Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Go arizona!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    **

    *
    Last edited by BerettaFS92Custom; 08-17-2010 at 08:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    5 of those 11 are untrue, atleast for me here in Texas.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    yes

    **
    Last edited by BerettaFS92Custom; 08-17-2010 at 08:01 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    1. You must only show it if you are pulled over and are operating a vehicle
    2. False. Check the merchant agreements, stores are not allowed to require ID to use credit cards without violating those agreements.
    3. False. Seriously? When was the last time you had to show ID at the doctor's office?
    4. Possibly true, depends. Most of that is due to the patriot act.
    5. True.
    6. False. You can sign up online. Depending on the type of insurance, you may be required to have a driver's license.
    7. I don't know, but I would doubt it.
    8. Semi-true - you only need to show something that has your name and picture, issued by any government agency. It does nothing to support the point this image is trying (but miserably failing) to make.
    9. True, but don't get me started on that BS.
    10. False
    11. False for train, and was false for plane until recently, though it should still be false. Again, more BS, and mostly federal.

    So, you have 2.75 true things, 2.25 semi-true things, 1 thing I'm unaware of, and 5 that are false. Most aren't even AZ specific. Have any point or proof, or just stirring shiat up?

  5. #5
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Just stirring S up...

    The cited card does, but more importantly, Arizona is.

    It is a brash attempt to get the Federal Government to step up to its responsibility.

    hope it works.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232
    ***
    Last edited by BerettaFS92Custom; 08-17-2010 at 08:01 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by BerettaFS92Custom View Post
    i am not the creator of the "card" in my original post .... and i give a rats butt if they are true or false but it sure did stimulate my thinking about not only AZ but about our country in general.

    I do not like big brother but at somepoint get rid of the ACLU and the cry baby leftist liberal shiteheads and get my country back where it was. If the illegals HAD TO PROVE they belonged here by "showing ZE Papers" that is fine by me. I have nothing to hide and if LEO or an agent wanted to see my birth certificate DL or whatever i would be more than happy to do that long as they do not put a tattoo on my forehead or arm. like germany did yes....
    So, let me get this straight, what you are saying is you're fine with being forced to show your papers because you have nothing to hide?

    And how is that different from if a LEO knocks on your door and asks to search you house... I mean you have nothing to hide right?

    Or when you get pulled over for speeding and they ask to look in your trunk.. Oh yeah.. you have nothing to hide.

    What you are saying is that you are fine with giving up your rights to "get your country back". My question is after giving up your rights to you get your country back, is that the kind of country you'd want to live in?

  8. #8
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    I don't have the time to address all the things that are wrong with your post Beretta. So ... suffice it to say that this thread is living on borrowed time.

    Feel free to discuss the merits of border control, immigration's impact on society, etc. But stop throwing around the curse words and generalities.

    Thank you ... your friendly neighborhood administrator.


    John

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The arguments supporting the AZ law actually hurt that cause for two reasons. (1) They incorrectly buy into the "show me your papers" argument against the law, and (2) the lack of civility reflects poorly on those who support the law and the rational arguments they put forth.

    Let me remind everyone that the law does not permit LEOs to demand papers. In order to check the immigration status of a person, first the LEO must have RAS to stop him. Then, only after such a lawful stop, and only if further RAS is developed that the person is an illegal alien may the LEO ask for proof of status. Furthermore, ethnicity or country of origin do not constitute RAS.

    The law was very explicit on these items.

    The only thing that has really changed is how LEOs react once they know that they have an illegal alien on their hands. Before 1070, unless they had another charge to hold the illegal, they had to just turn him loose. Now, once they have lawfully established that the person they have is illegal, they can hold him and turn him over to ICE.

    Once more, I must encourage folks to read 1070 before arguing about it. It's only about 12 pages and is a fairly easy read for a law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Once more, I must encourage folks to read 1070 before arguing about it. It's only about 12 pages and is a fairly easy read for a law. +1

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The arguments supporting the AZ law actually hurt that cause for two reasons. (1) They incorrectly buy into the "show me your papers" argument against the law, and (2) the lack of civility reflects poorly on those who support the law and the rational arguments they put forth.

