Do you support Arizona's Immigration Law - Petition

[GoNRA 12]

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Immigra ... fault.aspx

[surfgod247 0]

I don't like any law that gives cops the right to act on "REASONABLE SUSPICION" alone. "REASONABLE SUSPICION" sounds a lot like "justifiable need" found in NJ ccw law. I'm not going to support it unless they define "REASONABLE SUSPICION" very clearly.

[djg0770 481]

Good for you.

 

As for me and my house, we support enforcement of existing immigration law. Let them ask me for my papers, I will gladly show them that I am a documented citizen.

[Guest]

I don't like any law that gives cops the right to act on "REASONABLE SUSPICION" alone. "REASONABLE SUSPICION" sounds a lot like "justifiable need" found in NJ ccw law. I'm not going to support it unless they define "REASONABLE SUSPICION" very clearly.

 

 

this was discussed the other day on the news at pretty great length and they kind of danced around what the deal is for obvious reason, to be effective the police WILL NEED to rely on racial/ethnic profiling coupled with other indicators.. not to state the obvious.. but you are dealing with a state in the southwest.. you are trying to combat South American illegal immigration.. so the reasonable suspicion would be something like a traffic stop, in which they encounter a driver (most likely Hispanic) that has an altered drivers license.. or maybe none at all.. they will then obviously detain him.. and conduct an investigation into if he is here legally or not which MAY sound very intrusive.. BUT YOU MUST THINK about it from a logical standpoint.. if you legally immigrate into this country it is my understanding that you are legally OBLIGATED to carry your "green card" at ALL times.. so the investigation would take all of 5 seconds..

 

people are trying to make this out to be some HUGE intrusion in which people of hispanic ethnicity are going to be rounded up into concentration camps and have all sorts of civil rights violations... this law is really no more than saying not only can an officer ask you for identification BUT they can also ask you for proof of citizenship, all of which is accomplished by a small credit card size ID card..

 

hardly the giant "anti immigration/anti hispanic" machine the media is trying to make this out to be..

[Urban Grunt 44]

If you are a legal resident alien you must carry your Green card with you at all times.

Nobody will except my green card for a form of I.D,i gave it to the state police as I.D when filling for permits and the cop asked me "what is it?" i explained it was a green card and then got into a debate about i can't own a gun because im not an American citizen.

 

If i as a legal resident have to carry ID whats wrong with the illegal doing the same?................opps i forgot they have fake ID or none at all.

[surfgod247 0]

I don't like any law that gives cops the right to act on "REASONABLE SUSPICION" alone. "REASONABLE SUSPICION" sounds a lot like "justifiable need" found in NJ ccw law. I'm not going to support it unless they define "REASONABLE SUSPICION" very clearly.

 

 

this was discussed the other day on the news at pretty great length and they kind of danced around what the deal is for obvious reason, to be effective the police WILL NEED to rely on racial/ethnic profiling coupled with other indicators.. not to state the obvious.. but you are dealing with a state in the southwest.. you are trying to combat South American illegal immigration.. so the reasonable suspicion would be something like a traffic stop, in which they encounter a driver (most likely Hispanic) that has an altered drivers license.. or maybe none at all.. they will then obviously detain him.. and conduct an investigation into if he is here legally or not which MAY sound very intrusive.. BUT YOU MUST THINK about it from a logical standpoint.. if you legally immigrate into this country it is my understanding that you are legally OBLIGATED to carry your "green card" at ALL times.. so the investigation would take all of 5 seconds..

 

people are trying to make this out to be some HUGE intrusion in which people of hispanic ethnicity are going to be rounded up into concentration camps and have all sorts of civil rights violations... this law is really no more than saying not only can an officer ask you for identification BUT they can also ask you for proof of citizenship, all of which is accomplished by a small credit card size ID card..

 

hardly the giant "anti immigration/anti hispanic" machine the media is trying to make this out to be..

 

Personally like I said before I would never support a bill that doesn't clearly define there text. I would think if anyone knew that it would be Nj gun owners.

[djg0770 481]

Personally like I said before I would never support a bill that doesn't clearly define there text. I would think if anyone knew that it would be Nj gun owners.

 

 

Who exactly would be the "victims" of this "intrusion". Citizens? Not likely.

[surfgod247 0]

Personally like I said before I would never support a bill that doesn't clearly define there text. I would think if anyone knew that it would be Nj gun owners.

 

 

Who exactly would be the "victims" of this "intrusion". Citizens? Not likely.

 

I don't change my standards because its a immigration bill. I don't support bills that don't define there text. Laws that allows cops to interpret them as they see fit is a unbalanced power. Do I think something needs to be done about immigration? Yes absolutely, do i think this bill will help? I just don't know and guess only time will tell, but I do think it says something when the (AACOP) The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes this bill. To answer your question I think the victims of this bill will be the Spanish-American population since I feel that REASONABLE SUSPICION truly means racial profiling. If they get rid of "REASONABLE SUSPICION" or define it I would have a much different attitude toward this bill.

