Video of 1st arrest in regards to AZ immigration bill..

I don't agree with having to have "papers".. Shouldn't state ID be good enough?

I don't know why they didn't just admit they always had the power to do this in Arizona. Cops question suspect, find probable cause, call border patrol. Didn't need a national poopstorm but I guess it was good for Brewers' poll numbers.

Funny, we only hear from someone not involved, and if she had a state liscense, from any state, she wouldn't have been arrested.....just more spin.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


She had a 2008 traffic citation, I don't know any way to get a traffic citation without having a drivers license.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


aries own a papers?
sorry, spelling may be off...

arizona papers?


why not just change the name of the state to: New New Mexico?

might save us tax dollars, considering what we are spending tax dollars on.

why not just put people in jail who can't speak the language, instead of those who don't have their dog pound documentation to prove that they have recieved their federal/state immunization shots?

it should be easier to determine who has the mexican cooties by those who refuse to speak the english language.

need the ratings for news and reasons to elect and re-elect new law makers? create drama that others will buy into, cause a reason, wag the dog....

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Funny, we only hear from someone not involved, and if she had a state liscense, from any state, she wouldn't have been arrested.....just more spin.

Yes, and standing there with a camcorder and a card for an attorney in her pocket, Sounds like a setup to me.
You're correct. if she had a D/Lic on her person, no problems, unless of-course she had a Bench Warrant out for her, for that 2008 ticket.
Even if she didn't have proof of insurance you only get ticketed.

Plus this was in Tucson, one of our more Liberal and illegal friendly cities here in Arizona.

Edit to say Sorry Double Post.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by guohua]

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

She had a 2008 traffic citation, I don't know any way to get a traffic citation without having a drivers license.

In 2008 and in Tucson
They would have gave an illegal a ticket for a unauthorized license issued from Mexico or a license that was altered.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by guohua]

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Could it possibly have been a citation for no valid liscense? I mean you can get a ticket for that..........that right there would be a red flag would it not?

Originally posted by guohua
Yes, and standing there with a camcorder and a card for an attorney in her pocket

, Sounds like a setup to me.

You're confusing the person being interviewed with the woman being arrested.

You're correct. if she had a D/Lic on her person, no problems, unless of-course she had a Bench Warrant out for her, for that 2008 ticket.

The Arizona law demanded that immigrants carry their immigration documents, drivers license was not sufficient. However that part of the law has been blocked and this arrest was not made by the Police. This arrest was made by the border patrol under normal federal law.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


I didnt hear anything in there that said that she had state ID. If she is a legal alien, from ANY country, Canada for instance, they are required to carry their papers on them at all times. Why do Mexicans feel they are special in this regard?

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by guohua
Yes, and standing there with a camcorder and a card for an attorney in her pocket

, Sounds like a setup to me.

You're confusing the person being interviewed with the woman being arrested.

I think what he means is that both people could be in on the set up, one gets arrested while the other films, and later someone from higher up gets the arrested one released. She does get into the van with very little resistance, just a possibility.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by filosophia]

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Some thing you fail to understand.
You need immigration documentation such as G/Card Passport with Visa stamp for extended stay ( you can get a visa now that allows you to stay for one year ) a passport and a International drivers license which is recognized in most counties except, China and a few others.
All of that is considered valid I.D. and you can get a D/Lic.

The woman being interviewed, was not the woman being arrested. But she had a business card for a attorney right there on her person.

I supposed you noticed how she explained Why, she was being arrested, suppose you also noticed she didn't mention weather the girl had a valid D/Lic or not.
I suppose you noticed how she made it very clear she had the names of the Police involved.
Come on people Wake Up, this is a setup.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by guohua]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by guohua]

Is there another source for this, or longer more elaborate video, can't really form an opinion of this alone :/

Second Line

reply to post by rangersdad


I don't think that's right. It was one of the provisions that the judge blocked because it conflicted with Federal immigration law. There's no federal requirement for immigrants to carry their immigration documents.

reply to post by guohua


It could be a setup, or it could just be an annoying fat chick who makes everybody's business her own. There's a lot of them.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


She was stopped in her car after breaking the driving law, she was caught, asked for her driver licence, done a backround check, they found discrepancies, she is taken in. There was never an inability for police officers to do this, and I do not think the Arizona law prior to its changes made any difference to the fact of traffic stops... neither do I think that was the case for the law. Whats more she got the chance to ask for her lawyer. These police officers did not stop her while she walking down the road minding her own business, or something in that nature. That is what the Arizona law intended to push and Im sorry, no american citizen or legal immigrant should be required to carry papers with them everywhere. They are not second class citizens but this law intended just that, regardless of what excuses the advocates continue to make.

I was watching a while back a documentary on illegal immigration and the fence that was built in San Diego. There were many californians who complained about the fence saying it forced illegal immigrants to risk their lives through the deserts. Its in this case that I side with conservatives and others in that we should in no way tolerate this. Its unfair to the legal immigrants who have to go through all the channels, all the effort, to become US citizens, but at the same time nobody should have to be required to carry papers or ID everywhere they go, period. Driving is a privilege, walking or minding your own business in your house is not.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I don't know why they didn't just admit they always had the power to do this in Arizona.

Exactly! But I trust you already know the answer to this.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Yeah! Southern Guardian gets it!

This is how the law is supposed to work. This is what they were always able to do in Arizona.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by rangersdad

 

I don't think that's right. It was one of the provisions that the judge blocked because it conflicted with Federal immigration law. There's no federal requirement for immigrants to carry their immigration documents.

I have a friend and when she immigrated from Canada to the USA she had to carry her passport and whatever other papers were required of her until she became a citizen of the USA. Its not against the law to ask immigrants to carry passports while you are in this country. It makes sense even, unless of course you are here illegally or doing something illegal.