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.
I would imagine that they already ask for ID when they stop someone. The law in question says that the police are to consider a valid ID as proof of citizenship, so they're probably already doing that.
The Arizona's State drivers license seems to be a valid proof of citizenship but an out of state drivers license might not stand up to the same standard.
If this is the case Arizona might be scaring off its tourism in no time.
The Arizona's State drivers license seems to be a valid proof of citizenship but an out of state drivers license might not stand up to the same standard.
If this is the case Arizona might be scaring off its tourism in no time.
Again, further evidence that you don't know what's in the law. In the list of valid ID's it includes:
"ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."
There's a city in Arizona that claims they'll be asking every single person for proof of citizenship. If this is the case, then I see little room for racial profiling .
But this is not what SB1070 requires, it says upon 'reasonable suspicion' in black and white and civil rights lawyers along with I have a problem with that becuase it legally allows law enforcement to racially profile everyday drivers on the streets who've done nothing wrong into doing something wrong, driving while Hispanic.
Since most BP and a large portion of LE are Latino I'm not worried and I am part of the "group" everyone thinks will get profiled. The problem is bad enough it will be worth it.
This law is not fooling anyone as more of these situations will arise affecting Americans.
You don't seem to know because you have misrepresented it several times. What is it that it doesn't say that's so disturbing?
As for your story, the guy in the story was stopped by ICE, not Arizona law enforcement. He would have had less of a problem if the officers were subject to this law you hate so much. Next?
You don't seem to know because you have misrepresented it several times. What is it that it doesn't say that's so disturbing?
As for your story, the guy in the story was stopped by ICE not Arizona law enforcement. He would have had less of a problem if the officers were subject to this law you hate so much. Next?
The truck driver drove through a truck scale provided his drivers license and other pertinent information and was detained until he provided a birth certificate.
As for Arizona law enforcement not being at the scene, you don't know that. All the article states is that he was taken to an ICE facility. It doesn't state if ICE agents or Arizona police officers were the agency who made the determination that his drivers license was not valid proof @ the truck stop.
The facts remain and hold firm that in the State of Arizona "ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION" will indeed not be sufficient identification if the law enforcement agency so chooses to not recognize what the individual has on their person as valid.
The truck driver drove through a truck scale provided his drivers license and other pertinent information and was detained until he provided a birth certificate.
As for Arizona law enforcement not being at the scene, you don't know that. All the article states is that he was taken to an ICE facility. It doesn't state if ICE agents or Arizona police officers were the agency who made the determination that his drivers license was not valid proof @ the truck stop.
The facts remain and hold firm that in the State of Arizona "ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION" will indeed not be sufficient identification if the law enforcement agency so chooses to not recognize what the individual has on their person as valid.
There is only mention of ICE (federal and not subject to this law), and based on that, you conclude "that in the State of Arizona "ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION" will indeed not be sufficient identification if the law enforcement agency so chooses to not recognize what the individual has on their person as valid" - despite the fact that the law explicity states otherwise?
That's not even 1+1 = 2. That logic is simply 1=3. You clearly have no interest in discussing the law as it's written and are not even willing to stick to the facts of a story you provide to support your position. Either you're unwilling or unable to provide an argument based on facts. I'll stop the discussion in a humane effort to keep you from embarrassing yourself further.
You don't seem to know because you have misrepresented it several times. What is it that it doesn't say that's so disturbing?
As for your story, the guy in the story was stopped by ICE, not Arizona law enforcement. He would have had less of a problem if the officers were subject to this law you hate so much. Next?
If it's expired, beaten to shreds or looks phony I can see this happening.
We're not living in a Stalinist era, we as Americans will not allow a trip back to any Stalinist era and is the #1 reason why theirs so much National opposition to this law.
As for socialism, its been intertwined in American government going back to Roosevelt's NEW DEAL.
Lets not pretend like Socialism is something new to America.
As for Nazi-Storm troopers beginning to pop up in Arizona, yes I see it happening and we have to stop it.
Well then just go for it you poor victim! The rest of us will just respect the law and expect it to be enforced within the laws that are written on the books.
There is only mention of ICE (federal and not subject to this law), and based on that, you conclude "that in the State of Arizona "ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION" will indeed not be sufficient identification if the law enforcement agency so chooses to not recognize what the individual has on their person as valid" - despite the fact that the law explicity states otherwise?
That's not even 1+1 = 2. That logic is simply 1=3. You clearly have no interest in discussing the law as it's written and are not even willing to stick to the facts of a story you provide to support your position. Either you're unwilling or unable to provide an argument based on facts. I'll stop the discussion in a humane effort to keep you from embarrassing yourself further.
Thanks! Someone had to say it but it will fall on deaf ears of course. It always does with those with an agenda. The agenda trumps everything...the truth, the law, you name it.
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.