[Guest]

Personally like I said before I would never support a bill that doesn't clearly define there text. I would think if anyone knew that it would be Nj gun owners.

 

 

Who exactly would be the "victims" of this "intrusion". Citizens? Not likely.

 

I don't change my standards because its a immigration bill. I don't support bills that don't define there text. Laws that allows cops to interpret them as they see fit is a unbalanced power. Do I think something needs to be done about immigration? Yes absolutely, do i think this bill will help? I just don't know and guess only time will tell, but I do think it says something when the (AACOP) The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes this bill. To answer your question I think the victims of this bill will be the Spanish-American population since I feel that REASONABLE SUSPICION truly means racial profiling. If they get rid of "REASONABLE SUSPICION" or define it I would have a much different attitude toward this bill.

 

 

well if you are trying to counter act ILLEGAL immigrants sneaking into the country FROM SOUTH AMERICA how the hell else are you going to profile them OTHER than race... i think it is pretty safe to assume there is not a HUGE problem with the Chinese illegally entering through Mexico.. when the people committing the crime are comprised almost entirely of people of Hispanic ethnicity then you are foolish to ignore that.. the problem with the PC police is that they will in the face of a problem IGNORE the obvious route if that obvious route entails profiling people based on race EVEN IF the people causing the issue are composed entirely of that race..

 

the truth is not always pretty.. and being asked for my "green card" is NO different than having to produce any other identification..

 

i get in a fist fight with someone at a bar.. the police come..

once the fight is broken up the investigation begins..

one of the first questions.. DO YOU HAVE IDENTIFICATION..

this is COMMON practice..

[kenw 293]

The law doesn't allow police to stop a family on their way to the ice cream parlor and demand to see their papers. It allows the police to request proof of someone's legal presence in the country if they're being detained or questioned for some other offense that brought them to the attention of the police in the first place.

 

A cop pulls over a van for blowing a stop sign. there are 15 people in the back, and the driver speaks no English and has no driver's license, registration or proof of insurance. The cop is now allowed to request some proof that the driver and passengers are in the US legally. If such documentation is not presented, the assumption is that that person is here illegally, and it goes from there. I don't see mass roundups of Hispanics happening because of this law. All it does is allow for the enforcement of existing federal law, which states that anyone in the US who is not a citizen must carry documentation that identifies them and proves their legal status here. It's not as Draconian (Fascist, invasive, racist, etc.) as Barry makes it sound. It's just the enforcement of existing laws.

 

Frankly, if Barry had his way, we'd all be required to carry identity papers that showed our political affiliations and membership in "subversive" groups like the NRA or the Young Republicans.

[surfgod247 0]

 

 

well if you are trying to counter act ILLEGAL immigrants sneaking into the country FROM SOUTH AMERICA how the hell else are you going to profile them OTHER than race... i think it is pretty safe to assume there is not a HUGE problem with the Chinese illegally entering through Mexico.. when the people committing the crime are comprised almost entirely of people of Hispanic ethnicity then you are foolish to ignore that.. the problem with the PC police is that they will in the face of a problem IGNORE the obvious route if that obvious route entails profiling people based on race EVEN IF the people causing the issue are composed entirely of that race..

 

the truth is not always pretty.. and being asked for my "green card" is NO different than having to produce any other identification..

 

i get in a fist fight with someone at a bar.. the police come..

once the fight is broken up the investigation begins..

one of the first questions.. DO YOU HAVE IDENTIFICATION..

this is COMMON practice..

 

Well no you have it wrong, if you don't produce your green card with this bill its a misdemeanor, me being a citizen i can tell him my name address and s.s. and off i go. Me being a American citizen im not obligated to have id where as person holding a green card has different rights then me(with this bill).

[surfgod247 0]

The law doesn't allow police to stop a family on their way to the ice cream parlor and demand to see their papers. It allows the police to request proof of someone's legal presence in the country if they're being detained or questioned for some other offense that brought them to the attention of the police in the first place.

 

A cop pulls over a van for blowing a stop sign. there are 15 people in the back, and the driver speaks no English and has no driver's license, registration or proof of insurance. The cop is now allowed to request some proof that the driver and passengers are in the US legally. If such documentation is not presented, the assumption is that that person is here illegally, and it goes from there. I don't see mass roundups of Hispanics happening because of this law. All it does is allow for the enforcement of existing federal law, which states that anyone in the US who is not a citizen must carry documentation that identifies them and proves their legal status here. It's not as Draconian (Fascist, invasive, racist, etc.) as Barry makes it sound. It's just the enforcement of existing laws.

