He is SUCH a liar.

[bhkad]

Is this true about the law?

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration - NYTimes.com

Here's a fact sheet on the law including some dispelled myths about it:

Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

Specifically...

Reality vs. Myth: SB 1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.

Reality: On the contrary, the law simply penalizes aliens who fail to carry the registration documents that federal law already requires them to keep on their person. These federal crimes (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) have been around since 1940. The Arizona law simply adds a layer of state penalty to what already was a crime under federal law.

The SB1070 provision in question reads:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business. As for U.S. citizens, the law does not require them to carry any identification whatsoever. Indeed, the law cannot possibly be applied against U.S. citizens; only an alien can be found guilty under the Arizona statute. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)

 

[Thorgasm]

The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business. As for U.S. citizens, the law does not require them to carry any identification whatsoever. Indeed, the law cannot possibly be applied against U.S. citizens; only an alien can be found guilty under the Arizona statute. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)

How do you prove your citizenship status without identification?

 

[bhkad]

How do you prove your citizenship status without identification?

Citizens will have ID and legal aliens (by a 1940 law) have to have their papers. But the argument most have is whether the Hispanic will be stopped based on appearance, not what papers he or a citizen will or should have on them.

 

[Thorgasm]

Citizens will have ID and legal aliens (by a 1940 law) have to have their papers.

As for U.S. citizens, the law does not require them to carry any identification whatsoever.

 

[soccerboy22]

How do you prove your citizenship status without identification?

Just have to look the American way. Cowboy hat, American flag shirt, and apple pie.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Let's see, Obama had a filibuster proof Congress and reauthorized the Patriot Act and if all those infringement of your fights existed, why didn't he recind them. Democrats controlled Congress since January 2007 so don't give me it is Bush's fault. Bush couldn't do anything without Congressional approval.

You want so badly to believe what Obama tells you that you ignore what Obama has done. Obama is a liar, an empty suit, and a community organizer which is hardly a leader. He remains in campaign mode blaming Bush and you buy it as you totally ignore basic civics and the role of Congress. Keep spinning.

You are one funny guy. You ask for answers. I gave them to you. You ignore answers, because they debunk your silly rants, and go off moving the goal posts every which way but loose. All you have is your campaign rhetoric. That tactic helped to get Obama elected. An intelligent person would choose another tactic. I guess we'll hear more empty rhetoric from you.

 

[bhkad]

At the point where a legal police stop is made and the person has no ID their ability or inability to speak English will undoubtedly make their status more clear.

My ex-wife's mother speaks no English but she has a Green Card. If she wasn't carrying it and was legally stopped by the police she would be a suspected illegal because of her inability to speak the language, at which point further investigation would show she was here legally. (But she would be found guilty of not having her proper ID.)

If I was stopped and was without ID my facility with English would lower the suspicion that I was an illegal alien.

What do the police do when a regular criminal is apprehended without ID? They perform further investigation.

 

[Boo Radley]

Here's a fact sheet on the law including some dispelled myths about it:

Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

Specifically...

Reality vs. Myth: SB 1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.

Reality: On the contrary, the law simply penalizes aliens who fail to carry the registration documents that federal law already requires them to keep on their person. These federal crimes (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) have been around since 1940. The Arizona law simply adds a layer of state penalty to what already was a crime under federal law.

The SB1070 provision in question reads:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business. As for U.S. citizens, the law does not require them to carry any identification whatsoever. Indeed, the law cannot possibly be applied against U.S. citizens; only an alien can be found guilty under the Arizona statute. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)

How would you now they were a US citizen with no identification whatsoever?

And how can anyone say the law won't be abused? How hard is to make things seem like normal police business? I'm not sure that is something the law can actually make certain.

 

[bhkad]

How would you now they were a US citizen with no identification whatsoever?

See my post above, #57.

And how can anyone say the law won't be abused? How hard is to make things seem like normal police business? I'm not sure that is something the law can actually make certain.

