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)
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Right where I want to be.
4,507 posts, read 7,829,798 times
Reputation: 3304

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks View Post
Holy cow, I tell you what, you post the law here so I don't have to, and then I will show you.
And, then, or first, I care not which, show me the AZ law supported by the courts that states one must provide proof that they are a citizen.
I done be waiting.
Nope, that's not how it works. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up.

We're waiting........







Well, we're not really waiting as there is little expectation that you will actually come back and be able to substantiate your claims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Central Coast
2,014 posts, read 4,722,863 times
Reputation: 815
Apparently NCyank did not care enough to post the AZ immigration law, but he did produce the Hiibel case in support of my contention that a citizen in the United States has never been required to carry proof of citizenship aside from free blacks prior to 1865, and as a sop to those quibbling, a legal alien in the US is required to carry documentation, popularly called a green card.

However back to Hiibel:
Quote:
and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California’s modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer “credible and reliable ” identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off.
Note, requirement to carry ID set aside.

Quote:
This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the “credible and reliable” identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3—6.
Note, no requirement to carry ID

Quote:
They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U.S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. Cf. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 817
This appears to negate the AZ law which states briefly, that a person stopped for another reason, can be required to show citizenship or, as a sop to the literalists among us, legal residency.

Quote:
If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here. 10—13.
This too could result in a set aside of the AZ law, if an illegal identifies himself, or possibly by the act of not identifing himself as a citizen, the Fifth Amendment could come into play, and if I was his attorney, I would certainly bring that into play.

NCyank, I commend you for your assistance. The Hiibel decision appears to support a Supreme Court set aside of the AZ law.

Scuba Steve; your point:
Quote:
8. Whose civil rights are being violated again? The SCOTUS has upheld that when questioned by the police one must identify themselves. That's all that's being asked now. Identify yourself.
You are incorrect, under the AZ law you must identify yourself as a citizen, (or legal resident, which I assumed would be understood without direct reference, since legal residents currently must carry documentation) something that has never occured in this nation except as I noted above.

and..
Quote:
Second, proving one's legal status is something that is done by anyone who wants to open a bank account, get a DL in most states, buy a home, get a legit job. Again...nothing new here.
This is not accurate, I am not a young person, I have opened many bank accounts held drivers licenses in several states and had many jobs, in the private sector, and federal jobs, and state jobs, and county jobs. I have never had to show proof of citizenship. I do not think I am the lone ranger.

Quote:
SB1070 is a copy/paste of Federal law------------take it up with Washington instead of Phoenix
A. Please provide some documentation to support that assertion. I can comment on that, then.

Back to my original assertion. The AZ immigration law creates a burden of proof by citizens that they are citizens, it is not a matter of providing "ID". It is a matter of showing citizenship. This will be held as unreasonable under the Constitution of the United States by the Supreme Court, the Conservative Supreme Court. If you care about that "piece of paper" you cannot support the AZ law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:17 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,156,932 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks View Post
Holy cow, I tell you what, you post the law here so I don't have to, and then I will show you.
And, then, or first, I care not which, show me the AZ law supported by the courts that states one must provide proof that they are a citizen.
I done be waiting.
I believe it was Benicar (I could be mistaken) who not only posted what is in the law but also a seperate federal ruling that allows states to enforce immigration law. If I knew topic it was under I would post it here for you.

Why don't you provide proof whereby any federal or state courts have denied the right of LE to ask for proof of citizenship when appropriate? You are mixing apples and oranges here. There is a difference between the above and LE demanding to see citizenship papers under any and all circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:28 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,156,932 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks View Post
Apparently NCyank did not care enough to post the AZ immigration law, but he did produce the Hiibel case in support of my contention that a citizen in the United States has never been required to carry proof of citizenship aside from free blacks prior to 1865, and as a sop to those quibbling, a legal alien in the US is required to carry documentation, popularly called a green card.

However back to Hiibel:


Note, requirement to carry ID set aside.



Note, no requirement to carry ID



This appears to negate the AZ law which states briefly, that a person stopped for another reason, can be required to show citizenship or, as a sop to the literalists among us, legal residency.



This too could result in a set aside of the AZ law, if an illegal identifies himself, or possibly by the act of not identifing himself as a citizen, the Fifth Amendment could come into play, and if I was his attorney, I would certainly bring that into play.

NCyank, I commend you for your assistance. The Hiibel decision appears to support a Supreme Court set aside of the AZ law.

Scuba Steve; your point:

You are incorrect, under the AZ law you must identify yourself as a citizen, (or legal resident, which I assumed would be understood without direct reference, since legal residents currently must carry documentation) something that has never occured in this nation except as I noted above.

and..

This is not accurate, I am not a young person, I have opened many bank accounts held drivers licenses in several states and had many jobs, in the private sector, and federal jobs, and state jobs, and county jobs. I have never had to show proof of citizenship. I do not think I am the lone ranger.



