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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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...
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.
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