27
Apr
10

Arizona SB 1070 and Why I Cannot Support It

Before you get excited let’s get the facts straight – I do not support illegal immigration, amnesty or anything else of that flavor. A law is a law and in this case it is illegal to cross a border and not be accepted into America without being processed. However, this bill stinks of something far to reaching for the government.

Of course, the intent is to get illegal people out of here and back to where they belong so they can come over here legally. However, this is not how I see it. Any time a new law comes out I always examine it for what it is and what it grants the government. In this case it grants the government to question whoever they want. If you cannot produce what they want, then they are allowed to detain you.

Positively, they will catch some illegal immigrants with this new power. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will work in this regard. However, what will be the outcome if they happen to stop me? Sure, I have lived in America all my life, but what if they don’t like my Ron Paul sticker, my Gedsen Flag sticker, or even my Deadmau5 sticker on the back of my car? After all, two of them are somewhat equated with “anti-government” ideas (even though I am not anti-government, just anti-bad, intrusive government). What will I produce them to prove who I am? My driver’s licence? My birth certificate? My passport? A urine sample? A letter from my mom? Maybe I could produce all of these and if the police officer still wants to make my day hell, they have every right to do so under this bill (from my understanding).

It most definitely reminds me of the Nazi days (back off haters) where they were allowed to stop you whenever and wherever and check your papers – “Papiere, Bitte!” I can see this going that direction very easily and this is the exact reason that I refuse to support this bill. Maybe that exact language is not in the bill, but once we get used to SB 1070 being law, I can certainly see them “adding to” the bill to allow routine, unwarranted checks to whomever. I don’t want that and neither should you. After all, when have you ever seen the government take an intrusive step into society and then when it is fixed, step back? Me? Never.

Think about it. The issue here is not about racism or anything else, it is about government intervention in our everyday lives.

Advertisements

22 Responses to “Arizona SB 1070 and Why I Cannot Support It”


  1. 1 Alan Scott
    27 April 2010 at 18:22

    Kyle,

    Again I have to disagree with you . I’m not up on every aspect of the Bill, but I think you are wrong that this will impact legal citizens .

  2. 28 April 2010 at 00:38

    @Alan Scott,
    Did I say what you claim? Or are you trying to put words into my mouth?

    Also, Niemöller anyone?

  3. 3 Alan Scott
    29 April 2010 at 14:22

    Kyle,

    Sorry, you have me confused .

  4. 4 Alan Scott
    30 April 2010 at 16:09

    Kyle,

    I know you do not support the new Arizona Law . This was an act of desperation, because the Feds refuse to secure the Southern Border. What action would you suggest Arizona take as an alternative ?

  5. 1 May 2010 at 12:30

    @Alan: Yes, I understand the situation fully. I understand that there is an immigration problem. I understand that there is an insecure border. I understand that this is due to no Federal action.

    Let’s face it – the United States Federal government is inept. It has been for some time now. They are more concerned with redistributing wealth and complaining about Bush then fixing actual problems. They have their hands in the money coffer and don’t know how to stop reaching in. In short, they are chronic addicts of finding ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

    The states have long since given up their sovereignty to the Federal government and we have ceased to be a Republic. One of the few jobs of the Federal government is to protect the Union from invaders and I would say that illegals are in that category. In Article 1, Section 8, there is a very limited list of things the government is to do. Nowhere in there is bailouts, stimulus, buying car manufacturers, firing executives, etc. – however, the states allow it and even endorse it.

    What I want this whole thing to be is an example of how the Federal government is out of control in all the wrong places and nowhere to be seen in the places it is needed. I want the states to perk up and regain their sovereignty. Hell, maybe even succeed from this wart on our shoulder. We’d be a heck of a lot better doing our own thing here in Arizona then waiting for them and having them usurp our power and money.

    So what is my problem with this bill? My problem is that whenever you give government power, it never gives it back. Yes, this bill is aimed at getting illegals. In fact, really, this is about self-deportation, not a SWAT sweep of Latino neighborhoods. So if this bill sticks, I can see it bloom into other things such as some sort of Real ID, which I fully do not support.

