Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Poll: Two-Thirds of American Voters Want Arizona-Like Immigration Check Laws

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Poll: Two-Thirds of American Voters Want Arizona-Like Immigration Check Laws

    Article.

    Even Hispanics want them, with a 55 to 41 margin.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    It's sad. We used to refer disparagingly to Nazi Germany and its "papers, please" mentality. Now we have a majority of our citizens not only supporting, but demanding these checks come to America.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    It's sad. We used to refer disparagingly to Nazi Germany and its "papers, please" mentality. Now we have a majority of our citizens not only supporting, but demanding these checks come to America.
    Indeed! We should be talking about the misapplication of law as it pertains to private travel versus commerce. No one needs paperwork to travel privately in a free country!!!

    From the article...
    "The latest The Washington Times/JZ Analytics survey, released Monday night, found about two-thirds of all likely voters would like to see their own police be able to check status during routine traffic stops."

    These illegal aliens shouldn't be stopped(or anyone else) for a traffic violation in the first dang place unless there is evidence they're involved in commerce.

    What the hell are we doing now?! Using the invasive "papers please" BS to enforce a problem our government is creating. Geeezz, we sheeple just can't give away freedom fast enough.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 07-10-2012 at 07:29 PM.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    [QUOTE=Tawnos;1785621]It's sad. We used to refer disparagingly to Nazi Germany and its "papers, please" mentality.[/quote[

    Travel was severely restricted, tightly controlled, and heavily inspected throughout Nazi Germany.

    Travel throughout the U.S. has no such impediments -- U.S. Constitution, Article. IV, Section. 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." That and the 4th,

    Now we have a majority of our citizens not only supporting, but demanding these checks come to America.
    The checks we seek are for securing our external borders, not for infringing on the free travel we enjoy throughout the United States.


    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    These illegal aliens shouldn't be stopped(or anyone else) for a traffic violation in the first dang place unless there is evidence they're involved in commerce.
    Commerce has nothing to do with a traffic stop. Cops make traffic stops on the basis of traffic violations i.e. running a red light, failure to signal, etc.

    Geeezz, we sheeple just can't give away freedom fast enough.
    If I'm pulled over for running a red light, I have no problem with law enforcement running my drivers license to see that I'm indeed legally authorized to be in this country by virtue of being a natural-born citizen. I'm proud of it, too! I have absolutely no problem with the law enforcement officer carting away a criminal, illegal alien, or bail jumper in handcuffs, either.

    We have laws for a reason. When people break them, there are consequences, also for a reason. Being in the country illegally is ... illegal. Illegal aliens are ... illegal. They are breaking our laws, and there are consequences to breaking laws.
    Last edited by since9; 07-11-2012 at 01:48 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post

    The checks we seek are for securing our external borders, not for infringing on the free travel we enjoy throughout the United States.
    The article contradicts what you're claiming. It says, specifically, that the people say they want this during detention (which includes, but is not limited to, routine traffic stops).
    Last edited by Tawnos; 07-11-2012 at 02:52 AM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  6. #6
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    I keep hearing about illegal immigrants who join the U.S. military.

    How exactly does that happen?


    P.S. This law will not cause me to get asked for my "papers please" anymore than already done so.

    I'm required to show my driver's license if stopped for a traffic violation and my social security card if being hired for a job. If you're truly against "papers please" then work to repeal those two laws.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    The article contradicts what you're claiming. It says, specifically, that the people say they want this during detention (which includes, but is not limited to, routine traffic stops).

    I missed something. I'm not required to show ID in AZ if I'm stopped by the police and am not driving ......... unless I'm suspected of being an illegal immigrant.

    ARS 13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

    A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

    B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    SNIP


    Commerce has nothing to do with a traffic stop. Cops make traffic stops on the basis of traffic violations i.e. running a red light, failure to signal, etc.
    No it doesn't and I didn't say it did. I said the only way an agent of a state has legal authority in a Republic to make a traffic stop is if there is evidence the violator is engaged in commerce. Unfortunately, we've allowed our states overstep their authority by licensing our right to travel by private conveyance through some slick distortion of administrative law. I don't intend to hijack your thread with a lot of detail about this so here's my point.

