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.
Who knows? If I was considering crossing illegally, I make make the extra effort to go to California now.
You don't think there's a black market for fake licenses in Arizona? You don't think the criminals who engineer this market are going to be making a killing now in terms of money made?
You don't think there's a black market for fake licenses in Arizona? You don't think the criminals who engineer this market are going to be making a killing now?
Sure there is; that's not new. I also know that people breaking the law tend to like the path of least resistance. Besides, they'll be out of business when the law is shown to be unconstitutional, right?
You don't think there's a black market for fake licenses in Arizona? You don't think the criminals who engineer this market are going to be making a killing now in terms of money made?
Don't think for a minute that this law is going to cause more people to commit identity fraud, it's been happening since the first one crossed the border illegally.
Don't think for a minute that this law is going to cause more people to commit identity fraud, it's been happening since the first one crossed the border illegally.
Not saying it didn't exist previously, but this law is going to strengthen the black market.
Anyone that is not willfully ignorant, extremely naive or a right wing wacko knows exactly what "reasonable suspicion" will really be in a practical sense.
Brown skin, Spanish speaking, or using heavily accented English will be the actual reasonable suspicion. The police report may list the same BS reasons that have been used for years as part of the drug war, things like following too close, improper lane change, jaywalking, etc but everybody knows what the real reason for the stop is going to be.
I love the hypocrisy of the right wing zealots and teabaggers calling for a smaller, less intrusive government while applauding a law that requires a huge expansion of government powers and creates a police state in which anyone at anytime can be stopped and forced to present documents to any jack booted thug that demands them.
I love the hypocrisy of the right wing zealots and teabaggers calling for a smaller, less intrusive government while applauding a law that requires a huge expansion of government powers and creates a police state in which anyone at anytime can be stopped and forced to present documents to any jack booted thug that demands them.
The law does not allow stops like you discuss even though talking about it that way suits some political talking points.
Regarding the expansion, law enforcement and border protection are fundamental roles of government. If it requires more staff to do so, it would be a dereliction of duty not to hire the staff.
The law does not allow stops like you discuss even though talking about it that way suits some political talking points.
Regarding the expansion, law enforcement and border protection are fundamental roles of government. If it requires more staff to do so, it would be a dereliction of duty not to hire the staff.
The law does not allow a disproportionate percentage of black people to be pulled over and searched for drugs, but we all know that it happens.
As I said, you are either ignorant, naive or a blind partisan to act like the police are not going to stop people at will and make the "reasonable suspicion" part look good for the report later.
Just like Twista you can't find anything unconstitutional as it is written can you?
You didn't respond to my question to begin with. Anyway, you will have another chance to do so.
The law, as written, does not protect protect people from harassment as it does not properly define what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Instead it leaves the government officials draw their own line and justifications. Subjectivity is slippery slope to place your bets on.
Now, you've been using DUI check points as an excuse to say that people don't seem to oppose its unconstitutionality. This tells me that you actually believe it to be unconstitutional and yet support it. And when you support unconstitutional laws at whim, you are in no position to defend the constitution or worry about it.
For the record, I consider DUI checkpoints to be unconstitutional and one of the signatures of a police state. I can understand checkpoints looking for someone on the run, for which I will gladly cooperate, but to be looked upon as potentially guilty just because someone decided to... hell no.
Oh, and for that reason alone, if I travel to AZ while the law is in place, if I'm stopped for no reason but one of those "reasonable suspicions" (somehow I feel I won't be, since I don't look, dress and talk like "them"), the state of government will have an expensive guest at hand.
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.
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.
