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.