U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2011, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,045,755 times
Reputation: 4269

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
The effect of "if proper ID is provided... legal status is answered" would be to require people to have an identification on them at all times. It is almost certainly unconstitutional to require people to carry identification papers on them at all times. This was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

There is no crime in not having "proper ID" upon request by police. While you may have to give your name, you're not required to have your driver's license or some other identification on you at all times.
Are you trying to say that states requiring one to have his Driver License on his person when he operates a motor vehicle is unconstitutional? It sure sounds like it but then I know that libs really don't think that illegal aliens should have any kind of ID in their pockets. When will you people realize that this law is not at all unconstitutional just because the 9th Circuit judge said it was? Purely rhetorical question since I know about that double standard of the left.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2011, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,045,755 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
The constitutionality IS the issue - that's why there's a lawsuit. (DUH!!!!)

It's YOU who are trying to make a political issue out of something that is a LEGAL & CONSTITUTIONAL issue - NOT a political one. You're just trying to generate a smear compaign out of something that's a matter of Constitutional all. Your "I did try very hard to make that the topic of this thread" statement says volumes about your motivation.

Ken
I am certainly sorry I hurt your feelings by wondering why they went after Arizona for trying to enforce federal law concerning illegal aliens. Surely you can step back and see that those two men don't really give a damn about constitutionality, just keep the states from trying to enforce federal laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,045,755 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Its not buying votes.

Are they handing money to them for their votes? No, no more than Republicans are handing tax breaks to rich people for their money and votes, right?
Compare the numbers of Hispanic citizens and illegal aliens that they are trying so hard to bring in as citizens with those rich people you talk about. I really don't see how you can attempt to compare these two items when they get so many more votes from the Hispanics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 09:35 PM
 
11,536 posts, read 8,468,087 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
I don't want to call you profoundly ignorant about our federal court system, but you're responding to a poster who said "A federal judge has already ruled on it."

Just because the District Court judge is not a member of the Supreme Court does not mean that that judge is not a federal judge. Judgments of federal district courts are also binding, unless and until reversed by a higher court. So as of right now, Savoir Faire's statement that a federal judge has already ruled on the constitutionality of 1070 is exactly correct.

I would suggest that you, oldboy, are the one who doesn't know much about our federal court system.
Right on
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,045,755 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
Right on
Any time a lib says something like that about me I get a kick out of it, but I don't laugh since there is no reason to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 10:00 PM
 
30,902 posts, read 24,246,705 times
Reputation: 17792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
To prove that you have a license to drive a car, not to prove who are you. Same as firearms. If a license is required to carry a gun, a cop will ask you for a license to prove you can carry a gun, not for identification.
it serves BOTH purposes in so far as the drivers license goes.

Quote:
What constitutes reasonable suspicion for violating immigration laws?
alright, lets say you get pulled over by an LEO for speeding. you have no drivers license, and when the LEO asks for your information, you give them false information. they then give you a chance to come clean, and when you dont, THAT gives them reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good, be it you are trying to cover up a criminal record, you have a warrant or two, or you are here illegally. at that point the officer has the authority to haul you to the station and detain you to run a complete background check on you through the use of fingerprints and other means.

that background check is where your issue of whether you are here legally or not will come up. is that enough reasonable suspicion for you? how about if you are pulled over, and twenty people jump out of your vehicle and take off in different directions, and you are stupid or too slow and the cop latches on to you, and you give him reason to hold you for further processing.

as i said, if you give the cop good information on yourself, and he verifies it through the computer, or you give them a valid state issued ID, all question of your legal right to be in this country is answered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 10:05 PM
 
11,536 posts, read 8,468,087 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
alright, lets say you get pulled over by an LEO for speeding. you have no drivers license, and when the LEO asks for your information, you give them false information. they then give you a chance to come clean, and when you dont, THAT gives them reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good, be it you are trying to cover up a criminal record, you have a warrant or two, or you are here illegally.
Sorry, lying to a cop about your identity during a traffic stop is not reasonable suspicion that you have violated immigration laws. It's reasonable suspicion that you are hiding something, but not that you have violated immigration laws. It would fall apart in a court of law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 10:24 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,086,895 times
Reputation: 17978
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Since the US won't enforce their laws concerning immigration, why is it that they sue Arizona for trying to enforce those laws? Is there a chance that Obama and Holder really do think they can win all Hispanic votes later by doing what they do? I really believe that is what they want.

YouTube - Obama and Holder taking on Arizona's SB1070
Perhaps that is why many state have joined arizona i their fight to enforce the laws themselves where federal governamnt has fialed since the last comprehensive bill i the 90's. We saw what happened last tie another came up';no one want to bring it to a vote once they heard from the voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 10:35 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,966 posts, read 21,950,425 times
Reputation: 6546
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
You can't really believe what you say here. Of course, there is no other reason for them to act like they have since the Arizona law was passed and so many other states started trying to do the same thing.

Let me see here: How many times have we seen posted here - by folks on the Right - that LEGAL Hispanics are against illegal immigration and FOR the stricter laws such as the one in question?

NOW, here you are saying that the Democrats are challenging Arizona's law in order to PANDER for those same Hispanic votes?
Why would the Democratics CHALLENGE a law that YOU claim the majority of LEGAL Hispanics FAVOR if they trying PANDER for those same votes? You don't PANDER for votes from a particular demographic by taking the position OPPOSITE that held by that demographic.

So are you now ADMITTING that you folks on the Right LIED when you claimed all those times that legal Hispanics FAVORED clamping down on illegal immigration - and that in truth even legal Hispanics are actually in FAVOR of illegal immigration (exactly the OPPOSITE of what you folks have said so many times on this board)? Are you ADMITTING that you Wingnuts have been LYING? Because if you HAVEN'T been lying all this time, then your claim that the Democrats are PANDERING to those same Hispanics makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER - because you don't PANDER to someone by taking the position OPPOSITE of that person BELEIVES.

So which is it?
Were you folks LYING - or does your current argument make NO SENSE?
One of the other has to be true - so which one is it?
Inquiring minds want to know.


Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 03-08-2011 at 10:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 10:47 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,966 posts, read 21,950,425 times
Reputation: 6546
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I am certainly sorry I hurt your feelings by wondering why they went after Arizona for trying to enforce federal law concerning illegal aliens. Surely you can step back and see that those two men don't really give a damn about constitutionality, just keep the states from trying to enforce federal laws.
You certainly didn't hurt MY feelings - but let me point out a little something to you.

Duties of the US Attorney General:

Duty #1 (1st thing on the list): "Represent the United States in legal matters."

DOJ: JMD: MPS: Functions Manual: Attorney General

When legal disputes between the States & the US Government arise it is the Attorney General's JOB to represent the US in the legal dispute. That is his JOB. It's written right there in black & white so that even YOU should be able to UNDERSTAND IT. Right there, first thing on the list on the Department of Justice's webpage about the duties of the US Attorney General. Holder is the Attorney General, the Attorney Generals' job is to "represent the interests of the US government in legal disputes", therefor Holder is DOING HIS JOB by FILING THE LAWSUIT.

IT'S HIS JOB.


I don't know how MORE plain it could possibly be. To not understand that, one would have to be incredibly stupid or deliberately dense.

Ken
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
Similar Threads
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