lawful contact

[Plane]

I think this law makes a statement more than it makes a change in the situation.

Clearly you and I disagree.

You may have a better idea than I do , of what change from the previous situation is made by this law.

[sirs]

Under this AZ law, it is ILLEGAL to racially profile.  It is ILLEGAL to ask someone for their ID simply because they look hispanic

Simple as that

And that means it will never happen... but only if you're naive.

Will the law occasionally be abused?  Is no law not, by some cop?  Your issue, IF that was the case is with the officer, not the law.  But that really isn't the issue now is it.  Your issue is with the law itself.  And not the AZ law, but current Federal Immigration Law, since that is what this is all about....the State, having been given the power to do so, back in both 1986 & reinforced in 1996, to enforce CURRENT FEDERAL Immigration law

Your beef isn't with AZ, your beef has always been with current immigration law.  Which is fine, but be honest and don't try to infer AZ is doing some draconian gestapo like "show me yur paperz".  Tee, and his ignorance can push it, but you're far more intelligent

[Universe Prince]

You may have a better idea than I do , of what change from the previous situation is made by this law.

Just out of curiosity, Plane, what is your opinion regarding the national REAL ID?

The change made by the new Arizona law is that it, as I think Sirs pointed out, gives Arizona law enforcement more authority.

[sirs]

Close.  It simply gives local law enfocerment the support of the state in enforcing current federal immigration law.

[Plane]

You may have a better idea than I do , of what change from the previous situation is made by this law.

Just out of curiosity, Plane, what is your opinion regarding the national REAL ID?

The change made by the new Arizona law is that it, as I think Sirs pointed out, gives Arizona law enforcement more authority.

We require an ID be carried by Resident Aleins ,Drivers, and it is very hard to conduct business without identifying yourself.

I have to have an ID as part of my job.

I think the National ID is 90% with us already , it is coming in increments.

I don't really like it , but I don't know the better alternative.

Could a national requirement be challenged on constitunal grounds because the Constitution does not authorise anything like it? I know someone who needed an ID to get a job and the State obligeingly issued one for free.

If you can't get employed or cahs a check without an ID isn't it practicaly a requirement already?

[Plane]

You may have a better idea than I do , of what change from the previous situation is made by this law.

Just out of curiosity, Plane, what is your opinion regarding the national REAL ID?

The change made by the new Arizona law is that it, as I think Sirs pointed out, gives Arizona law enforcement more authority.

I am not certain , but I beleive that this authority was already present , but the statement from the Legislature may embolden the enforcers to use it.

[Universe Prince]

Will the law occasionally be abused?  Is no law not, by some cop?  Your issue, IF that was the case is with the officer, not the law.

Ah, so no law is ever wrong because it's just the officer's fault if a law gets abused? Is that what you're saying? It looks like what you're saying, but notice that I asked a question.

But that really isn't the issue now is it.  Your issue is with the law itself.  And not the AZ law, but current Federal Immigration Law, since that is what this is all about....the State, having been given the power to do so, back in both 1986 & reinforced in 1996, to enforce CURRENT FEDERAL Immigration law

You really should try asking questions rather than making statements.

Your beef isn't with AZ, your beef has always been with current immigration law.  Which is fine, but be honest and don't try to infer AZ is doing some draconian gestapo like "show me yur paperz".  Tee, and his ignorance can push it, but you're far more intelligent

There you go again, trying to tell me what I think, as if somehow you get to decide that. It's starting to get irritating. I think you really don't want me to turn around and start doing that to you. I'm fairly certain you won't like it.

But what is funny here is that people keep justifying police asking for identification and proof of legal residence as no big deal and nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide, and now Sirs is insisting this is nothing at all like Gestapo agents asking for papers. Hm. I never even mentioned Gestapo agents or made with the "show me your papers" bit. Well, not till just now. But Sirs is telling me not to do it. Does that mean he sees a connection between the situation in Arizona and Gestapo agents asking for identification papers? Hm.

[Universe Prince]

I am not certain , but I beleive that this authority was already present , but the statement from the Legislature may embolden the enforcers to use it.

I firmly doubt the authority to be detaining people over their immigration status was already present or Arizona law enforcement would have already been doing it. People like Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio really don't need encouragement to go after illegal immigrants.