    What is the answer? I don’t know and I never have pretended to know an answer. Maybe, get the Federal nipple out of our mouth – quit accepting their retarded “help” and “guidance” and do our own thing. Quit letting the Federal government steal our time, our money (taxes), and our safety (no border help) and keep it here in state… and build our own damn fence.

  6. 6 Alan Scott
    1 May 2010 at 16:08

    Kyle,

    As much as you oppose this Bill, so do the Democrats . You do not even trust your State Government with this power . However, you brought up State Power versus Federal power . Obama and his hacks will try to get this Bill overturned on Constitutional grounds . They may succeed, but I doubt it . They are waging a public relations blitz, plus they will tie it up in endless lawsuits because they want illegals as future victims and future voters .

    I believe that legally Obama and his stooges know they will lose . The people who crafted the Bill took legal challenges into consideration when they worded it . Democrats want this issue to fire up their lethargic base . Legally this Bill is a States rights versus Federal power . I doubt that Arizona can legally put up it’s own fence but, it would be worth a try .

    I live in Pennsylvania . Our illegal problem is not as intense as Arizona, but in Hazleton, Pa. which is close to me, the former Mayor made a name for himself by cracking down on illegal immigration . He took all the grief Arizona is getting . The Citizens love the man and he is making his second try at replacing our Democratic Congressman .

  7. 7 DJ
    2 May 2010 at 16:41

    K2,

    You have misrepresented the law. It does not allow the police to arbitrarily stop and question anyone. The police first need a reason (i.e. speeding, reckless driving, B&E, etc.) before they can stop someone, merely walking down the street like you are implying, isn’t sufficient per the new law. Even after the stop, if the driver provides a valid drivers license from AZ or any other state (like we all must do when stopped), no questions can be asked. If they offer up a French/Irish/Mexican/Italian or whatever drivers license and passport that are valid, again, no questions asked. However if the driver (in this example) is unable produce any valid documentation, the law allows the officer to dig deeper, because there is the officer now has a significant reason to believe the person may not be legal. There is no way this law can be interpreted to allow the actions you imply. The allegations you are making are the same ones the Mexicans here in AZ are making to show that the bill promotes racial profiling. Racial profiling is specifically banned in the language of the law.

    I must say, after reading your article, I was quite amazed, either you have not read the law or you have chosen a slippery-slope argument without merit (imo). While we agree that Government continuously takes away our rights, this law does not do that. There is evidence (per the radio, I have not yet had the opportunity to verify), that an exodus of illegals is already taking place. Texas, Utah, Minnesota, and Colorado are in discussion to adopt the AZ language. It is a good law.

  8. 2 May 2010 at 17:38

    DJ:

    However if the driver (in this example) is unable produce any valid documentation, the law allows the officer to dig deeper, because there is the officer now has a significant reason to believe the person may not be legal.

    I agree with what you say and what is possible. However while routine I do think this skips, even if only slightly, out of the realm of probable cause. If the cop pulls you over for speeding then that is the crime you are to be accused of – not that you have a pound of cocaine sitting on the passenger seat next to you.

    Does that make sense?

    I am not sure that the government should be able to probe for secondary offenses just because you committed a primary offense. I have never encountered a police officer that wanted to check my car out or anything but I feel like one day I will. There is already chatter of “home grown terrorist” and in that list are veterans and people who believe in right-wing ideals, specifically being “right-wing extremists.” So it is my fear that one day this will be expanded out to probe for other secondary offenses such as being a “right-wing extremist.” I am already pretty vocal with this on my vehicle, to include my anti-photo radar licence plate.

    Speaking of anti-photo radar plates… those were with good intentions too. But now there is talk of them scanning plates with the photo cameras to check to see if you have registration paid or if you have a crack in your windshield. So instead of taking your original crime, they are going to go probing.

    he allegations you are making are the same ones the Mexicans here in AZ are making to show that the bill promotes racial profiling. Racial profiling is specifically banned in the language of the law.

    I never said that it profiles. I said that I don’t want to deal with a secondary accusation just because they feel they have the right to pull me over for the primary. Also in comment 5 I clarified further, “In fact, really, this is about self-deportation, not a SWAT sweep of Latino neighborhoods. So if this bill sticks, I can see it bloom into other things such as some sort of Real ID, which I fully do not support.”