    We should not be allowing police to stop us and "check our papers" because we should not be required to have such papers in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    If I'm pulled over for running a red light, I have no problem with law enforcement running my drivers license to see that I'm indeed legally authorized to be in this country by virtue of being a natural-born citizen. I'm proud of it, too! I have absolutely no problem with the law enforcement officer carting away a criminal, illegal alien, or bail jumper in handcuffs, either.
    Well, you should have a problem with them pulling you over in the first place. For me it's getting harder and harder to be proud to be an American when we Americans continue to scream for government intervention.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    We have laws for a reason. When people break them, there are consequences, also for a reason. Being in the country illegally is ... illegal. Illegal aliens are ... illegal. They are breaking our laws, and there are consequences to breaking laws.
    Yes we do and there are ways to deal with illegal immigration that are not intrusive to the legal citizen AND within the constitutional power of the state/fed.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 07-11-2012 at 01:18 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    I keep hearing about illegal immigrants who join the U.S. military.

    How exactly does that happen?


    P.S. This law will not cause me to get asked for my "papers please" anymore than already done so.

    I'm required to show my driver's license if stopped for a traffic violation and my social security card if being hired for a job. If you're truly against "papers please" then work to repeal those two laws.
    I disagree with requiring both of those cases. However, there's a fundamental difference between the requiring a driver's license case and asking to prove citizenship as part of a "routine" detention. One, we have no Supreme Court-level decision affirming the right to travel on public conveyance using an automobile outside of legislative control (to some degree I think we should, but that's a different conversation). Two, we do have SC-level decisions affirming the right to be free from having to identify yourself outside of very specific circumstances, and even those circumstances only allow for requiring your name (Hiibel v. Nevada, Brown v. Texas, and in relation to vagueness related to criteria for identifying a person suspected of being an illegal immigrant (something which I would strongly argue the remaining part of Arizona's law will fall to), Papachristou v. Jacksonville).
    Last edited by Tawnos; 07-11-2012 at 01:22 PM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    I disagree with requiring both of those cases. However, there's a fundamental difference between the requiring a driver's license case and asking to prove citizenship as part of a "routine" detention. One, we have no Supreme Court-level decision affirming the right to travel on public conveyance using an automobile outside of legislative control (to some degree I think we should, but that's a different conversation). Two, we do have SC-level decisions affirming the right to be free from having to identify yourself outside of very specific circumstances, and even those circumstances only allow for requiring your name (Hiibel v. Nevada, Brown v. Texas, and in relation to vagueness related to criteria for identifying a person suspected of being an illegal immigrant (something which I would strongly argue the remaining part of Arizona's law will fall to), Papachristou v. Jacksonville).
    Wow, so they changed the law to make it part of a routine detention now? What happened to all the other things that were required before running the check? Did they take those out of the law?

    Or are you doing what so many others are doing and forgetting about the rest of the law and the requirements listed in it before running that check?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk001 View Post
    Wow, so they changed the law to make it part of a routine detention now? What happened to all the other things that were required before running the check? Did they take those out of the law?

    Or are you doing what so many others are doing and forgetting about the rest of the law and the requirements listed in it before running that check?
    You should look at Papachristou v. Jacksonville and the cases it cites. I think Arizona's law will fall under the same vagueness criteria, as there is no objective articulable standard by which a officer can reasonably suspect that a person is an alien and unlawfully present during a routine "stop, detention, or arrest".