[sirs]

Will the law occasionally be abused?  Is no law not, by some cop?  Your issue, IF that was the case is with the officer, not the law.

Ah, so no law is ever wrong because it's just the officer's fault if a law gets abused?

Nope, on occasion, there's bad law.  This isn't one of them, and yes, THAT would be an opinion.  The law being pointed out though, is not an opinion, including the current AZ law, which simply, 1 more time, provides state support to local law enforcment to enforce EXISTING Federal immigration law, that has been their jurisdictional privy since 1986, then reinforced by Clinton in 1996.  That ALSO being a fact, not an opinion

Which again dovetails nicely to my apparent ACCURATE assumption, that your beef is with the current immigration law of this country

Your beef isn't with AZ, your beef has always been with current immigration law.  Which is fine, but be honest and don't try to infer AZ is doing some draconian gestapo like "show me yur paperz".  Tee, and his ignorance can push it, but you're far more intelligent

There you go again, trying to tell me what I think, as if somehow you get to decide that. It's starting to get irritating. I think you really don't want me to turn around and start doing that to you. I'm fairly certain you won't like it.

But what is funny here is that people keep justifying police asking for identification and proof of legal residence as no big deal and nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide, and now Sirs is insisting this is nothing at all like Gestapo agents asking for papers. Hm. I never even mentioned Gestapo agents or made with the "show me your papers" bit. Well, not till just now. But Sirs is telling me not to do it. Does that mean he sees a connection between the situation in Arizona and Gestapo agents asking for identification papers? Hm.

You REALLY need to start reading for context.  My use of Gestapo, etc., is specifcally connected to the hysterics coming from the likes of Cardinal Mahoney & company.  "I", sirs, see NOTHING REMOTELY comparable to Law enforcement asking ANYONE for their ID, after they've been lawfully detained compared to Nazis or Communists simply stopping you to check your "papers"

DO YOU?  

Would you then be implying any and everytime I'm stopped by the police for some infraction, and they ask me for my Driver's License, I should consider them a member of the SS?  That sure seems to be what alot of pro-illegal immigrant folks, like Mahoney, are chanting

[Universe Prince]

Nope, on occasion, there's bad law.  This isn't one of them, and yes, THAT would be an opinion.

Glad we've established that.

The law being pointed out though, is not an opinion,

No one said the law was an opinion, Mr. "You REALLY need to start reading for context."

Which again dovetails nicely to my apparent ACCURATE assumption, that your beef is with the current immigration law of this country

Typing the word 'accurate' in all caps doesn't make it true.

You REALLY need to start reading for context.  My use of Gestapo, etc., is specifcally connected to the hysterics coming from the likes of Cardinal Mahoney & company.

Is it? Hm. Let me scroll back and read again what you said.

Will the law occasionally be abused?  Is no law not, by some cop?  Your issue, IF that was the case is with the officer, not the law.  But that really isn't the issue now is it.  Your issue is with the law itself.  And not the AZ law, but current Federal Immigration Law, since that is what this is all about....the State, having been given the power to do so, back in both 1986 & reinforced in 1996, to enforce CURRENT FEDERAL Immigration law Your beef isn't with AZ, your beef has always been with current immigration law.  Which is fine, but be honest and don't try to infer AZ is doing some draconian gestapo like "show me yur paperz".  Tee, and his ignorance can push it, but you're far more intelligent

Nope. No mention of Cardinal Mahoney or anyone else but me. Oh, and Michael Tee, but he is not in this conversation. Hard for me to see your context when you don't use it. I'm not on the Who's Who of long distance mind readers either.

"I", sirs, see NOTHING REMOTELY comparable to Law enforcement asking ANYONE for their ID, after they've been lawfully detained compared to Nazis or Communists simply stopping you to check your "papers"

Good for you.

DO YOU?

Oh hey! Look! A question! Hold on, I'll answer it.

Would you then be implying any and everytime I'm stopped by the police for some infraction, and they ask me for my Driver's License, I should consider them a member of the SS?

I'm implying nothing of the sort as I haven't talked about it yet. You seem to want to just jump ahead to a conclusion before I've even given my opinion. And for the record only SS members should be considered SS members.