A. Please provide some documentation to support that assertion. I can comment on that, then.

Back to my original assertion. The AZ immigration law creates a burden of proof by citizens that they are citizens, it is not a matter of providing "ID". It is a matter of showing citizenship. This will be held as unreasonable under the Constitution of the United States by the Supreme Court, the Conservative Supreme Court. If you care about that "piece of paper" you cannot support the AZ law.
Yes, it is a matter of just providing valid I.D. because in AZ in order to get a DL you have to provide proof that you are a citizen or legal resident already. The only way the question about one's citizenship or legal residence would come into play is if one can't provide the valid I.D. in the first place. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids that. There is no illegal "search and seizure" as you are implying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:29 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,823 posts, read 30,075,350 times
Reputation: 17698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks View Post
No one in America has been required to carry identity papers, except of course for free Negros prior to 1865. If you drive a car you have consented to carry an id, but, aside from that, well,
let me ask you, do you carry proof of citizenship with you?

I don't, and it is not now, nor ever has been a requirement in any state in this union. Arizona's law is a clear infringement of the fourth amendment.

My opinions have nothing to do with the merits or non merits of illegal immigration, but, are entirely based on the fourth amendment.

Here is some cynicism for you. One of the major backers of this bill is a law firm that specializes in handling immigration cases for cities and counties in Arizona, they are going to make a killing off this law.

My wife and I enjoy the Southwest, we enjoy the natural beauty and diverse culture of Arizona, mostly up in the north, the Grand Canyon, Hopi and Navajo reservations.

We have planned a trip to AZ for August, we will now make a few minor changes in our planning, as summed up in this text, which is the draft of the letter we will send to the AZ tourism dept, and to the great magazine, Arizona Highways.

Dear ......
Principles are what is important in life, I as a Vietnam Veteran am especially cognizant of the rights and privileges of being an American Citizen. One of those rights includes not having to carry identity papers to prove my citizenship to law enforcement, as did the citizens of Germany under the Nazis and as did the citizens of the Soviet Union, and as now, do the citizens of the United States within the boundaries of the benighted state of Arizona.

We intend to spend two weeks in AZ this summer, but, as a protest against the adoption of an unAmerican law, as a protest against the affront to the Constitution of the United States,
we will not spend a penny in the once great state of AZ.
We will fuel our rig in Utah and or New Mexico (we buy a great deal of fuel)
we will buy groceries in Utah,
we will stay only on Federal land, parks and reservations,
we will shop for gifts and souvenirs only in Federal or Tribal shops.
We will not patronize Arizona restaurants, grocery stores, motels or hotels.

Each place we visit, we will make a judgment as to whether our dollars will contribute to the Arizona economy, if so, we shall not make that expenditure. We are encouraging others to do as we will.
Utah is planning on adopting the same or nearly the same legislation. It appears you should probably be vacationing in Mexico so you don't accidently go to a State drawing up the same laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Mastic Beach
752 posts, read 1,241,592 times
Reputation: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks View Post
No one in America has been required to carry identity papers, except of course for free Negros prior to 1865. If you drive a car you have consented to carry an id, but, aside from that, well,
let me ask you, do you carry proof of citizenship with you?

I don't,
and it is not now, nor ever has been a requirement in any state in this union. Arizona's law is a clear infringement of the fourth amendment.

My opinions have nothing to do with the merits or non merits of illegal immigration, but, are entirely based on the fourth amendment.

Here is some cynicism for you. One of the major backers of this bill is a law firm that specializes in handling immigration cases for cities and counties in Arizona, they are going to make a killing off this law.

My wife and I enjoy the Southwest, we enjoy the natural beauty and diverse culture of Arizona, mostly up in the north, the Grand Canyon, Hopi and Navajo reservations.

We have planned a trip to AZ for August, we will now make a few minor changes in our planning, as summed up in this text, which is the draft of the letter we will send to the AZ tourism dept, and to the great magazine, Arizona Highways.

Dear ......
Principles are what is important in life, I as a Vietnam Veteran am especially cognizant of the rights and privileges of being an American Citizen. One of those rights includes not having to carry identity papers to prove my citizenship to law enforcement, as did the citizens of Germany under the Nazis and as did the citizens of the Soviet Union, and as now, do the citizens of the United States within the boundaries of the benighted state of Arizona.

We intend to spend two weeks in AZ this summer, but, as a protest against the adoption of an unAmerican law, as a protest against the affront to the Constitution of the United States,
we will not spend a penny in the once great state of AZ.
We will fuel our rig in Utah and or New Mexico (we buy a great deal of fuel)
we will buy groceries in Utah,
we will stay only on Federal land, parks and reservations,
we will shop for gifts and souvenirs only in Federal or Tribal shops.
We will not patronize Arizona restaurants, grocery stores, motels or hotels.