  9. 2 May 2010 at 20:06

    Alan Scott:

    As much as you oppose this Bill, so do the Democrats.

    So what are you saying? Because I disagree with this bill (in part), I am with the Democrats?

    You do not even trust your State Government with this power . However, you brought up State Power versus Federal power. Obama and his hacks will try to get this Bill overturned on Constitutional grounds. They may succeed, but I doubt it . They are waging a public relations blitz, plus they will tie it up in endless lawsuits because they want illegals as future victims and future voters .

    I thought I was more obvious than this but I don’t trust any government, especially ones that have “State.” I fully understand that Obama & Co will try to hack this bill up on some random charge. I understand this is a media blitz. This is why I started the blog off with a pseudo disclaimer and ended it with another summary disclaimer that I disagreed with it because I felt it was about “government intervention in our everyday lives.”

    I believe that legally Obama and his stooges know they will lose . The people who crafted the Bill took legal challenges into consideration when they worded it . Democrats want this issue to fire up their lethargic base . Legally this Bill is a States rights versus Federal power . I doubt that Arizona can legally put up it’s own fence but, it would be worth a try .

    I live in Pennsylvania . Our illegal problem is not as intense as Arizona, but in Hazleton, Pa. which is close to me, the former Mayor made a name for himself by cracking down on illegal immigration . He took all the grief Arizona is getting . The Citizens love the man and he is making his second try at replacing our Democratic Congressman .

    I think my paranoid Libertarian side came out in this blog article and you and DJ are misunderstanding my point in the article. If I had to pick whether to keep or nix the bill, I’d probably say keep it. However, I wrote this piece in disagreement because I don’t want more government intervention in my life or anyone’s life. I am tired of it. I am tired of government slowly (or not so slowly) encroaching on my personal freedoms “in the name of something.”

    Yes, there is a problem. Yes, this will work to help solve that problem. However, I am just very uneasy about giving the state the power to probe for a secondary offense. I don’t think this bill will do it, but I do think it will get us used to that kind of action. That is how it always works. First they introduce something seemingly harmless and once we get used to that then they add a little piece to it and we again get used to that. Until, one day we wake up and we are slaves. Sounds like a famous quote I know.

  10. 10 DJ
    4 May 2010 at 06:43

    K2,

    I disagree that if a cop pulls you over for speeding and he sees a bag of cocaine he can’t take you in for the secondary offense, the law is quite clear that anything visible is fair game.

    I would agree with you if this law allowed the police to detain someone and then search the vehicle without probable cause, or detain someone because of the color of their skin and search for a crime, but it does neither.

    In the example I provided in my original response, the officer has probable cause that a crime is being committed; it IS illegal to be here without documentation.

    If you are stopped for speeding and cannot provide a valid drivers license when asked, the cop can write you up/take you in for the secondary offense of driving without a license or driving with an expired license. What about the drunk that gets pulled over for speeding/reckless driving? He was stopped for speeding, but gets arrested for the secondary offense. How about the dude who gets pulled over for running a stop sign and the cop finds that a secondary offense of driving a stolen car is evident? The driver gets taken in for the secondary offense. There is no difference between any of these examples I and a cop stopping a speeder and finding they cannot produce a valid drivers license/passport/green-card and detaining them for breaking the law of being in the US illegally.

    Can you please provide a link to this new use for the speed cameras, I am interested in seeing this, I have not heard it before. If it is in fact true, I would agree that it is a problem; as you know, I am anti-red light/speed cameras anyway.

  11. 11 Alan Scott
    4 May 2010 at 16:43

    Kyle,

    ” So what are you saying? Because I disagree with this bill (in part), I am with the Democrats? ”

    Politics do make strange bedfellows . You are on the same side in the case although for different reasons . I would not worry about it .

    I look at it this way . If you are stopped for a traffic stop, the Officer is going to check you for warrants or outstanding tickets . Being an illegal is pretty much the same thing . Previously the Officer did not have authority to arrest you if you were illegal . The Illegal status is just another outstanding legal condition . All of this other stuff is a distraction .