    Another aspect of the ordinance's vagueness appears when we focus not on the lack of notice given a potential offender, but on the effect of the unfettered discretion it places in the hands of the Jacksonville police. Caleb Foote, an early student of this subject, has called the vagrancy-type law as offering "punishment by analogy." Id. at 609. Such crimes, though long common in Russia, [Footnote 12] are not compatible with our constitutional system.
    I will change my opinion about this if you can give me objective, articulable criteria by which a detained person could reasonably be suspected to be an illegal immigrant. Until that time, the only criteria I can think of are ones specifically called out as unlawful, or those at the discretion of the police officer's personal views and biases.

    Edit: also, there's no change:
    For any lawful stop, detention or arrest 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 in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person...
    Last edited by Tawnos; 07-11-2012 at 04:40 PM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    I keep hearing about illegal immigrants who join the U.S. military.

    How exactly does that happen?


    P.S. This law will not cause me to get asked for my "papers please" anymore than already done so.

    I'm required to show my driver's license if stopped for a traffic violation and my social security card if being hired for a job. If you're truly against "papers please" then work to repeal those two laws.
    Gaining U.S. citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces has been a path to citizenship for at least 50 years. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has streamlined the application and naturalization process for military personnel serving on active-duty or recently discharged. Generally, qualifying service is in one of the following branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, certain reserve components of the National Guard and the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve.

    Qualifications:

    A member of the U.S. Armed Forces must meet certain requirements and qualifications to become a citizen of the United States. This includes demonstrating:

    Good moral character

    Knowledge of the English language;

    Knowledge of U.S. government and history (civics);

    and Attachment to the United States by taking an Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.

    Qualified members of the U.S. Armed Forces are exempt from other naturalization requirements, including residency and physical presence in the United States. These exceptions are listed in Sections 328 and 329 of the INA.

    All aspects of the naturalization process, including applications, interviews and ceremonies are available overseas to members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

    An individual who obtains U.S. citizenship through his or her military service and separates from the military under "other than honorable conditions" before completing five years of honorable service may have his or her citizenship revoked
    That's pretty-much the "how", and the why should be self-explanatory - they volunteered to serve the country. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    I didn't get that this thread was about AZ's Immigration Law... the heading statement is that a poll result says that "Two-Thirds of American Voters WANT Arizona-Like Immigration Check Laws" (emphasis added). Inasmuch as AZ's Immigration Law is a virtual carbon copy of the Federal Statute - which the Fed's refuse to enforce - it was not the AZ law itself which was struck down by SCOTUS. Rather, it was AZ's Constitutional authority to enforce said law which was invalidated (since to invalidate the AZ law would also invalidate the Federal Statute).

    I think the crux of the matter is that two-thirds of American Voters believe that our sovereign borders are made of Swiss cheese, that the Border Patrol Agents are suffering from the chilling effect of the Campeon-Ramos political imprisonment debacle, and that DHS says to "run away and hide if fired upon". If that is what 66% of American voters want, that's fine... however, neither polls nor citizen "wants" make laws, and politicians do. Politicians will introduce bills and propose laws that move in whichever direction the political winds are blowing in their home state. Key words - HOME STATE. The Representatives and Senators from Kansas couldn't give a RRRR about what the folks in Georgia, Utah or Kalifornia think. If 66% of Kansas voters aren't for it, the pols will vote against such legislation every time. There may be a handful of elected representatives in D.C., who really GAS about what is best for the country, but the country doesn't vote them into office. That's the function of their limited constituency, which is the only group politicians feel any need to satisfy. Just my thoughts on the matter. Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 07-11-2012 at 09:05 PM. Reason: Close parens
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    I think a more accurate statement would be to say that x% of Americans support the basic concept of not ignoring/overlooking immigration status during an otherwise lawful RAS (of another crime) stop. If the LEO has RAS to demand ID (vehicle stop, traffic violation, subject is the driver), then I am agreeable to verifying Immigration Status at that point. But not before then.

    I think, if properly explained to the same survey participants, I think very few people would support use of something like this to circumvent Terry requirements. The opportunity for abuse is so clear in that scenario, I think we all know better than that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •