It originally referred to Vietnamese refugees. These were referred to as "boat people" because of the boats they'd sail on to get away from the Communists. Anchor - boat, you get the idea.

30% of LEGAL Arizonan's are Hispanic
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

Pretty sure that technically, everyone over the age of 18 is required to carry ID. If you don't you can be detained until you can prove you are who you say you are.

I think you're missing the point.

Case in point: http://carlosmiller.com/2009/04/30/n...de-courthouse/

I wonder why msnbc and cnn were not in arms about this! Oh yeah, he is white and a libertarian, they dont care about their rights.

I actually had a need to look into this a while back, and surprisingly no. It varies by state. Most states you can walk around fine without your "papers". Florida is one though that, no ID = detained / jailed until you can produce them.

This is not correct. There is no US law that requires you to carry an ID, but many states require that you provide your full, real name to law enforcement when asked in the course of a lawful contact.

A driver's license is not an ID per se, but a permit to drive. It's used by many states as their official identification card, but this doesn't mean you have to carry it if you're not driving.

Your "ID" can be a piece of paper where you've written your name.

So, what state don't you need ID?

Most of them. California for sure. (So you and I are safe; we're both in SoCal, land of the brave and free!!)

A famous Supreme Course case (Hiibel) said that a state could make it a crime for you to not properly identify yourself. No such law exists for not carrying some official ID.

I'd be surprised Florida has a must-carry-ID law. More than likely whatever case was mentioned above had to do with the guy not identifying himself. That's different than carrying ID.

Simply refusing to show a cop ID or give your name can = probs no matter the state I believe.

White or black, or even one of them blue fuckers from Avata!

This is completely not true dude.
If that was the case, they could go to any beach and arrest damn near everyone.

Technically, if you're causing some kind of disturbance and you don't show them an ID if they ask for it, they can take you to jail, as the way it should be.

It depends on which state, of course California has fought it, but in Nevada it is grounds for arrest.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418803_videoside.html

"in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Nevada law that says cops can bust you for withholding an ID, if they have reasonable suspicion you were involved in a crime."

It falls under "stop and identify" laws.

Phil Gordin is a crook and a dipshit.


http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...d_his_girl.php

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...ordon_stil.php

And so then they take you to jail. And then they let you out, because it's not a crime (in most states) to not have ID.

That's the thing - people are up in arms about the racial-profiling aspect of this, forgetting that throughout time, cops have, are, and always will pull over or stop anyone they feel like for any reason they believe they can reasonable conjure up and get away with. If you do stuff like be a PITA, don't give ID, etc., they'll then conjure up a reason to arrest you if they feel like. If you were driving, then "dude's breath smelled funny" = reasonable suspicion you were involved in a crime.

I'm quite sure Hispanics have been profiled against in AZ and SoCal for a long time before any talk of a measure like this ever came about. It's not GOOD, but just saying that this isn't exactly going to introduce all that much new into what's already been going on. But to think that cops don't already needlessly fuck with at least some people of ALL races already whenever they feel like it is being in fantasy land. IIRC, wasn't it in AZ recently where that one white guy got his window shattered and him beat the fuck up by a bunch of cops at a checkpoint because he was basically being a pain in the ass?

Exactly. They don't need any more 'Authority' legitimizing the fucked up shit they do.

Pretty simple when the cops are required to stop and check the legal status of 1/3 the population don't be shocked when crime goes up because the cops are too busy to do anything else. Doesn't matter within 25 year hispanics will be the majority in Arizona even if you could get rid of all illegals. By 2020 whites will be under 50% of the population.

WHAT?????
"The measure ? set to take effect in late July or early August ? would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally." <----- LOL

illegally=

"unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed. Illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, criminal can all describe actions not in accord with law."

I wonder where the authorities got this idea?

http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/200...azi-papers.jpg

http://troutsoup.com/img/yourpapersplease.jpg

I think the nazis got it from the Romans dude :thumbsup

So lets get this right.....

You support the IRS checking your (someone who has not broken a law) health care papers EVERY MONTH

But do not support someone who commits a crime needing to prove they are a citizen?


Only if I could have the twisted mind of a progressive.

The article is wrong, and Nevada has no such law. The Hiibel case was around whether the plaintiff was required to identify himself, not produce ID.

From the Wiki page on stop and identify statues (which also properly cites the exact statements made by the Nevada and US Courts):

"The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name."

Az is the only state that has had a representative with some backbone to take action. Janet Napalatano did nothing about the borders and now she is head of homeland security.....we are in big trouble.

Things are changing........:thumbsup

Why the fuck would the IRS be wasting time & resources looking at "health care papers"? Unless it's related to some sort of tax fraud case.

Let go of the paranoia..... it's okay..... the government is not out to get you. And if they are, you'll know it. There won't be any subtleties to it when they are actually 'after you'.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Apparently you have not read the health care bill :1orglaugh

It hinges on probable cause. The Arizona statute does not allow detention simply because someone looks like they are an illegal. They can only question the status if there is some kind of "reasonable" suspicion the individual is an illegal, but the law provides no hint at how police are to arrive at this conclusion.

Arizona does not have a law that says everyone must carry some kind of ID that would satisfy the inquiry of a person's residency. They have only this:

"It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime." <rest snipped>

So technically, everyone in AZ must now carry some form of documentation that could be used to prove residency, in case they are stopped by police. Unless they want to be charged with racial profiling, which is against federal law, they have to ask everyone.

Forgetting the large native American population with brown skin (gee, are they here legally?), some of the oldest families on grant lands in AZ are of Hispanic descent. Their families may have lived there for 150 years, yet now they have to carry documentation that proves their legal residency.

In all, it's a stupid law that totally misses the point, muddies the real problem, and sets us back in time, money, and effort.

Meg Whitman, a smart lady likely the next governor of CA (and a Republican) says she thinks there are better ways of handling the problem. I'm quite sure she's right.

I have not read it in detail, no. But I know how the IRS functions on an intimate level, and I'm telling you.... they don't fucking care what's on your 'health care papers'.

Not now, they dont start caring until 2014. So you are right, as of today they dont, come 2014 they will. And you will have to prove to them that you have "acceptable" health insurance.

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other
punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.


Refusing to provide ID could result in that.

I agree, there has to be a better way. However, I dont mind people having to prove they are here legally if they are caught in a criminal act.

I hear ya, but either way you can be detained and one way or the other you will be identified.

"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the person?s identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person?s presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."

http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-171.html#NRS171Sec123

Did I say that?

If someone has committed a crime I don't care if they are a citizen or not they should be arrested regardless. Apparently you feel Americans that commit crimes should get free passes then? Trust me if you break into my house your nationality isn't going to be a factor in how hard I smash your face with a baseball bat.

Looks like Texas will be next

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Berma...-92213914.html

Quite the opposite. In Kolender, tried in the early 1980s, the US Supreme Court in fact overturned a California law requiring "credible and reliable identification."

California stands as a state where quite specifically you can walk around without an ID. When required you need only state your full true name.

Im having fun watching the politicians trying to figure what to do right now, if handled wrong, it will result in even more lost seats in the senate and house in November. Obama is already reaching out to latinos, blacks and women. I guess if your white, you don't rate?

Well, as I consulted with a CA police officer before making that post my only comment is, try it. How do they know the name you give them is real? Fail to provide ID and get taken to the station for 8-14 hours while they run your prints.

Different states really do have different laws. There are very significant differences. Whether the death penalty is allowed or not varies by state. Whether gay marriage is allowed or not varies by state.

This California law really needs to be linked, considering even states like Nevada and others specifically state how LONG you can be detained and you are not to be taken anywhere but the scene where you were apprehended.

14 hour and have finger prints ran in cali for no ID? Umm, that sounds far from truth, considering cali has absolutely no stop and identify laws.

Here is example of nevada law with very specific provisions:

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-171.html#NRS171Sec123

Somsone please link cali procedure. They cannot run your prints just to run them and keep you for 14 hours

Here are states with Stop and Identify laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Well from a technical standpoint

# of latinos, blacks and women > # of white men

I've heard that secondhand from someone playing that game with them. Have to wait for hours in jail while waiting for bio-ID determination comes back.

Don't feel sorry for the guy trying to hassle the cops. Not a bright move.

So now AZ has declared it will be illegal to be illegal. Is the irony in that redundancy, or the people who are outraged by the repetition of the new law vs existing laws?

Only young pretty unwed female immigrants should be allowed
 

sure

businesses save money hiring cheap illegals.

And government pays the cost for their health care, their kid's birth, schooling ......

And they take away jobs from legal Americans, who instead turn into welfare recipients, or criminals.

It is never said, but the poor uneducated Americans are the biggest victims of illegal immigration. Their jobs are being taken away, their wages are getting depressed. Of course, maybe they are too lazy and illegal immigrants work harder.

Now some people here confuse illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. And yes, there should be criteria which immigrants to allow. Like Canada and Australia, who invite the Educated, instead of the Scum. Yes, this makes your gardener and your maid more expensive. And legally collected strawberries and pineapple will cost you more but save you in taxes for illegal's health care. (of course, the darn Unions who over-do things and strike during harvest season to extort ridiculous wages and working conditions are a pain, too)

Also people confuse the Nazi laws (that tagged LEGAL 10th generation residents of the country) with laws that tag illiterates that crossed the border half an hour or half a year ago. How much disinformation and purposefully planted confusion.



I am in favor, though, to allow unlimited immigration of 18 - 24 year old unwed, nulliparous (no offspring) females, and to legally allow them to work in the porn industry and as legal strippers and prostitutes. They should get talent visa. Let us start collecting signatures!

:2 cents::thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

From a political stand point, sounds like a racist statement he made, just like when Obama jumped all over that white cop for arresting the black professor, then later had Beer Gate at the whitehouse.

...and broke! :D

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Anyways, this anti-immigrant law isn't gonna change shit. If the Federal law that is not only more powerful but much more invasive isn't stemming the tide, this isn't going to either. This is just another dummy law to make it look like politicians are doing something.

posted this in another thread too


Mexico issues a travel warning for AZ and says that the new immigrant law is discriminatory!! Has anyone ever read Article 32 of the Mexican Constitution? It's pretty discriminatory.



Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable." Foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico may not serve as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, or chiefs of seaports and airports


if nothing else make it an equal playing field on both sides of the border and provide the same equal employment opportunities as the Mexican government affords Americans and other foreigners that come to Mexico

That's not really the point, is it. You could give them a student ID or something they don't have easy database access to and that could still happen. You could give them a valid passport and they'd still detain you for hours until they could get the kickback from the state department.

Your CA cop friend didn't say it was illegal not to carry ID.

All this goes back to the Arizona law that says you have to provide documentation of legal residency or risk arrest. You could very well have valid ID but no documentation of residency and you could still be arrested.

Even Karl Rove thinks this law is a bad idea. Or I guess some people think Rove is a good example of a bleeding heart liberal.