Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I have to show my I.D. to vote. If I get pulled over for a traffic violation, I have to show proof of insurance, registration and an my driver's license. Any time I travel by plane,I needed to show my I.D. If I write a check or open a bank account, I have to show I.D. I even get carded, from time to time, when buying alcohol.

So, WTH is all this fuss over anyone having to show their proper I.D. , to a cop, when he lawfully asks for it ? We ALL do, almost routinely, and we don't riot over it, or wave signs accusing the Gov't of being RACISTS or BIGOTED.

There is no issue here. If you're here illegally, tough shit. If you're a citizen, join the club. It's what we ALL have to do, whether you like it or not.

Come into MY country, illegally, and then bitch about how you're treated, when it's only how EVERY citizen gets treated..... who the HELL do you think you are ?






Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um, there are actually those of us here legally who look Anglo and would STILL prefer to not to have to submit to unwarranted search and scrutiny. As I've said before, it's a dangerous precedent. Saying that we already do it so it's okay doesn't make it right.

As for having to show when we've committed a crime or a violation... The only thing these people have against them is their language and skin colour. Sorry, but it really is discrimination. It's like DWB.

---

Quote:

---

Are you for a nationalized ID card

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
dude, maybe its not just the illegals that are bitching and moaning (like we could understand them, anyway! they don't speak 'merican), but the legals (mexican or not) who are going to be subject to greater scrutiny from the police by virtue of "reasonable suspicion."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

---

Tell me, what is your favoret "bland" food?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

---

Tell me, what is your favoret "bland" food?

---

rice cakes. or broccoli without any dressing. essentially, anything that lowers my testosterone level and makes my gums bleed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
sic' 'em kwicko!

(grabs organic, fair trade, low sodium, no-butter pop corn, takes a seat)

---

Tell me, what is your favoret "bland" food?

---

rice cakes. or broccoli without any dressing. essentially, anything that lowers my testosterone level and makes my gums bleed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um, there are actually those of us here legally who look Anglo and would STILL prefer to not to have to submit to unwarranted search and scrutiny. As I've said before, it's a dangerous precedent. Saying that we already do it so it's okay doesn't make it right.

As for having to show when we've committed a crime or a violation... The only thing these people have against them is their language and skin colour. Sorry, but it really is discrimination. It's like DWB.

---

There's zero discrimination going on here. Sorry. There's nothing in the AZ law which requires or allows a cop to shake down anyone simply because they 'look' like they're foreign. There has to be probable cause, just as there would be for a cop to ask any one else.

How is this in ANY way a "dangerous precedent " ? WE already do it, and have done it , for a long time. No, it doesn't make it RIGHT, but what is your solution to those situations ? Are you for a nationalized ID card, yes or no ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Are you for a nationalized ID card

---

Hell no.

Call me naive, but frankly I don't understand WHY illegal immigration is such a problem, aside from crime, which would happen anyway. I'm sure my scottish ancestors were illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, I think immigration is a scapegoat and a red herring issue to distract us from the real problems that are putting the economy in the crapper and creating a nice little police state.

---

Quote:

---

...well, I won't waste more of my time here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

The law doesn't just "allow" such shakedowns; it REQUIRES them. And it doesn't mention probably cause or warrants - it requires such shakedowns based purely on "reasonable suspicion", which is left completely to the officer's discretion.

---

Quote:

---

You're out of your element here; you've been corrected on this, more than once, and now you're just being a cock for the sake of being a cock about it. You really are embarrassing yourself. This is as bad as your idiotic rant about the 95% of Americans who pay no taxes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

The law doesn't just "allow" such shakedowns; it REQUIRES them. And it doesn't mention probably cause or warrants - it requires such shakedowns based purely on "reasonable suspicion", which is left completely to the officer's discretion.

---

Wrong. As usual, you exaggerate and omit pretty much at will, to suit your needs and make yourself feel better. There has to be a REASONABLE suspicion, and it must be during a LAWFUL contact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're nonsensical putting 'reasonable suspicion' into quotes makes it seem dubious, when in fact, it's critical to the issue. I view it as a fair and rational part of the law, while YOU simply dismiss it, out of hand. You, like our current President, are overly dismissive of the officers in the blue uniforms.

The law is written EXTREMELY well, and will hold up to just this sort of demagoguery that comes from Leftists radicals, such as yourself.

I consider your version of what the bill says to be wrong. It's like The Princess Bride...

" I do not think it means what you say it means"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're [sic] nonsensical putting 'reasonable suspicion' into quotes makes it seem dubious, when in fact, it's critical to the issue. I view it as a fair and rational part of the law, while YOU simply dismiss it, out of hand. You, like our current President, are overly dismissive of the officers in the blue uniforms.

---

Quote:

---

I consider your version of what the bill says to be wrong. It's like The Princess Bride...

" I do not think it means what you say it means"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
of course, when the law is inevitably over turned, it will provide our conservative friends with an opportunity to gnash their dentures and bemoan "judicial activism" and so forth. and such moments are always welcome.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
of course, when the law is inevitably over turned, it will provide our conservative friends with an opportunity to gnash their dentures and bemoan "judicial activism" and so forth. and such moments are always welcome.

---

It doesn't matter in the least to you that 70% of citizens in Arizona approve of this law. Hell, even if they'd voted on it, you'd just LOVE for the courts to step in and " fix " this...
Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're nonsensical putting 'reasonable suspicion' into quotes makes it seem dubious, when in fact, it's critical to the issue. I view it as a fair and rational part of the law, while YOU simply dismiss it, out of hand. You, like our current President, are overly dismissive of the officers in the blue uniforms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'll side w/ Sherriff Joe Arpaio

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, WTH is all this fuss over anyone having to show their proper I.D. , to a cop, when he lawfully asks for it ? We ALL do, almost routinely, and we don't riot over it, or wave signs accusing the Gov't of being RACISTS or BIGOTED.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, WTH is all this fuss over anyone having to show their proper I.D. , to a cop, when he lawfully asks for it ? We ALL do, almost routinely, and we don't riot over it, or wave signs accusing the Gov't of being RACISTS or BIGOTED.

---

You don't routinely show ID just for walking down the street, or buying groceries, or getting on a bus, or visiting a public library.

The instances you cited for showing ID involved driving, flying, banking, buying a controlled substance, something that many, many legal residents in big cities do not do.

But that's besides the point. The law isn't about showing ID. It is about proving legitimate immigration status. Whether someone is a legal resident is something a driver's license can't prove. Then what? All non-white citizens now have to walk around carrying their naturalization papers or passport, while white citizens can get by with, "I was born here, buddy"?

Even if you don't see the racial discrimination aspect, surely you see the part where this is further intrusion by the government. Of course, you may not care about govt intrusion, but many of us do.

I am a first generation immigrant. I look like an immigrant. I don't think I'll be visiting Arizona or Utah any time soon.

---

Quote:

---

The more cheap labour we have here, the more BUSINESSES stay here which can employ the working class for working class wages. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

---

Quote:

---

I take slight exception with the assumption that those who are most against illegals are also most pro-business. In my experience, it's often the most pro-business free-marketers who SAY they're against illegal immigration, but who then rush to hire illegals at well below minimum or fair wages.

As always, what they SAY and what they DO don't jibe.

---