 

Frankly, if Barry had his way, we'd all be required to carry identity papers that showed our political affiliations and membership in "subversive" groups like the NRA or the Young Republicans.

 

Your absolutely right they do need a reason to pull someone over first. I should also state this is just my opinion on this bill, you might feel very differently then i do on a issue which I totally understand. Im also not saying that im right and your wrong. If anyone was wondering im not Spanish im as white as they come but do feel that if your here legally, whether it be though a visa, green card or born here you deserve the same right as everyone else. As gun owners we take a lot of shit over what criminal do with there guns and don't think another group should take shit because of the problem with immigrants.

[Guest]

 

Well no you have it wrong, if you don't produce your green card with this bill its a misdemeanor,

 

what?

 

Me being a American citizen im not obligated to have id where as person holding a green card has different rights then me(with this bill).

 

just because you are legally in this country (green card) that does NOT make you a citizen, in fact i think that you turn in your "green card" if you become an actual citizen.. people in the country with "green cards" are not granted the same rights as a citizen.. they are SUPPOSED to have different rights.. YOU are a citizen.. THEY are not... don't get the confusion.. someone in the country who is a citizen would be able to do the same thing as you.. someone with a "green card" HAS to carry it.. that is part of how it works.. so i really dont understand what you are saying here..

 

 

 

Your absolutely right they do need a reason to pull someone over first. I should also state this is just my opinion on this bill, you might feel very differently then i do on a issue which I totally understand. Im also not saying that im right and your wrong. If anyone was wondering im not Spanish im as white as they come but do feel that if your here legally, whether it be though a visa, green card or born here you deserve the same right as everyone else. As gun owners we take a lot of **** over what criminal do with there guns and don't think another group should take **** because of the problem with immigrants.

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT.. someone who is a CITIZEN is a member of our nation.. someone just legally living here to work (or for other reasons) "green card holder" is NOT a citizen.. and is therefore NOT granted the same rights as you are..

 

you seem to want to group EVERYONE who is in this country legally the same rights.. just because you are here legally does NOT make you a citizen..

[bullpin 0]

surfgod247 wrote:

 

Your absolutely right they do need a reason to pull someone over first. I should also state this is just my opinion on this bill, you might feel very differently then i do on a issue which I totally understand. Im also not saying that im right and your wrong. If anyone was wondering im not Spanish im as white as they come but do feel that if your here legally, whether it be though a visa, green card or born here you deserve the same right as everyone else. As gun owners we take a lot of **** over what criminal do with there guns and don't think another group should take **** because of the problem with immigrants.

 

 

 

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT.. someone who is a CITIZEN is a member of our nation.. someone just legally living here to work (or for other reasons) "green card holder" is NOT a citizen.. and is therefore NOT granted the same rights as you are..

 

you seem to want to group EVERYONE who is in this country legally the same rights.. just because you are here legally does NOT make you a citizen..

 

 

right on damagedworld.well said.

[KpdPipes 388]

The law doesn't allow police to stop a family on their way to the ice cream parlor and demand to see their papers. It allows the police to request proof of someone's legal presence in the country if they're being detained or questioned for some other offense that brought them to the attention of the police in the first place.

 

A cop pulls over a van for blowing a stop sign. there are 15 people in the back, and the driver speaks no English and has no driver's license, registration or proof of insurance. The cop is now allowed to request some proof that the driver and passengers are in the US legally. If such documentation is not presented, the assumption is that that person is here illegally, and it goes from there. I don't see mass roundups of Hispanics happening because of this law. All it does is allow for the enforcement of existing federal law, which states that anyone in the US who is not a citizen must carry documentation that identifies them and proves their legal status here. It's not as Draconian (Fascist, invasive, racist, etc.) as Barry makes it sound. It's just the enforcement of existing laws.

 

Frankly, if Barry had his way, we'd all be required to carry identity papers that showed our political affiliations and membership in "subversive" groups like the NRA or the Young Republicans.

 

Your absolutely right they do need a reason to pull someone over first. I should also state this is just my opinion on this bill, you might feel very differently then i do on a issue which I totally understand. Im also not saying that im right and your wrong. If anyone was wondering im not Spanish im as white as they come but do feel that if your here legally, whether it be though a visa, green card or born here you deserve the same right as everyone else. As gun owners we take a lot of **** over what criminal do with there guns and don't think another group should take **** because of the problem with immigrants.

 

That requirement is WRITTEN into the bill. Reasonable suspicion CANNOT be that closel;y defined. It means things that ain individual of THAt trainig and experience would find reasonable. The level of reasonable suspicion for me as a 23 year veteran Cop, is MUCH different than that needed by a rookie just out of the academy.