Many laws can be abused to some degree can't they? I think lawsuits to challenge probable cause already go on to some degree in this country and those kinds of challenges will remain an option with this law.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Citizens will have ID and legal aliens (by a 1940 law) have to have their papers. But the argument most have is whether the Hispanic will be stopped based on appearance, not what papers he or a citizen will or should have on them.

It's not Hispanics, it's Mexicans. There is a difference you know.

 

[bhkad]

It's not Hispanics, it's Mexicans. There is a difference you know.

Yes, I know the difference. I speak some Spanish. But the assertion in my post remains true. It's Hispanics that people have a problem with being stopped based on appearance.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's not Hispanics, it's Mexicans. There is a difference you know.

Are you saying that people from Honduras, Beliz, and Guatemala don't come here illegally?

 

[Josie]

It's not Hispanics, it's Mexicans. There is a difference you know.

I'm not sure if you're saying this tongue-in-cheek or not, but.....

All native Mexicans are Hispanics. There are also illegal immigrants from other countries in Central and South America (Hispanics). I'm sure there are also illegal immigrants from Africa and other continents as well.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

You are under no obligation to provide ID... One notable exception is when you agree to the terms of operating a motor vehicle.

Uh, try again chief. If you are walking on the side of the road suspected of wrong doing and you can't provide ID, you can and will be detained on the spot until they can figure out who you are.

Might want to check up on your laws, you seem to be a bit lacking.

I guess if you would say that the law doesn't say you have to have ID, you could stretch it to the truth but if you are automatically detained if you don't, it might not BE law, but it's pretty damn close! LOL

 

[Andalublue]

I'm not sure if you're saying this tongue-in-cheek or not, but.....

All native Mexicans are Hispanics. There are also illegal immigrants from other countries in Central and South America (Hispanics). I'm sure there are also illegal immigrants from Africa and other continents as well.

I thought some Mexicans were pure Native Americans, Maya, Aztec and the like. They can't ALL have Spanish or Portuguese blood, can they? Or do you mean they all speak Spanish? I don't think that's the definition.

Saying all Mexicans are Hispanic is like saying all Americans are Anglo-Saxon.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I thought some Mexicans were pure Native Americans, Maya, Aztec and the like. They can't ALL have Spanish or Portuguese blood, can they? Or do you mean they all speak Spanish? I don't think that's the definition.

Saying all Mexicans are Hispanic is like saying all Americans are Anglo-Saxon.

It's difficult to pin point what degree on anglo/native blood people from Hispanic countries have.

Generally, Northern Urban Mexicans are mostly white while rural and people of the Yucatan are more native.
The best way to tell the difference is height, depth of skin color and facial characteristics.
Although that isn't always a good indicator.

 

[marduc]

Uh, try again chief. If you are walking on the side of the road suspected of wrong doing and you can't provide ID, you can and will be detained on the spot until they can figure out who you are.

Might want to check up on your laws, you seem to be a bit lacking.

I guess if you would say that the law doesn't say you have to have ID, you could stretch it to the truth but if you are automatically detained if you don't, it might not BE law, but it's pretty damn close! LOL

I am not lacking at all, here:

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that such laws did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes]Stop and Identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


As I stated.. you are under NO obligation to show your ID, and you are well within your rights to not provide it.

Further, In the case of being detained.. the detention would be for suspicion of criminal activity, not for not having an ID.

You stated that

upon any contact with LE I have to produce ID and thus proof of citizenship.

and this is false.. you do not have to produce ID

 

[Captain Rockstar]

"Your" President is making Bush look good and anyone who claims Obama has returned respect to the office is out of touch with reality and has zero credibility.

"Your" President has added over two trillion to the debt in less than 2 years.

"Your" President reauthorized the Patriot Act

"Your" President increased the defense budget and implemented the Bush Iraq policy

"Your" President is an empty suit, community organizer that only knows how to place blame and how to campaign. Sounds like you and "your" President have a lot in common.

