• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

There are no warrants out for my arrest and I haven't committed any crimes. I shouldn't have to carry ID, is what I'm saying. There's a difference between "Hey, I think you might be the guy who robbed the bank yesterday" and "Hey, I think you might be here illegally." The first is a specific crime with a specific description of the suspect. The second is whatever the officer happens to think at that particular moment.

Do you think being asked to hold basic identification papers errodes your civil liberties?
 
Do you think being asked to hold basic identification papers errodes your civil liberties?

Papiere, bitte.

Yes, I do think that. Hell, not everyone even has a driver's license. People shouldn't have to carry around something as sensitive as a social security card, birth certificate, or passport. How about children? It isn't uncommon for a 14 year old to lack any form of photo ID.

If you're from New Mexico, your driver's license isn't even good enough.
 
Last edited:
Papiere, bitte.

Yes, I do think that. Hell, not everyone even has a driver's license. People shouldn't have to carry around something as sensitive as a social security card, birth certificate, or passport. How about children? It isn't uncommon for a 14 year old to lack any form of photo ID.

What about you might lead someone to believe you are illegally in the Country?

Paranoia, look it up.
 
Papiere, bitte.

Yes, I do think that. Hell, not everyone even has a driver's license. People shouldn't have to carry around something as sensitive as a social security card, birth certificate, or passport. How about children? It isn't uncommon for a 14 year old to lack any form of photo ID.

Firstly, do you know why you are carrying such identification? In case you break the law, or do something like crash your car which requires a legal process and identification documents to prove your the owner of the car, insurance details to cover the costs of damage, etc. Now we have already established that ID is important for public security and the works.

Now under law, you cannot be searched and cannot be asked for an identification without there being a valid reason. So unless you raise the suspicions of police officers, crash your car, or commit some kind of crime, you will not be asked to present your identification, in which case your civil liberties, under no circumstance, is being violated in any shape or form.

Now, is there a specific instance you have in mind where your ID should not be required to be with you at all times? Just during driving? What else are you talking about here?
 
Last edited:
What about you might lead someone to believe you are illegally in the Country?

Paranoia, look it up.

Me, personally? Probably nothing. I'm a white guy with no discernable accent.

I also don't own a gun but oppose bans on owning them. It's not just about me, Mr. V.
 
There are no warrants out for my arrest and I haven't committed any crimes. I shouldn't have to carry ID, is what I'm saying. There's a difference between "Hey, I think you might be the guy who robbed the bank yesterday" and "Hey, I think you might be here illegally." The first is a specific crime with a specific description of the suspect. The second is whatever the officer happens to think at that particular moment.


You seem uptight with cops asking a few questions, using their cop skills, sorting out who they are dealing with, and then demanding proof of immigration status of those that are at EPIC FAIL status at questioning..
 
You seem uptight with cops asking a few questions, using their cop skills, sorting out who they are dealing with, and then demanding proof of immigration status of those that are at EPIC FAIL status at questioning..

I am against legal citizens or residents being detained for the sole "crime" of not having identification on them, yes.
 
The other issue I have with this law is the tricky position it places police in. On the one hand, they're being told they can't use racial profiling. We all know this law is going to be applied more to hispanics than to any other group. They're the vast majority of illegals in AZ, after all. But, if a cop is too worried about getting busted with frivilous lawsuits over racial profiling, he might be lax in enforcing this law, which the law says can get the department or the officer sued.
 
I am against legal citizens or residents being detained for the sole "crime" of not having identification on them, yes.

They would be detained for asx long as it takes to determine their residency. Which with modern computers and the like shouldn't take very long at all.
 
I am against legal citizens or residents being detained for the sole "crime" of not having identification on them, yes.

I would anticipate each LEA will prepare, a guideline for its LEOs so that reasonable suspicion can be articulated, rather than the officer having a hunch
 
They would be detained for asx long as it takes to determine their residency. Which with modern computers and the like shouldn't take very long at all.

There are many cases in which it will still require a handcuffed ride down to the police station in the back of a squad car. It's not like they have full national database access on their blackberries or something.
 
