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.
Community leaders gathered Saturday at La Casa de Amistad to protest Senate Bill 590, a proposed Arizona-style immigration law making its way through the Indiana General Assembly.
Quote:
S.B. 590 would require police officers who stop a person suspected of breaking a law or ordinance to ask that person for proof of citizenship if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she might be here illegally.
Quote:
It also would require the state Office of Budget Management to estimate how much illegal immigration costs the state and send Congress a request for reimbursement; bar state and local governments from using a language other than English for correspondence; and strengthen penalties against businesses that employ illegal immigrants.
This is misdirecting the purpose of the bill.
1st when you are arrested You are ask many questions. Where you live etc...
This does not lead to profiling. Only someone who has reason to have broken city or state law are pulled over & later ask to see if they broke federal law.
These criminals live amongst American citizens & should be filtered out.
Along with members of the group Transforming Action into Power, Monterrosa said La Casa de Amistad opposes the bill based on the fact that it would encourage racial profiling and burden local governments with the task of enforcing federal immigration law.
"Burden law enforcement", probably true... law enforcement will find so many illegal aliens they will not have enough buses to ship them back to Mexico and will temporarily have to put them up in tents...
I guess this TAP member has never read the U.S. Constitution which protects the rights and freedoms of American citizens, not foreign nationals illegally residing in the United States.
"I learned in civics class that all people have equal protection under the law, and that everyone is innocent until proven guilty," said Patricia Frazier, a TAP member and chair of the Peace and Justice Committee at Kern Road Mennonite Church, "and it's those two values that are directly affected under this bill."
So pulling people over for speeding should be discontinued then? What do they mean by not having the right papers? If you are pulled over for speeding you are asked for a valid DL no matter who you are. No one is asked for citizenship papers when stopped for a traffic violation. Are these idiots for real?
So pulling people over for speeding should be discontinued then? What do they mean by not having the right papers? If you are pulled over for speeding you are asked for a valid DL no matter who you are. No one is asked for citizenship papers when stopped for a traffic violation. Are these idiots for real?
Why not? They already have a second set of laws for illegals. If they even look like an illegal the cops avoid them like they have rabies.
And we can't blame the Police either since the feds sit on their hands all the while claiming that it is a federal function.
This is misdirecting the purpose of the bill.
1st when you are arrested You are ask many questions. Where you live etc...
This does not lead to profiling. Only someone who has reason to have broken city or state law are pulled over & later ask to see if they broke federal law.
These criminals live amongst American citizens & should be filtered out.
Your assesment of TAPs interpretation of the proposed law[SB 0590], is just as misdirected and misleading.
You're trying to diprove their concerns with examples that don't speak to the bill...
From Indiana SB 0590
Quote:
...(5) Requiring law enforcement officers to verify the citizenship or immigration status of individuals in certain situations.
Thats all the bill says. There is noting about traffic stops, arrest, or law breaking. Just a simple[maybe too simple] passage which may lead many to ask questions.
This is misdirecting the purpose of the bill.
1st when you are arrested You are ask many questions. Where you live etc...
This does not lead to profiling. Only someone who has reason to have broken city or state law are pulled over & later ask to see if they broke federal law.
These criminals live amongst American citizens & should be filtered out.
Actually you are required only to answer who you are. Other than that the LEO has no right to further information. If a traffic stop you need to show license and insurance. l
The standard advice from libertarian civil rights lawyers is never answer a police officers questions. Simply don't answer. Anything you do say can and will be used against you.
Actually you are required only to answer who you are. Other than that the LEO has no right to further information. If a traffic stop you need to show license and insurance. l
The standard advice from libertarian civil rights lawyers is never answer a police officers questions. Simply don't answer. Anything you do say can and will be used against you.
True, you don’t have to answer. You can even refuse a breathalyzer. But, be prepared to have your license revoked, at least in the state of Maryland. If you have nothing to hide, why not cooperate with the police?
True, you don’t have to answer. You can even refuse a breathalyzer. But, be prepared to have your license revoked, at least in the state of Maryland. If you have nothing to hide, why not cooperate with the police?
Again the advice from the Libertarian civil rights side is never, never cooperate. The argument is that only bad comes of it. There is nothing good that comes of telling a cop anything. So stand mute. And you may well have something to hide...you just don't know it at the time.
Breathalyzer again is that odd carve out for driving a car. Different set of rules. Should never have happened in my view. Simply a short cut around the bill of rights over privilege versus a right.
A wonderful example was the little model who was murdered. The mother and father clammed up and refused to talk. If they had ever submitted to an interview it is clear they would likely have ended up tried for the crime. The cops were convinced they did it even though it appears it was not true. But they refused and gave the cops nothing to go on or find conflicting. Parents got a lot of bad press at the time if you remember but they avoided an indictment and likely a trial by their tactic.
Don't talk. When the cop asks how fast you were going just stare it him. Same when he asks where you were going. If he asks your name tell him. But other than that...not a word.
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.