    Let me remind everyone that the law does not permit LEOs to demand papers. In order to check the immigration status of a person, first the LEO must have RAS to stop him. Then, only after such a lawful stop, and only if further RAS is developed that the person is an illegal alien may the LEO ask for proof of status. Furthermore, ethnicity or country of origin do not constitute RAS.

    The law was very explicit on these items.

    The only thing that has really changed is how LEOs react once they know that they have an illegal alien on their hands. Before 1070, unless they had another charge to hold the illegal, they had to just turn him loose. Now, once they have lawfully established that the person they have is illegal, they can hold him and turn him over to ICE.

    Once more, I must encourage folks to read 1070 before arguing about it. It's only about 12 pages and is a fairly easy read for a law.
    And was largely turned over already in a fairly easy to read opinion. I already tackled the issue of why I thought it was unconstitutional, but I'll quote a specific part of Reitman v. Mulkey:
    We first turn to the opinion of that court in Reitman, which quite properly undertook to examine the constitutionality of 26 in terms of its "immediate objective," its "ultimate effect" and its "historical context and the conditions existing prior to its enactment."
    This means that laws may not be simply evaluated on their facial wording, but must be considered in their totality, to see if the historical context and ultimate effect amounts to a violation of equal protection. You cannot say with any honesty that the historical and legislative discussion related to SB1070 was anything less than an attack on Mexican illegal immigration. Additionally, it's rational to look at the situation there and see the ultimate effect of SB1070 would be a disproportionate checking of papers for those of Hispanic descent. If it can be reasoned that the ultimate effect of the law, supported historically and within the basis of surrounding discussion, amounts to the state engaging in discriminatory action, the law must be found invalid to uphold equal protection.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Let me translate that for you:

    The law says what the court says it does, not what a plain reading of the law passed by legitimate republican means says it does.

    Such judicial activism is putting us on the fast-track to an oligarchy of the wise men in black. I would prefer that we had our Republic back.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    wrong

    ****
    Last edited by BerettaFS92Custom; 08-17-2010 at 08:02 PM. Reason: happy i hope :)

  14. #14
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by BerettaFS92Custom View Post
    the only possible Right i would be giving up is my right not to identify myself all others would remain intact as i am willing to prove i am an American and would is all i said.
    *facepalm*
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Let me translate that for you:

    The law says what the court says it does, not what a plain reading of the law passed by legitimate republican means says it does.

    Such judicial activism is putting us on the fast-track to an oligarchy of the wise men in black. I would prefer that we had our Republic back.
    I'll agree with all of that.

    Tawnos said: And was largely turned over already in a fairly easy to read opinion. I already tackled the issue of why I thought it was unconstitutional, but I'll quote a specific part of Reitman v. Mulkey:
    Reitman v. Mulkey or not, If 1070 is unconstitutional, then so is the federal law. 1070 is practically a carbon copy. The only differences I find is the fact that 1070 clearly prohibits racial profiling and the fed doesn't, also 1070 REQUIRES state law enforcement to check immigration status when immigration status is supect and the feds doesn't. Another thing is that the "Hon." Judge Bolton said she was afraid that the law would lead to racial profiling even though it expressly forbids it. WT? If that ain't judicial activism, it don't exist on the planet.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I'll agree with all of that.



    Reitman v. Mulkey or not, If 1070 is unconstitutional, then so is the federal law. 1070 is practically a carbon copy. The only differences I find is the fact that 1070 clearly prohibits racial profiling and the fed doesn't, also 1070 REQUIRES state law enforcement to check immigration status when immigration status is supect and the feds doesn't. Another thing is that the "Hon." Judge Bolton said she was afraid that the law would lead to racial profiling even though it expressly forbids it. WT? If that ain't judicial activism, it don't exist on the planet.
    What you're saying is untrue on more than one level. First, Arizona makes certain activities which would be civil violations of federal law into criminal violations, thus altering the nature of the law. Second, federal law deals with all illegal immigration, and is not primarily concerned in actual effect with the illegal immigration or enforcement of any specific racial group. The legislative and historical context of 1070 is fraught with Mexiphobia, and the point of Reitman was the regardless of what the law says, if the logical conclusion of enforcement of hte law amounts to racial discrimination, the law itself must be repealed, even if it is not on its face racially discriminatory. Third, the law went further than federal law in requiring officers engage in a pretextual search based on "reasonable" suspicion of illegal status - what criteria exists for that suspicion other than those criteria which are banned from consideration?