There are many cases in which it will still require a handcuffed ride down to the police station in the back of a squad car. It's not like they have full national database access on their blackberries or something.

Laptop with internet. Radio to teh station. Cell phone to Dispatch....

You = Paranoid.
 
Laptop with internet. Radio to teh station. Cell phone to Dispatch....

You = Paranoid.

How well are AZ's computers linked to Washington's database? How much information do they have on people who don't have a driver's license or criminal record?

Has your argument really backed off from "all ID's are ok" to "Well it won't take that long!" ?
 
There are many cases in which it will still require a handcuffed ride down to the police station in the back of a squad car. It's not like they have full national database access on their blackberries or something.

Seriously, the fact that the Obama admin, and the rest of the left are going banana ape **** over this makes me like this bill a hell of alot more
 
Seriously, the fact that the Obama admin, and the rest of the left are going banana ape **** over this makes me like this bill a hell of alot more

This is basically the definition of partisanism, but ok.
 
This is basically the definition of partisanism, but ok.

If Arizona doesn't do something, its just going to get worse and worse, because Washington isnt going to do anything about it.
 
If Arizona doesn't do something, its just going to get worse and worse, because Washington isnt going to do anything about it.

The statement you quoted is still accurate. :)
 
I am against legal citizens or residents being detained for the sole "crime" of not having identification on them, yes.

For the 3,986th time the law clearly states the police must be investigating another crime before they can ask about legal status.
 
For the 3,986th time the law clearly states the police must be investigating another crime before they can ask about legal status.

A lawful stop to issue a jaywalking ticket or speeding ticket ends once I have the ticket in my hand. Not true if the officer decides that I might be illegally in the country and my driver's license happens to be from New Mexico. I have rights, even during a lawful stop.
 
A lawful stop to issue a jaywalking ticket or speeding ticket ends once I have the ticket in my hand. Not true if the officer decides that I might be illegally in the country and my driver's license happens to be from New Mexico. I have rights, even during a lawful stop.

Now you're being a "Troll". It's all ready been proven to you, in black and white, that any state ID will suffice, yet your provided talking points state to ignore the truth and keep pushing the LIE that only AZ DL will be accepted.

You should talk to your employer about getting you less easily debunked talking points to use.
 
A lawful stop to issue a jaywalking ticket or speeding ticket ends once I have the ticket in my hand. Not true if the officer decides that I might be illegally in the country and my driver's license happens to be from New Mexico. I have rights, even during a lawful stop.

Thats right but if you are legal you have nothing to fear.
 
Now you're being a "Troll". It's all ready been proven to you, in black and white, that any state ID will suffice, yet your provided talking points state to ignore the truth and keep pushing the LIE that only AZ DL will be accepted.

You should talk to your employer about getting you less easily debunked talking points to use.

It hasn't been proven to me, no. Remember that discussion on the word "if?" You never did explain why that phrase was there.

Having a different interpretation of something isn't trolling.
 
Last edited:
Thats right but if you are legal you have nothing to fear.

It's not "fear," it's "not wanting to be detained or for other innocent people to be detained."
 
It hasn't been proven to me, no. Remember that discussion on the word "if?" You never did explain why that phrase was there.

Having a different interpretation of something isn't trolling.

It is when you have been shown repeatedly that you are not just wrong, but completely wrong.

HOWEVER, so that no one can furthermore have doubt about your "lack of understanding" I shall break it down for you:

IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES

If the Entity Requires = If the law enforcement agent/agency requires.

PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE,

This is simple english here, if they need to see proof you're legal before they can attempt to hold you. I.E. they suspect you are illegal, they can ask for Valid ID.

ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Any ID, issued by a State, local or Federal Entity (in this case, has your name, picture ID...) can be used as proof you are legal.

So what this says is, if the cop has reason to suspect you're illegally here, he can request ID, and if you have any valid state/local/federal form of ID, you are golden. Otherwise he can detain you to further investigate your legal status.


IF has been solved, you have been shown at best, an intentionally ignorant poster on the issue, and at worst a paid troll pushing a talking point.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's stop the personal attacks.
 
Back
Top Bottom