You're not going to like my answer though. I've talked a number of times before (in other places and threads) about the creep toward a police state, and that it comes not from the government but from people demanding the government do something. In my opinion, this is one of those tiny steps. I told you that you wouldn't like it. But notice I'm not comparing anyone to Nazis. So if you start trying to claim I am, the only one here trying to establish the comparison will be you.

That sure seems to be what alot of pro-illegal immigrant folks, like Mahoney, are chanting

Still waiting on the quote that shows anyone claiming to be pro-illegal immigration. I'm starting to wonder if the folks who are in hysterics are the ones who want to claim anyone who doesn't agree with them about support for the new Arizona law is pro-illegal immigration.

[sirs]

A) I dare you to find ANYWHERE where I claimed YOU were comparing supporters of this AZ law to Nazis.  Good luck with that

B) I've made several references to those who HAVE made such comparisons.....those being of the hysterical variety.  I didn't think you had such a short term memory deficit.  And sure, I could go find you quotes of Mahoney & others, but I'm not going to do the work, if you're just going to defend them, and/or claim they have right to those "opinions".  No one is claiming that they don't.  The claim is the hysterical nature of those "opinions", when they do spew them

C) You HAVE made references that pointing out this law giving AZ law enforcement more authority, supported by the state, to enforce what the Fed should be, but hasn't been to any substantive extent, is supposedly an opinion.  It is NOT.  That's FACTUALLY what its doing.  The only limb of an opinion is some implication that the Fed is doing all it can to enforce its own immigration laws.  Speaking as a Californian, with all the sanctuary cities, and "restrictions" imposed on officers, by local governments, demonstrates that its clearly not the case that the Fed is doing its job

D) You keep reinforcing my assumption as accurate, as you keep banging away on our current federal immigration law (which of course you've done on a number of occasions, not just during this AZ issue).  Even making the reference  "Ah, so no law is (n)ever wrong because it's just the officer's fault if a law gets abused?"  So why you keep trying to deny it, is beyond me.  Don't want to concede the accuracy of my assessement?

[Plane]

The law says cops must inquire anytime "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." Since most of the state's illegal immigrants are Latinos, the natural impulse of police may be to interrogate every Latino with whom they cross paths.

Is it a fact that most of the states illeagal immagrants are Latino?

If that is a fact then any measure that is effective will yeld more Latinos caught than others.

But interviewing every Latino with whom they cross paths might be very wastefull of time because the leagal veriety is so often found.

What if they were interrogating every person with whom they cross paths would that be more acceptable?  Or less effective?

[Universe Prince]

A) I dare you to find ANYWHERE where I claimed YOU were comparing supporters of this AZ law to Nazis.  Good luck with that

Did I say you claimed I was comparing supporters of the new Arizona law to Nazis? No, I did not. I merely noted you brought up the Gestapo while talking to me and telling me not to make the comparison.

B) I've made several references to those who HAVE made such comparisons.....those being of the hysterical variety.  I didn't think you had such a short term memory deficit.

Yes, but I haven't made such comparisons, and yet you were telling me not to do it. Why would I assume you were talking about people you did not mention when you were talking to me about what I should not say?

And sure, I could go find you quotes of Mahoney & others, but I'm not going to do the work, if you're just going to defend them, and/or claim they have right to those "opinions".  No one is claiming that they don't.  The claim is the hysterical nature of those "opinions", when they do spew them

So you're not going to support your accusation because you've already decided how I'm going to respond to it. That's a pretty lousy excuse. Anyway, Sirs, stop trying to define for me what I think.

C) You HAVE made references that pointing out this law giving AZ law enforcement more authority, supported by the state, to enforce what the Fed should be, but hasn't been to any substantive extent, is supposedly an opinion.

That is not what I said was an opinion. I explained myself on this one already.

D) You keep reinforcing my assumption as accurate, as you keep banging away on our current federal immigration law (which of course you've done on a number of occasions, not just during this AZ issue).  Even making the reference  "Ah, so no law is (n)ever wrong because it's just the officer's fault if a law gets abused?"  So why you keep trying to deny it, is beyond me.  Don't want to concede the accuracy of my assessement?