[bbk 188]

I'm with the group think on this one. If someone wants the benefits of this country, let them take the proper channels. The people who have labored through the process, and earned their place amongst us deserve the rights given.

 

There are aspects of this bill that does bother me in ways. The bill does bother me at times because society is compromised of people who, regardless of the laws in place, are not logical creatures. Whether its emotions, nationalism, etc, humans base their reasoning in something other then instinct-- and, in doing so, become illogical. Due to this illogical thought process at times, whether a bill is meant to do the right thing (and hard thing at that), it can be F'ed up because it is people that are carrying it out. I'm not saying that people/authorities WILL abuse the bill, but I could see how someone in a position of power could misconstrue it-- and mess something up. Even if that person is dealt with in the correct manner, even promptly, the damage would be done.

 

Another fear I have is the possibility of this leading to more measures. People can say that this bill is innocent and is meant to only clean up the streets from illegals, and that citizens have nothing to fear... but don't we question the same decision making (even sometimes based on less information) on, say, the current administration?

 

An example of both points above would be the PATRIOT Act/EO12333/USSID 18. The measure was put into place, overwhelmingly, within a month after the events of 9/11. It was the right and just thing to do at the time because we were doing our best to fight the opposition, and win. The same actions were then later questioned during accused illegal wiretaps and other signals intelligence activity-- and though nothing was ever proved otherwise, the damage was done. Later, the issue about the No-Fly list rose after it was confirmed that it was, for the most part, a waste of time and funding.

So, a bill meant to help the people in every aspect to protect them against the opposition that had been in the shadows for a relatively long time ended up causing quite a bit of a mess (and its ongoing).

 

I agree that the measures had to be taken against illegal immigrants. I even applaud the actions taken by the government of AZ. I am not saying that I believe anything bad WILL indeed happen... I'm simply saying that the public has to be careful and not commit to the group think completely. We need to monitor the situation closely, or I fear that we'll, once again, be living in hindsight if the worse were to occur.

[Guest]

I'm with the group think on this one. If someone wants the benefits of this country, let them take the proper channels. The people who have labored through the process, and earned their place amongst us deserve the rights given.

 

There are aspects of this bill that does bother me in ways. The bill does bother me at times because society is compromised of people who, regardless of the laws in place, are not logical creatures. Whether its emotions, nationalism, etc, humans base their reasoning in something other then instinct-- and, in doing so, become illogical. Due to this illogical thought process at times, whether a bill is meant to do the right thing (and hard thing at that), it can be F'ed up because it is people that are carrying it out. I'm not saying that people/authorities WILL abuse the bill, but I could see how someone in a position of power could misconstrue it-- and mess something up. Even if that person is dealt with in the correct manner, even promptly, the damage would be done.

 

Another fear I have is the possibility of this leading to more measures. People can say that this bill is innocent and is meant to only clean up the streets from illegals, and that citizens have nothing to fear... but don't we question the same decision making (even sometimes based on less information) on, say, the current administration?

 

An example of both points above would be the PATRIOT Act/EO12333/USSID 18. The measure was put into place, overwhelmingly, within a month after the events of 9/11. It was the right and just thing to do at the time because we were doing our best to fight the opposition, and win. The same actions were then later questioned during accused illegal wiretaps and other signals intelligence activity-- and though nothing was ever proved otherwise, the damage was done. Later, the issue about the No-Fly list rose after it was confirmed that it was, for the most part, a waste of time and funding.

So, a bill meant to help the people in every aspect to protect them against the opposition that had been in the shadows for a relatively long time ended up causing quite a bit of a mess (and its ongoing).

 

I agree that the measures had to be taken against illegal immigrants. I even applaud the actions taken by the government of AZ. I am not saying that I believe anything bad WILL indeed happen... I'm simply saying that the public has to be careful and not commit to the group think completely. We need to monitor the situation closely, or I fear that we'll, once again, be living in hindsight if the worse were to occur.

 

the problem with the worrying that it will lead to more unconstitutional legislation is the following..

 

THEY ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO GET RID OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY ILLEGALLY HERE..

 

the law already says.. you can NOT be here illegally.. they are basically just taking it onto themselves to enforce it..

[bbk 188]

Ha, I know what it says. I'm simply saying that this country has lost the meaning and innocence of laws in the past in the shuffle of things... and not to necessarily obsess over it, but to stay aware of the situation.

 

The PATRIOT Act was meant to target specific objectives, and look how those dominoes fell... PATRIOT Act > HSA > ITRPA > HR 5122/John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (which was later repealed)... as well as the revisions to EO1233, USSID 18. Those measures weren't responsible for any transgressions directly, but have all definitely played a hand in certain questionable acts. We just have to stay aware.

[tony357 386]

Yes.

[Blackfox 1]

I don