U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2011, 07:31 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,501,344 times
Reputation: 2130

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
It's a bad bad bad idea. Unless a cop has some probable cause to ask me to ID myself I'll tell him to take a hike. If he insists I will ask him,"am I free to leave"? If he says "NO" then he's in big trouble because legally I'm under arrest and it's "False arrest". Canadian cops know this and the odd one who has fallen into this trap has found his career in the crapper after his force pays out maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in a legal settlement.

You see, my rights are protected from an intrusive state. It's clearly written in my constitution and it's for those rights that we fought wars to protect. I don't want the Gestapo walking my streets asking anyone for "Papers please". I don't care if they are illegals or whatever. The law enforcements job is to investigate and discover probable cause. Then they can apply for a warrant. Here in Canada if they do it in any other way their case gets thrown out anyway, even if they do discover something in their illegal search. If they want to catch bad guys they should be working and not sitting in some doughnut store drinking coffee.
No one is suggesting that a cop ask you or anyone else for I.D. unless it is under lawful contact. That is not contrary to constitutional law.

No need for snide remarks about cops drinking coffee at a doughnut store either. Cops are entitled to a break just like any other job provides. Where do you suggest they take a break.....in their squad car?

 
Old 05-30-2011, 07:36 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,501,344 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Not true. Legislation being considered goes through constitutional review(s) during the legislative process. Many "bills" are dropped because they do not pass "muster"



The document does mention however the issue of interstate commerce. And the things you mention are impacted by interstate commerce.

The founders considered that over time the constitution would need to be interpreted to meet current situations.

Clearly you have not studied the original legislative intent of the founders.

You really should.
It simply amazes me the number of posters in here demanding that our Constitution be followed but not our immigration laws.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,700 posts, read 83,272,206 times
Reputation: 41535
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Its not racial profiling. Many countries do it and it works.

The police job is to protect & serve the community.

By not asking a persons legal status is not Protecting the community.
of course they should and I have problems understanding how anyone who really cares about thier community, their country and our welfare could possibly question whether the police have that right.

Nita
 
Old 05-30-2011, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,150,836 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
No one is suggesting that a cop ask you or anyone else for I.D. unless it is under lawful contact...
A "Terry stop" is lawful contact. And the topic isn't about law enforcement asking you for identification, it is titled that they should be given the right to question your legal status. That is a fundamental change from how the United States operates under the Constitution.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 08:19 AM
 
18,112 posts, read 10,300,575 times
Reputation: 13217
At one level of security it is acknowledged as acceptable practice to ask those very questions at any border point of entry without that "profiling" even being a concern. How then can it be unacceptable to ask those very same questions at any other U.S. location.

You're hamstringing your law enforcement people by making it perfectly acceptable for anyone who chooses to by-pass a legal point of entry to be forever immune from having to answer those very same questions, Does this make any kind of sense?

As a frequent foreign visitor to your country, my license tag on my vehicle immediately identifies me as a foreigner, should I then claim "racial profiling" if a cop who stops me for a busted tail light asks the forbidden questions of: "are you here legally, where & when did you enter, where is your destination, for what purpose are you visiting", along with proof of vehicle ownership and insurance?
Is it not reasonable to expect questions related to discovery of lawful intent, why else would you have a police force extant if you don't want them to determine if laws are being obeyed or broken.

Any time I cross your border I am asked all of the above questions and by some peoples reasoning on these threads I should be just as capable of claiming "racial profiling" because, at your doorway and on your soil, I'm of an easily identifiable group or minority of 'elderly caucasian male of Candian birth'.

I believe your Homeland Security legislation has already "tinkered" with your constitution as regards to "rights and freedoms" and to forestall the identifying of illegal aliens by preventing police from simply doing their job in an expiditious manner is ludicrous in the extreme.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 08:52 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,501,344 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
A "Terry stop" is lawful contact. And the topic isn't about law enforcement asking you for identification, it is titled that they should be given the right to question your legal status. That is a fundamental change from how the United States operates under the Constitution.
That question would only arise IF one couldn't produce an authenic I.D. such as a DL or in the case of "immigrants" the other necessary forms of I.D. they are required to carry such as a green card. Please don't lecture me and the others in here once again about the different types of immigrants there are and what they are required to carry on them. We've heard it over and over and this is the illegal immigration forum not the legal one.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 08:54 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,501,344 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
At one level of security it is acknowledged as acceptable practice to ask those very questions at any border point of entry without that "profiling" even being a concern. How then can it be unacceptable to ask those very same questions at any other U.S. location.

You're hamstringing your law enforcement people by making it perfectly acceptable for anyone who chooses to by-pass a legal point of entry to be forever immune from having to answer those very same questions, Does this make any kind of sense?

As a frequent foreign visitor to your country, my license tag on my vehicle immediately identifies me as a foreigner, should I then claim "racial profiling" if a cop who stops me for a busted tail light asks the forbidden questions of: "are you here legally, where & when did you enter, where is your destination, for what purpose are you visiting", along with proof of vehicle ownership and insurance?
Is it not reasonable to expect questions related to discovery of lawful intent, why else would you have a police force extant if you don't want them to determine if laws are being obeyed or broken.

Any time I cross your border I am asked all of the above questions and by some peoples reasoning on these threads I should be just as capable of claiming "racial profiling" because, at your doorway and on your soil, I'm of an easily identifiable group or minority of 'elderly caucasian male of Candian birth'.