Each place we visit, we will make a judgment as to whether our dollars will contribute to the Arizona economy, if so, we shall not make that expenditure. We are encouraging others to do as we will.
well now you do...
If I have to carry my License, my birth certificate and my damned social security card with me at all times it would be a small inconvenience to rid the country of such a ridiculous and deep rooted problem.
I hear a whole lot of complaining
but no alternate solutions that might actually work.
maybe you should spare us the speeches about how wrong it is
and come up with a better (working) solution.
plus I don't see what the problem is,
they are not talking about rounding up Hispanic people and asking them for ID
they are talking about people that would have been stopped anyway
I pulled this guy over for an out tail light and he had no license...
upon further inspection I realized that he had no ID whatsoever
Driving without a license is against the law
Arrest the guy then see if he's a citizen.
Whats the problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:41 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,823 posts, read 30,075,350 times
Reputation: 17698
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesbroken View Post
well now you do...
If I have to carry my License, my birth certificate and my damned social security card with me at all times it would be a small inconvenience to rid the country of such a ridiculous and deep rooted problem.
I hear a whole lot of complaining
but no alternate solutions that might actually work.
maybe you should spare us the speeches about how wrong it is
and come up with a better (working) solution.
plus I don't see what the problem is,
they are not talking about rounding up Hispanic people and asking them for ID
they are talking about people that would have been stopped anyway
I pulled this guy over for an out tail light and he had no license...
upon further inspection I realized that he had no ID whatsoever
Driving without a license is against the law
Arrest the guy then see if he's a citizen.
Whats the problem?
I see no problem at all, none, zippo, zilch. If we have a Govt solution with a NATIONAL ID then so be it. I bet we will as there is no other real solution to this invasion. If that car bomb had gone off at Time's square Congress would already be working on it and somehow that scum was here legally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Central Coast
2,014 posts, read 4,722,863 times
Reputation: 815
I find it interesting that not one of you give a damn about our Constitutional rights. Yet I be each and everyone of you follow the tea bagger ideology.
Quote:
Utah is planning on adopting the same or nearly the same legislation. It appears you should probably be vacationing in Mexico so you don't accidently go to a State drawing up the same laws.
If you spend any time in Mexico you soon come to the realization that there is more personal freedom in Mexico than in the US.
Quote:
well now you do...
If I have to carry my License, my birth certificate and my damned social security card with me at all times it would be a small inconvenience to rid the country of such a ridiculous and deep rooted problem.
Damn the pesky Constitution any way, eh?

Quote:
maybe you should spare us the speeches about how wrong it is
and come up with a better (working) solution.
plus I don't see what the problem is,
they are not talking about rounding up Hispanic people and asking them for ID
they are talking about people that would have been stopped anyway
The solution is easy, simply fine or imprison anyone who hires an illegal, no muss no fuss.

Quote:
they are not talking about rounding up Hispanic people and asking them for ID
You still don't get it, this is not about infringing on hispanic, it is about infringing on the historic rights of citizens.
I have a problem with that. If you don't, you ain't thinking.

Quote:
we have a Govt solution with a NATIONAL ID then so be it. I bet we will as there is no other real solution to this invasion. If that car bomb had gone off at Time's square Congress would already be working on it and somehow that scum was here legally.
Ben Franklin was right, those who will trade freedom for security, deserve neither, you apparently are one of those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Helena, Montana
2,010 posts, read 2,043,547 times
Reputation: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks View Post
If you spend any time in Mexico you soon come to the realization that there is more personal freedom in Mexico than in the US.
Well if Mexico is so great, why don't you move there? You can go there and complain about their treatment of illegals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks View Post
The solution is easy, simply fine or imprison anyone who hires an illegal, no muss no fuss.
But do nothing to the illegals themselves? Don't inquire if they're breaking the law or punish them for doing so? What about the drug runners, coyotes, burglars, etc. who don't have an employer to punish? They get to stay I guess by your solution.


By the way, you're not related to old User2 are you? See a lot of similarites in your posts.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Central Coast
2,014 posts, read 4,722,863 times
Reputation: 815
Well if Mexico is so great, why don't you move there? You can go there and complain about their treatment of illegals.

I love those sorts of responses, If I said, Europe is cool because they use military time instead of AM and PM, the response would be, "Well if Europe is so great, why don't you move there?"



Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarks
The solution is easy, simply fine or imprison anyone who hires an illegal, no muss no fuss.

But do nothing to the illegals themselves? Don't inquire if they're breaking the law or punish them for doing so? What about the drug runners, coyotes, burglars, etc. who don't have an employer to punish? They get to stay I guess by your solution.

I find thinking a great habit, consider this, if employers don't hire illegals, the illegals would go where they could get hired, like Mexico, hence no coyotes, burglers etc.

There are plenty of good wholesome US citizens drug runners, deal with the market, you solved that problem too.

By the way, you're not related to old User2 are you? See a lot of similarites in your posts........

Really, so there are two rational people that use this board?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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