dgskydive 0 #26 July 14, 2010 QuoteI think a driver's lic is sufficent to qualify for zee Nazizona papers. Of course I'm white, so racist AZ laws such as 1070 don't pertain to me, just brown people. I dont know about AZ, but in Cali, they give DL's to illegals.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #27 July 14, 2010 QuoteYou're really trying to force a re-hash of the p[rior threads. is that what I'm doing? really? making assumptions like that is the surest way to win an argument. plonk-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #28 July 14, 2010 QuoteI'm goign to be difficult, and say that in those cases, the reason that you can be asked for your license is because of the associated activity, and not just because you're present. The law in most States (TX for one) require that you identify yourself to a cop if they ask for ID. That is even if they just walk up to you because you are present. QuoteThe difference comes when one can be asked for papers while walking down the street. And that is a change from what I'm used to in the US. And the AZ law does not allow a cop to just pull up and ask for ID... It has to be during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,088 #29 July 14, 2010 >Have you ever needed more than a license? A driver's license is not legal proof of citizenship. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #30 July 14, 2010 QuoteI dont know about AZ, but in Cali, they give DL's to illegals. California requires proof of legal presence in the U.S. to obtain a driver's license. So if an "illegal" has one, then it was probably obtained illegally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #31 July 14, 2010 Quote>Have you ever needed more than a license? A driver's license is not legal proof of citizenship. Agreed, but it's the gold standard for establishing "legal status" for all sorts of circumstances. The law does not require that citizenship be established, only that legal status be established. If a valid ID is presented, reasonable suspicion is reduced. If that ID is a Green Card or passport with an in-date/valid visa, suspicion is virtually eliminated. What's the problem here? Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled, 9-0, that a law enforcement officer does not need any reason to ask about immigration status of a person. The rules on the books in California (which aren't enforced) are tougher than what SB 1070 does.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 July 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote The difference comes when one can be asked for papers while walking down the street. And that is a change from what I'm used to in the US. I believe that has been shown to not be the case regarding the AZ law. (multiple times actually, here on this forum even) Wrong; you're doing the same thing Gawain did that I responded to. You're really trying to force a re-hash of the p[rior threads. Anyhow, the law says that "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States" the police "shall" (not "may", but "shall" - i.e., they are required) to "determine the immigration status of a person". The law also allows Arizona citizens to sue for violations of the law, which means that police are "motivated" by the threat of getting sued if they have a chance to check out a suspected illegal alien but fail to do so. This, in turn, means that the practical effect of the law is that when AZ police notice someone "looking illegal", i.e., Mexican features, speaking Spanish, maybe dressed in laborer's clothing, they will fabricate a pretext for going up to then and engaging them. They will then, based on this contact, "develop the reasonable suspicion" that the person is illegal, and ask them for ID/proof, etc. So the practical effect is that, yes, people are more likely to be stopped while doing nothing more than walking down the street. See the previous threads for further discussion. In terms of the federal law, it doesn't matter. Under the law, right now, a cop can ask a guy about his/her immigration status for any reason what-so-ever. SB 1070 as written restricts such behavior, but even if your suspicions are true, technically, they're allowed to do so anyway.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 July 14, 2010 QuoteIn terms of the federal law, it doesn't matter. Under the law, right now, a cop can ask a guy about his/her immigration status for any reason what-so-ever. SB 1070 as written restricts such behavior, but even if your suspicions are true, technically, they're allowed to do so anyway. Still irrelevant to my point, which is that the real world effect, on the street, of the new AZ law increases the likelihood of non-federal police in AZ engaging in pretextual profiling stops of Hispanics by a multiplier of, uh... .. 22.7 . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #34 July 14, 2010 I think I weighed in on the earlier thread but here I go again. I run. I have never taken any sort of ID with me when I run. I wonder what a cop would do if I couldn't produce any idea when out for my jog? I'm sure it would be okay because I am white. After my encounters w/ the police (and the court system is even worse) I don't trust any of them to follow their own rules and procedures."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #35 July 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn terms of the federal law, it doesn't matter. Under the law, right now, a cop can ask a guy about his/her immigration status for any reason what-so-ever. SB 1070 as written restricts such behavior, but even if your suspicions are true, technically, they're allowed to do so anyway. Still irrelevant to my point, which is that the real world effect, on the street, of the new AZ law increases the likelihood of non-federal police in AZ engaging in pretextual profiling stops of Hispanics by a multiplier of, uh... .. 