I believe your Homeland Security legislation has already "tinkered" with your constitution as regards to "rights and freedoms" and to forestall the identifying of illegal aliens by preventing police from simply doing their job in an expiditious manner is ludicrous in the extreme.
Excellent post!
 
Old 05-30-2011, 08:54 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 8,233,263 times
Reputation: 3602
[quote=IBMMuseum;19365556]
Quote:
The Constitution is the law of the land, a living document. Automatic weapons weren't around when it was written, but are covered under the Second Amendment. If you don't have that realization by now, you aren't listening
The Constitution was interpreted (changed for those of you who are slow) to cover automatic weapons. Funny how you want it followed in a pristine condition until it comes to your own personal cause. Immigration was not covered. I guess that according to you that makes all immigration illegal. If you don't have that realization by now, I guess it is you who is not paying attention. Or rather ignoring the fact that you continue to be wrong.

Quote:
Terry vs. Ohio was a landmark case, and used daily by police in their interaction with the public more than any other determination. To change that, you are changing the fundamentals of the United States. Sometimes I feel I am arguing with the walls.


As usual, you are wrong again. As has happened time and again, any law can be reversed at the will of the court. The Constitution is ignored at will by activist judges and politician to further their personal agenda. Like you are doing. The case you cite is not a "fundamental" part of the US. It is a determination by a judge with a possible personal agenda (intended or not). Your vision of existing law as sacrosanct is extremely naive, especially when you bend it to cover your personal desires.

[quote=Greatday;19366819]
Quote:
Not true. Legislation being considered goes through constitutional review(s) during the legislative process. Many "bills" are dropped because they do not pass "muster"
Which of course is why many legislative actions are sued and taken to the Supreme Court for a decision on Constitutionality. They tend to be "reviewed" by partisan parties already influenced by what they want the law to say (probably having written it). See Obamacare.


Quote:
The document does mention however the issue of interstate commerce. And the things you mention are impacted by interstate commerce.
It has been stretched by politicians to fit. It in fact does not mention these cases and was never intended to. The way the Constitution as interpreted today has little resemblance to the original. Which makes it silly for so many who obviously ignore it at will to claim it as the holy grail of the legal system. At least when it so suits them.

Quote:
The founders considered that over time the constitution would need to be interpreted to meet current situations.
Yes, through the amendment process. Is this process in play in the topic being discussed? No. So you really should quit claiming that it is covered. It is not.

Quote:
Clearly you have not studied the original legislative intent of the founders.

You really should.
Clearly you have no idea of the original intent of the writers. You merely believe what those of a similar mind set to yours have told you. Perhaps it is you who should do some studying before declaring as absolutes things that you obviously have no knowledge of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
It simply amazes me the number of posters in here demanding that our Constitution be followed but not our immigration laws.
They simply don't see the contradiction. In their opinion, only their views should be law and all else doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
A "Terry stop" is lawful contact. And the topic isn't about law enforcement asking you for identification, it is titled that they should be given the right to question your legal status. That is a fundamental change from how the United States operates under the Constitution.
Yes, a fundamental change. Enforcing the laws already on the books. What a terrible crime! Detaining and deporting criminals rather than welcoming them in to feed off the taxpayers and commit further crimes.

What could anyone possibly be thinking?

Last edited by Yac; 05-31-2011 at 02:59 AM.. Reason: 4 posts in a row merged
 
Old 05-30-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 16,215,092 times
Reputation: 3029
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
We have every right to determine who is in the country legally. And to throw out those who are not. Do you not understand such simple facts of the law?

In doing so we must however follow our own laws. Do you not agree?

And our law sets limitations on the interaction between the state and the individual.

we could of course ignore those legalities thereupon becoming illegal. Would that not match us up with those we are trying to force into compliance? You feel that law breaking in your cause is better than there law breaking in their cause?

Explain how that works please?
Since you essentially repeated my comments, apparently I do understand.

Of course we must follow the law. Who has stated otherwise? It is utter nonsense to imply that we cannot ascertain the immigration status of foreign nationals without violating the law. Would you prefer that we continue to allow our country to be overrun by untold millions of illegal aliens? Something has to be done. Do you have any suggestions? Or, are you only here to defend the "rights" illegals?
 
Old 05-30-2011, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 16,215,092 times
Reputation: 3029
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
I have three items that show my U.S. citizenship. Two are normally locked away, unless I need them for the occasion: A state-printed birth certificate and a U.S. passport. The only one I commonly carry is a Voter's ID card for my state.

It has no photo, and is used more to describe my voting district...

I've also never been asked for it...



The concept of Equal Protection Under the Law is that any citizen has an assumption of the same rights as any other citizen. A law cannot discriminate against someone or put a greater burden on them strictly because they belong to a certain ethnicity. In reality of your scenario, the police also know nothing about a would-be accomplice of that bank robber, and would be prudent to check the vehicle trunk of that 5-foot woman.



Why are you unwilling to subject yourself to the searches you are proposing? Is there anything that excludes an illegal alien from looking like you do? If you have nothing hide, why not?
This is beyond ridiculous. We are a sovereign nation, with immigration laws. Those who enter this country without authorization, or violate the terms of their visas, are subject to apprehension and removal. How would you suggest we determine their status?

Furthermore, please quote the post in which I stated that I am unwilling to provide proof of citizenship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:35 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top