President Obama has effectively ended the war in Iraq (which "your" president started completely irresponsibly) and is in the process of ending the War in Afghanistan. President Obama has increased our foreign policy image (and the respect associated with it) tenfold.
"Your" president entered office with a SURPLUS, and left with over 11 Trillion in debt.
"Your" President was the first to sign the Patriot Act
"Your" President invaded Iraq due to the "fact" that there were WMD's threatening the safety of America. Regardless of whos policy Obama followed, he did the right thing. The War in Iraq is ending.
"Your" President is an alcoholic liar who based his opinion on speculation. Who destroyed America's reputation as a world leader and is an embarrassment and shame to the Red, White and Blue. Sounds like you and "your" president have a lot in common.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

President Obama has effectively ended the war in Iraq (which "your" president started completely irresponsibly) and is in the process of ending the War in Afghanistan. President Obama has increased our foreign policy image (and the respect associated with it) tenfold.
"Your" president entered office with a SURPLUS, and left with over 11 Trillion in debt.
"Your" President was the first to sign the Patriot Act
"Your" President invaded Iraq due to the "fact" that there were WMD's threatening the safety of America. Regardless of whos policy Obama followed, he did the right thing. The War in Iraq is ending.
"Your" President is an alcoholic liar who based his opinion on speculation. Who destroyed America's reputation as a world leader and is an embarrassment and shame to the Red, White and Blue. Sounds like you and "your" president have a lot in common.

Captain Rock dude,

I'd like a link to back up EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE BASELESS CLAIMS (with the exception of the patriot act, no denying Bush signed that into law but your president continuing the same law makes him just as guilty) or else I'm calling you out on every one of them.

11 trillion in debt? Wow, that number just keeps growing! It's amazing how bush gets us deeper into debt years after leaving office! :roll:

WMD's in Iraq: Hundreds found-- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html I guess you'd call that the inconvenient truth going directly against Saddam's word that he destroyed them all. Uh oh, guess he missed a few HUNDRED.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I'm not sure if you're saying this tongue-in-cheek or not, but.....

All native Mexicans are Hispanics. There are also illegal immigrants from other countries in Central and South America (Hispanics). I'm sure there are also illegal immigrants from Africa and other continents as well.

No, native Mexicans are "Indians" as we call them in the US. Hispanics are from Spain.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Are you saying that people from Honduras, Beliz, and Guatemala don't come here illegally?

No............

 

[Captain Rockstar]

Captain Rock dude,

I'd like a link to back up EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE BASELESS CLAIMS (with the exception of the patriot act, no denying Bush signed that into law but your president continuing the same law makes him just as guilty) or else I'm calling you out on every one of them.

11 trillion in debt? Wow, that number just keeps growing! It's amazing how bush gets us deeper into debt years after leaving office! :roll:

WMD's in Iraq: Hundreds found-- Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com I guess you'd call that the inconvenient truth going directly against Saddam's word that he destroyed them all. Uh oh, guess he missed a few HUNDRED.

For sure, dontworrybehappy.
BUT first, please don't cite Fox. Try to find at least a slightly least biased source if you are going to use News at all (BBC is pretty good). Usually, people cite more scholarly articles/briefs etc.
1.) FY2000 had a combined surplus of 8.6422 Trillion. This is according to the Office of Management and Budget (p. 22 of the brief). In FY2008 our deficit was 6.4185 Trillion (yes, my 11 Trill was slightly off...but in Bush's time in office our country lost around 12 Trillion).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf
2.) Not sure about what part of my statement you want to see as proof...so I'll back it all up. Start with this year's death tolls to show he has handled the war correctly. 2007, 904 American service members lost their lives. 2008, 314 fatalities and in 2009 there were but 149. This year is on track to be even lower, with 24 deaths.
iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties
A direct quote from President Bush, as reported by the BBC
"For the next 12 years, he (Hussain) systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country... The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | In quotes: Reasons for the Iraq war
No WMD's were found in Iraq.
"As U.S. forces moved through Iraq, there were initial reports that chemical or biological weapons might have been uncovered, but closer examinations produced negative results...The failure to find weapons stocks or active production lines, undermining claims by the October 2002 NIE and both President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Document 16, Document 27), has been one particular cause for criticism." This is according to an NSA archive. Pretty reputable.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
3.) "Former President George W. Bush memoir 'Decision Points' to focus on alcohol abuse, 9/11" He was an alcoholic
Former President George W. Bush memoir 'Decision Points' to focus on alcohol abuse, 9/11
Again, it was speculation that Iraq had WMD's. He bases his opinion on speculation rather than facts.

