• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.


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:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
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.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.

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.

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:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
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?
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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...
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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:

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
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.
 
Top