• 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.

Go arizona!

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
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?
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
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.
 

kootsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
63
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
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?
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
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
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,520
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,662
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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:
Top