22.7 . We're all going to be looking closely aren't we. When does go into effect? July 30th? So, will we be able to discern between a genuine misconduct of an officer, versus a bait set by someone like ACLU, et al....what do you think?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,088 #36 July 14, 2010 >Agreed, but it's the gold standard for establishing "legal status" for all >sorts of circumstances. ?? It's used as ID (to identify that the person is who they say they are) and as proof that they can legally drive a car. It is not proof of citizenship or legal resident status. Here are what the State Department considers legal proof of citizenship or legal presence in the US: Valid US passport Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth Naturalization Certificate Certificate of Citizenship Visa on foreign passport Form I-94 verifying current status as “Refugee,” “Asylum Granted,” “Parolee,” or “Cuban-Haitian Entrant.” Permanent Resident Card with photograph or alien Registration Receipt Card with photograph Unexpired Temporary Resident Card Unexpired Employment Authorization Card Unexpired Reentry Permit Unexpired Refugee Travel Document >What's the problem here? No problem at all, provided you produce one of them on demand. (Or are OK with being held until such can be produced.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #37 July 14, 2010 Quote?? It's used as ID (to identify that the person is who they say they are) and as proof that they can legally drive a car. It is not proof of citizenship or legal resident status. Arizona has specifically said that, for the purposes of this bill, a driver's license will be sufficient proof of legal presence as long as it is issued from a state (such as California) which requires proof of legal presence to obtain that license. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 July 14, 2010 QuoteQuote1. Pulled over by the police. 2. Sometimes when making purchases on my department store credit card. 3. When filling out a credit card or loan application. 4. When applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport. 5. When applying for any kind of insurance. 6. When filling out college applications. 7. When donating blood. 8. When obtaining certain prescription drugs. 9. When making some debit purchases, especially if I'm out of state. 10. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel. I'm goign to be difficult, and say that in those cases, the reason that you can be asked for your license is because of the associated activity, and not just because you're present. The difference comes when one can be asked for papers while walking down the street. And that is a change from what I'm used to in the US. Wendy P. Where does the Arizona law state that police can stop someone JUST to check their ID?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 July 14, 2010 Quotesuch an ID will allow Obama et al to read their nefarious thoughts or something. Without reliable ID, I guess the police will just have to use their "illegal-dar" to magically discern illegals from legals (but no racial profiling allowed!). Don Thanks for your insightful and helpful response. Is that the new liberal position on the matter?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 July 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote The difference comes when one can be asked for papers while walking down the street. And that is a change from what I'm used to in the US. I believe that has been shown to not be the case regarding the AZ law. (multiple times actually, here on this forum even) Wrong; you're doing the same thing Gawain did that I responded to. You're really trying to force a re-hash of the p[rior threads. Anyhow, the law says that "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States" the police "shall" (not "may", but "shall" - i.e., they are required) to "determine the immigration status of a person". The law also allows Arizona citizens to sue for violations of the law, which means that police are "motivated" by the threat of getting sued if they have a chance to check out a suspected illegal alien but fail to do so. The law (the specific section you quote, in fact) ALSO says "For any legal contact". Perhap you missed it in your rush to get to the 'harass brown people' part.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #41 July 14, 2010 QuoteI think I weighed in on the earlier thread but here I go again. I run. I have never taken any sort of ID with me when I run. I wonder what a cop would do if I couldn't produce any idea when out for my jog? I'm sure it would be okay because I am white. After my encounters w/ the police (and the court system is even worse) I don't trust any of them to follow their own rules and procedures. I run, too, and I always carry some kind of ID on me - even if it's just a piece of paper with my name, address & phone number scribbled on it - mainly in case I get hit by a car and can't speak for myself, so I can be ID'd. I've only been stopped once by cops while out running, and it was in my own neighborhood. A few years ago, a violent rape-murder had occurred near the neighborhood. Everyone was spooked and on edge. The suspect, who was white, was still at large. I was running before work, in pre-dawn darkness, about 5:30 am. One of the neighbors saw me and called the cops, who stopped me. I showed them my little scribbled paper thingie. They escorted me to my house, stood there while I used the key on me to unlock my door, and waited for me to get my wallet & show them my ID. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #42 July 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The difference comes when one can be asked for papers while walking down the street. And that is a change from what I'm used to in the US. I believe that has been shown to not be the case regarding the AZ law. (multiple times actually, here on this forum even) Wrong; you're doing the same thing Gawain did that I responded to. You're really trying to force a re-hash of the p[rior threads. Anyhow, the law says that "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States" the police "shall" (not "may", but "shall" - i.e., they are required) to "determine the immigration status of a person". The law also allows Arizona citizens to sue for violations of the law, which means that police are "motivated" by the threat of getting sued if they have a chance to check out a suspected illegal alien but fail to do so. The law (the specific section you quote, in fact) ALSO says "For any legal contact". Perhap you missed it in your rush to get to the 'harass brown people' part. No; the point I'm making - I mentioned it up-thread and in the previous threads - is that any officer who wishes to can fabricate the pretext to satisfy the "legal contact" requirement. It's a technique used by LEOs all the time, not just in this context, to check out someone who they have a gut feeling looks suspicious - so they'll stop a car for, say, swerving in its lane, or whatever, and then do what they feel they need to do. Age-old tactic; applied to new law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #43 July 14, 2010 I think a Road ID sort of thing would probably be a good idea for me, but I've never gotten one. I am not sure I've ever been stopped by the cops while running, maybe once while running at a municipal park after hours and he just asked me to leave. I run at some weird hours, so it wouldn't surprise me. I've been running as late as 1:00 AM and as early as about 4:00 AM. Pretty much every time in between. Police and courts feel totally empowered to ignore their own rules when it is convenient for them. I don't trust them at all."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 July 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The difference comes when one can be asked for papers while walking down the street. And that is a change from what I'm used to in the US. I believe that has been shown to not be the case regarding the AZ law. (multiple times actually, here on this forum even) Wrong; you're doing the same thing Gawain did that I responded to. You're really trying to force a re-hash of the p[rior threads. Anyhow, the law says that "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States" the police "shall" (not "may", but "shall" - i.e., they are required) to "determine the immigration status of a person". The law also allows Arizona citizens to sue for violations of the law, which means that police are "motivated" by the threat of getting sued if they have a chance to check out a suspected illegal alien but fail to do so. The law (the specific section you quote, in fact) ALSO says "For any legal contact". Perhap you missed it in your rush to get to the 'harass brown people' part. No; the point I'm making - I mentioned it up-thread and in the previous threads - is that any officer who wishes to can fabricate the pretext to satisfy the "legal contact" requirement. It's a technique used by LEOs all the time, not just in this context, to check out someone who they have a gut feeling looks suspicious - so they'll stop a car for, say, swerving in its lane, or whatever, and then do what they feel they need to do. Age-old tactic; applied to new law. So, since they could 'make up' reasons to stop someone before this law, and they could check immigration status before this law, what's your point other than the usual race card stuff?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #45 July 14, 2010 Maybe i got it wrong. I thought they had passed a law a few years back that allowed them to get DL'sDom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 July 14, 2010 Quote rediculous! that's like diculous but a second time (for those that don't recognize it) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 July 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteDid it involve Beagle? or a low flying eagle? Be humble, guys. You ain't so reagle. really? and whut due ewe porpoise wii due about it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #48 July 14, 2010 I've really already answered that up-thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 July 14, 2010 QuoteI've really already answered that up-thread. Care to point it out to me? All I can find is your usual 'they're going to harass brown people' schtick. Then there's Rhode Island, that's been doing the same thing for the last few years, and Massachusetts, who did it for at least a few years under Romney.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #50 July 14, 2010 QuoteMaybe i got it wrong. I thought they had passed a law a few years back that allowed them to get DL's I recall hearing about that, but I'm thinking it didn't go through. I could be wrong too, but it does still say on the DMV website that legal presence must be established to get a license or ID. I'm pretty sure I had to show my passport when I got my Cali DL, but that was about eight years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