    You can read my full analysis of SB170 if you'd like. Much of what I was saying was reflected in the judge's decision, meaning I'm not so far off the mark as you'd like to paint me.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    What double-talk.

    Folks, just read the bill. It is absolutely straight-forward.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What double-talk.

    Folks, just read the bill. It is absolutely straight-forward.
    Yet still violates the constitution. I can write a very straightforward law that does that just as well as Arizona chose to.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Actually, it doesn't. Some lower court had to use convoluted logic to say it does.

    Folks, again, read the bill. Don't take my word or any other poster's word for what it says or does.

  20. #20
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    A gov't that becomes so unbearable can be modified, right?

    The AZ law essentially rescinds the power it originally delegated to the Fed gov't upon entry to the Union.

    Given that the Fed gov't is abusing its delegated power in order to intentionally damage the State in a power play, completely appropriate.

    This decision should be outside the purview of any federal court, if AZ legislators would just put forth a resolution saying as much outright. (which it should). Other States should then pass resolutions supporting AZ's claim. It is time we start holding the Fed gov't accountable.

    This issue concerns me as I've recently come to the conclusion this could be seen as a starting point of real conflict between states and Feds. I have kind of blown it off originally.

    As a matter of fact, my initial reaction was that the AZ law WAS unconstitutional, even though I supported it's intent.

    An alternative idea I had, is to pass State legislation requiring certain conditions be met in order for delegated authority to remain valid. Write it so that certain violations are criminal, but for the most part some sort of liable.

    IANAL and these are opinions.
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 08-18-2010 at 12:04 AM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Actually, it doesn't. Some lower court had to use convoluted logic to say it does.

    Folks, again, read the bill. Don't take my word or any other poster's word for what it says or does.
    Did you read my analysis? I quoted directly from the amended bill, and stated numerous court cases that make it pretty clear that no convoluted logic is needed to see how this falls short of constitutional scrutiny.

  22. #22
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    The AZ law essentially rescinds the power it originally delegated to the Fed gov't upon entry to the Union.
    No it does not.

    Art.I, Sec.8 of the U.S. Constitution

    The Congress shall have Power..........To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

    This is for the application to make someone a naturalized citizen only.

    However; Art.IV, Sec.4.

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;.....
    It does not define what an invasion consists of and if this does not meet the criteria for an invasion then there is no such thing as invasion. Nor does it say it must be an invasion force by military or other armed forces.

    If the feds refuse to do their part, why can't AZ take it upon themselves to do it for them?

  23. #23
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    I'm confused. If AZ starts defending it's borders, it would be doing the job originally delegated to the US in ArtIV sec 4 as you posted. Unless they were contracted by the US to do so wouldn't AZ be reclaiming that power?

    Or is the illegal immigration issue not severe enough to call it an invasion?
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 08-18-2010 at 06:32 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  24. #24
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    I'm confused. If AZ starts defending it's borders, it would be doing the job originally delegated to the US in ArtIV sec 4 as you posted. Unless they were contracted by the US to do so wouldn't AZ be reclaiming that power?

    Or is the illegal immigration issue not severe enough to call it an invasion?
    AZ has always had the right to defend it's border. There is no reclaimation of power. Art.IV, Sec.4 says the feds SHALL defend AZ and all other states against invasion.

    The power is not delegated, it is demanded, think "shall issue" as in concealed permits. The feds have not acted accordingly, so AZ can and should defend it's own border. Az, Tx, NM, Ca, and all other states that have an over abundance of illegal immigrants should file suit on the feds for failing to perform it's duty.

    If 11,000 people a day (IIRC) is not an invasion, I want someone to tell me how many it takes.

  25. #25
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    I agree they should protect their border.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

Posting Permissions

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