 

[ptif219]

And how will this play when they start hold legal immigrants or even legal natural born citizens? They might not have papers? There are times when I wouldn't. Even if you held me for just a short time, until I could produce them, do you think I would have a favorable reaction to this? Would you?

However, if it's already a federal law, what do you think this adds? And if the federal law didn't stop it, why would you think the state law will? Again, the laws needed are on the books already. The problem is not with writing new laws, but finding the political will to enforce them. Nothing done in Arizona will help that. In fact, due to real and imagined perceptions, in the long run, it may hinder, slow, hurt any actually progress. Because the same people closing their eyes will continue to do so, and those who see everyone as a possible illegal will abuse it sooner or later. Perception will fall hard on republicans in the end.

ID is required in all aspects of our lives I always carry ID it is a reasonable expectation that all should show proof of who they are

 

[Conservative]

Obama is not hopalong cassidy.:roll:

You are right, Obama has no leadership skills at all and will never enforce U.S. laws when it comes to his constituent group.

 

[Conservative]

For sure, dontworrybehappy.
BUT first, please don't cite Fox. Try to find at least a slightly least biased source if you are going to use News at all (BBC is pretty good). Usually, people cite more scholarly articles/briefs etc.
1.) FY2000 had a combined surplus of 8.6422 Trillion. This is according to the Office of Management and Budget (p. 22 of the brief). In FY2008 our deficit was 6.4185 Trillion (yes, my 11 Trill was slightly off...but in Bush's time in office our country lost around 12 Trillion).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf
2.) Not sure about what part of my statement you want to see as proof...so I'll back it all up. Start with this year's death tolls to show he has handled the war correctly. 2007, 904 American service members lost their lives. 2008, 314 fatalities and in 2009 there were but 149. This year is on track to be even lower, with 24 deaths.
iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties
A direct quote from President Bush, as reported by the BBC
"For the next 12 years, he (Hussain) systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country... The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | In quotes: Reasons for the Iraq war
No WMD's were found in Iraq.
"As U.S. forces moved through Iraq, there were initial reports that chemical or biological weapons might have been uncovered, but closer examinations produced negative results...The failure to find weapons stocks or active production lines, undermining claims by the October 2002 NIE and both President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Document 16, Document 27), has been one particular cause for criticism." This is according to an NSA archive. Pretty reputable.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
3.) "Former President George W. Bush memoir 'Decision Points' to focus on alcohol abuse, 9/11" He was an alcoholic
Former President George W. Bush memoir 'Decision Points' to focus on alcohol abuse, 9/11
Again, it was speculation that Iraq had WMD's. He bases his opinion on speculation rather than facts.

Please take a civics class, no President can spend a dime without Congressional approval and tell me which party controlled Congress from 2007 on? In addition please tell me what spending legislation Obama voted against while in Congress You want so badly to blame Bush but ignore actual facts.

Fiscal year of the United States runs from October to September. Our Liar in Chief claimed he inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Since deficits are yearly and the fiscal yeare 2009 started October 1, 2008 and Bush left office in January, four months into the year, only the true minions buy his rhetoric about inheriting a 1.3 trillion deficit. That is impossible and just another Obama lie.