona's law in the first place.


Every time I try to ask this I get empty rhetoric. The politicians love folks like you. You just repeat things you hear without understanding them.

Before the AZ bill, cops were required to check ID on anyone detained for a crime.

After the AZ bill, cops can check ID of anyone detained for a crime.

Now in real terms with a real answer, explain to me what the AZ bill does to help again? You do know that here in NY, the cops are also required to check ID on anyone they detain? Why do you suppose no one is freaking out about that here? Please try again.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Any and all laws can, will, and are broken and abused. So I stand by my earlier remarks.

To use that arguement only for laws that you don't support is weak.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 

I don't like wikipedia but it is the only site I found with all states listed that have this law.
Stop and Identify Law



States with “stop and identify” statutes There is no federal law requiring that an individual identify herself during a Terry stop. Hiibel merely established that states and localities have the power to require people to identify themselves under those conditions. As of 2009, the following 24 states have “stop and identify” laws, sometimes incorporating them into their loitering and prowling statutes (Florida as an example):

Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering statute)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2
New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1 Utah
Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24


No Right To Keep Names From Police


WASHINGTON June 21, 2004 ? The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names. The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.



So far 24 states have a stop and identify law.

Edited to fix spacing in state list.
2nd Edit, more spacing issues.

[edit on 7/7/2010 by SeenMyShare]

[edit on 7/7/2010 by SeenMyShare]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


I am not for or against the law. I just don't like people saying "point out the part in the law that says" knowing that it isn't there.

You said "Any and all laws can, will, and are broken and abused."

Well, so can this one even if no one can highlight the part. If it's true what's wrong with saying it?


[edit on 7-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
K J Gunderson


Just have to make me work don't ya
.

www.azleg.gov...

Please read Article 8, C-F.

Basically it gives the state police the ability to force the issue with the local ICE office.

I think that the ideas is if enough state police start dumping illegals into ICE facilities, it will force ICE to do SOMETHING.

Also, if you go to page 7, Sec. 6. Section 23-212, it gives the state police the right to charge employers that are knowingly employing illegals.

Both of these were federal only before, where they not?

SeenMyShare

I am only interested in this as a Canadian that has family in Arizona. I apologize for not being 100% up to snuff on the rest of the United States.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Apologies not needed Peck420. I am open to education from all fronts and truly appreciate your input.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

This is only my opinion and is not a statement of fact and as such there is no source.
I feel that the paperwork involved is too time consuming for most police officers to be bothered with turning the illegals over to the immigration authorities, and the immigration authorities don't really want the paper work or the hassle either.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The thing I don't understand at all about this whole mess is this:

Wouldn't the federal government be happy if the states took control of illegal immigration?

Wouldn't it make the states financially responsible?

Or would the feds still have to pay for it?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join