First of all, your attempt to correct my grammar, making 'ever' into 'never', is incorrect. That would create a double negative. Secondly, my question about no law ever being wrong is specific to your assertion that the law being abused will only be sign of a bad cop and no more. If you are going to complain so much about reading for context, you really should try doing reading for context yourself. Third, I can discuss and have been discussing my objections to this law without discussing my overall objections to the state of immigration law. When I wanted to make a comment about immigration law over all, I did so clearly and directly. If I desire again to make a comment about immigration law over all, I will do so clearly and directly. My objection to the Arizona law is what I stated my objection to the Arizona law to be. If I wanted to discuss immigration law in general with you, I would. But I don't. Discussing it with you is futile. As this conversation seems to be.

[Universe Prince]

Is it a fact that most of the states illeagal immagrants are Latino?

If that is a fact then any measure that is effective will yeld more Latinos caught than others.

I don't believe the complaint is about how many Latinos cracking down on illegal immigration will yield.

But interviewing every Latino with whom they cross paths might be very wastefull of time because the leagal veriety is so often found.

You say that as if police don't often already do things that are a waste of time.

What if they were interrogating every person with whom they cross paths would that be more acceptable?  Or less effective?

No, and probably yes.

[sirs]

I dare you to find ANYWHERE where I claimed YOU were comparing supporters of this AZ law to Nazis.  Good luck with that

Did I say you claimed I was comparing supporters of the new Arizona law to Nazis? No, I did not. I merely noted you brought up the Gestapo while talking to me and telling me not to make the comparison.

Yea, you noted it, as if this thread exists in a vacuum, when I've clearly made similar references to Mahoney & company in other threads, making such comparisons.  Yet there you are inferring I'm the one bringing it up, with the added irritation of trying to claim I was referring to you, when I clearly wasn't

Yes, but I haven't made such comparisons, and yet you were telling me not to do it. Why would I assume you were talking about people you did not mention when you were talking to me about what I should not say?

a) because I have brought such comparisions up in other threads that you've been involved in, and everytime I brought them up, it was referring to the more hysterical faction, such as Cardinal Mahoney

b) it's more of a rhetorical recommendation.  And if you note, you accurately reference what you shouldn't say vs the implied stop saying as if you had made such hysterical comments

And sure, I could go find you quotes of Mahoney & others, but I'm not going to do the work, if you're just going to defend them, and/or claim they have right to those "opinions".  No one is claiming that they don't.  The claim is the hysterical nature of those "opinions", when they do spew them

So you're not going to support your accusation because you've already decided how I'm going to respond to it. That's a pretty lousy excuse. Anyway, Sirs, stop trying to define for me what I think.

Don't need to.  Just not going to do the added work, if its not going to accomplish anything

You HAVE made references that pointing out this law giving AZ law enforcement more authority, supported by the state, to enforce what the Fed should be, but hasn't been to any substantive extent, is supposedly an opinion.

That is not what I said was an opinion. I explained myself on this one already.

Yes, you have, on April 29th:
sirs: Prince the part you're not seeing, or more likely refusing to see, is that AZ is simply doing with the FED is supposed to do, but isn't.

prince: That's your opinion.

You clearly referenced how its an opinion to claim that AZ's law is doing what the Fed isn't.  And that's exactly what I've said since the get go

You keep reinforcing my assumption as accurate, as you keep banging away on our current federal immigration law (which of course you've done on a number of occasions, not just during this AZ issue).  Even making the reference  "Ah, so no law is ever wrong because it's just the officer's fault if a law gets abused?"  So why you keep trying to deny it, is beyond me.  Don't want to concede the accuracy of my assessement?

my question about no law ever being wrong is specific to your assertion that the law being abused will only be sign of a bad cop and no more.  I can discuss and have been discussing my objections to this law without discussing my overall objections to the state of immigration law.

Now that's interesting, since this law merely provides state support to enforcing existing FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.  It's not some new fangled immigration law, with a bunch more new rules to deal with immigrants, so how you can argue the one, but have little concern for the other (especially having critized it on a myriad of other occasions) is beyond me.

But go for it, how is this new law "bad", when Congress has already given authority to every state in helping to enforce existing federal immigration law??  ESPECIALLY given the fact that they've now tweaked the wording of "lawful contact" to appease those so focused on semantics