quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well good for you and your parents.....aren't you guys special.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.
Popeye the failure of the Fed does not mean Arizona can violate the Constitution nor take us farther down an Orwellian rabbit hole.
smutmonger your use of "wetback" as far as I'm concerned excludes you from intelligent conversation....bye bye.
Yes jack the future will be very interesting.....if Arizona is any example very scary too.It is amazing that the same voices that scream unconstitutionality where health care if concerned are totally cool with this incursion of civil liberties....I guess the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is inviolate only when they feel threatened.
Pretty much on the mark Orpheus....how many more Sheriff Joe's will this stupid legislation turn into cult hero's for the incredibly dumb and stupid crowd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.

So stopping every 4th car regardless who is in it and asking for proof of citizenship would be okay?

A broader question - Which laws do you feel should be selectively enforced? There is a established law concerning the legal right to be in this country. Why shouldn't the law be enforced? Why this law versus others?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250



Gee Mike, it 's kind of hard to tell a Kenyon and a Hawaiian apart come to think of it!
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
If I were in Arizona and the police asked me for my identification because I had out of state plates and I was near the border or anywhere else in the state I'd produce it! What's the problem? I wouldn't feel like my rights were being trampled on. "You want to see my Veteran's Administration i.d. too Officer?" I know a few police officers and *they need to know who people are* to do their jobs!
They can ask anyone for their i.d., I think that's already been settled in court.
And that border is out of control and needs to be militarized.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WolfeTone

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well good for you and your parents.....aren't you guys special.

Excuse me mate? I see a lot of people making a commotion that ID would have to shown. Oh no. Imagine your passport reading "Northern Ireland" when traveling in Europe so all of your bags are checked to make sure you don't have a bomb, your parents are strip searched to make sure there is no detonator, and your electronics you just bought are taken apart to make sure they aren't packed with explosives. Or how about being home on holiday and soldiers shoving your arse up against a wall and detaining you for hours? Why? Making sure I'm not a terrorist of course!

Boo hoo if people have to show a driver's license or other ID.

quote:

In order to stop someone regardless if it is during a "legal" road block you need to have "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. This means that they can't detain you on a "hunch." Racial profiling is a "hunch."

quote:

you were also incorrect about the administration not pressing charges against Goldman because they were complicit in their illegal activities.

quote:

Do you know anything?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

In order to stop someone regardless if it is during a "legal" road block you need to have "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" that you are involved in criminal activity. This means that they can't detain you on a "hunch." Racial profiling is a "hunch."

Police in California have a "hunch"on a Friday night that people are driving and drinking. Regularly they have traffic stops pulling people over to verify that hunch.

The people here illegally are violating a law as are those driving drunk. Both are criminals, both should incur the legal consequences of their actions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

The bulk of us do not carry around our birth certificates, nor are we required to carry around our SS cards.  The people of color (particularly of brown color, in this instance) to show proof they are Americans just because they're walking around in Arizona, to me, is unconstitutional.  There are better ways of doing it than taking a step backwards.  IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

The bulk of us do not carry around our birth certificates, nor are we required to carry around our SS cards.  The people of color (particularly of brown color, in this instance) to show proof they are Americans just because they're walking around in Arizona, to me, is unconstitutional.  There are better ways of doing it than taking a step backwards.  IMO.

You are now getting into another topic - the idea of a national ID card. Personally, that wouldn't bother me - currently I carry the card version of my passport, because I appreciate I could 'pass' as a Mexican. I've been stopped and asked to show ID's a number of times since being in CA. Similar to drinking and driving, I appreciate the attempt of law enforcement.

Of course there are many better ways. My personal preference would be to fine the employers of illegal workers $10,000 per employee the first time caught and $100k per along with arrest the second time.

However, the folks at corporations like Tyson Foods and those running corporate farms, put too much campaign money in the hands of politicians for that tactic to be implemented. Those entities have a much better chance of being 'bailed-out' than they do coming under scrutiny for hiring illegal workers to the detriment of US citizens. But, as comments on this thread indicate, as long as those benefiting are from the party supported, the bag money payments will be ignored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


Of course there are many better ways. My personal preference would be to fine the employers of illegal workers $10,000 per employee the first time caught and $100k per along with arrest the second time.

quote:

I would immediately ask the law enforcement officer why I was being detained. If no reason was given, I would mention that I am in a hurry and that I would be on my way. I guess am not some sort of stooge who enjoys submitting to the illegal activities of others.

quote:

Besides, you don't look like a Mexican...

quote:

You are mostly black, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Merc your two examples are legitimate law enforcement activities,and in the case of the sobriety checkpoint the constitutionality question has been asked and answered...the protection arises from the fact that every car goes thru....in other words they aren't just checking cars driven by Hispanics...and by the way I have never had to produce my license at a DUI checkpoint....not being inebriated means you get waved through.

So stopping every 4th car regardless who is in it and asking for proof of citizenship would be okay?

A broader question - Which laws do you feel should be selectively enforced? There is a established law concerning the legal right to be in this country. Why shouldn't the law be enforced? Why this law versus others?

quote:

Lastly merc, the fact that Obama received political contributions from Goldman obviously was not enough to stop the charges from being brought forward.

quote:

Merc let's just put the sobriety checkpoint thing to bed once and for all

quote:

To the second part ...it's not a question of whether or not you enforce the law...it's a question of how you enforce the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Passage of the new law would allow,amongst other unsavory things, authorities to demand proof of entry into the United States from anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

It depends who the "authorities" are? ICE can do it without new law. Can security guard do it? Some authorities should be able to do it. For example Social Security administrators, IRS and so on. Police on street perhaps not, but if somebody has been arrested for another crime, a police department should do it (it is not the case in sanctuary cities).