  12. 5 May 2010 at 03:07

    To both of you: I suppose this is the basis of the secondary offense… I believe in the pressumption of innocence. You are innocent until proven guilty.

    This bill says that an officer must have a “reasonable suspicion” (AZ SB1070 11-1051(B))that the person is an illegal. What exactly is a “reasonable suspicion”?

    Normally if someone has a “reasonable suspicion” against you then they have to get a search warrant to go check it out, right?

    As for the plain view warrantless search and seizures the case Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) decided what must be met for a plain view seizure.
    (1) a prior justified intrusion
    (2) the item is found in plain view
    (3) it is “immediately apparent” that the find is in some fashion incriminating; and
    (4) the discovery is “inadvertent.”

    The courts decided in Arizona v. Hicks 480 U.S. 321 (1987) that “immediately apparent” meant “probable cause.” Probable cause does not mean probable suspicion. So when an officer makes a stop with someone that may look like an illegal, I can definitely see that there is a probable suspicion but I am not sure that we can see a probable cause. how do you guys see probably CAUSE in this whole SB 1070?

    It is interesting that here in Arizona we do have the “stop and identify statute” in Arizona 13-2412 where it states, “A person detained under this section shall state the person’s true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.” So as I read it, SB1070 is lacking. If AZ 13-2412 permits the detained (someone stopped during a routine “Terry stop”) to only have to provide their name.

    How about this. This whole thing is about “being legal in the United States.” What if I am born without a SSN. Without a SSN I cannot get a SS card, a passport, or Arizona driver’s licence? What then is my form of identification to prove my innocence – my birth certificate? But even this could mean nothing if I have been expatriated in court (i.e. Treason)? So in that case, what am I supposed to use? My bank card that doesn’t have a picture on it? My mom’s number so they can call her?

    What if I rob a bank and while chasing me I get knocked out and loose my memory? I don’t have any sort of ID on me and I look Mexican. They are getting me for a primary violation (robbing a bank) but should they also hold me indefinitely until I can provide them with documentation of who I am? Sounds like a mess.

  13. 13 DJ
    5 May 2010 at 22:54

    K2

    I do not believe 13-2412 is applicable to a traffic stop. The cop has the right to stop someone for running a red light, upon being stopped, you are required to produce your DL, registration and proof of insurance-if these are not required, please site the legal precendent-if you do not provide a valid DL, you can be ticketed. If you provide nothing, you can be detained. Why is providing bogus/no ID, not akin to probale cause that someone is illegal?

    Regarding the “what ifs” you posed, they can be listed infinetly. Being here illegally is a crime. If probale cause is, in your opinion, unproven when a driver fails to produce valid identification, what do you propose is done to stifle illegals from comming into AZ, and to detect the illegals that are here? You do agree that there are illegals here, don’t you?

  14. 6 May 2010 at 05:16

    DJ:
    How would AZ 13-2412 not be applicable to a traffic stop? There are three levels of police interaction – casual contact/conversation, detention, and arrest.

    Casual contact is when they are just talking to you. This type of police contact is consensual. You do not have to provide any type of documentation at this level to include anything about your personage or doings.

    Detention is when the police have a sufficient amount of suspicion or facts surrounding an accusation where they are able to hold you temporarily until they can make a decision of what to do. They must also have “specific and articulate facts” to detain you. This is a temporary suspension of your liberty and you cannot leave.

    Arrest is when the police are taking you in for confirmed illegal activity. They will read you your Miranda Rights.

    I think that a traffic stop is clearly in the detention stage. AZ 13-2412 is entitled, “Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification.” If you do not believe that it is in the detention stage, then what would you label it as when they demand information from you and you cannot go? I guess I am confused. If they are just making a routine stop and ask for your DL, then that is just casual conversation between you and the police? You don’t have to consent if it is at that level. Because you already committed the crime you are past casual conversation and in the detainment stage because it is only in the detainment stage that they can start an initial search – such as for your DL and registration.

    I have no legal precedent for you. If a cop pulls you over and you don’t want to talk then you have the right to ask “Am I being detained?” If they say no, then you are free to go. If you are being detained, then you have to stay and provide them with who you are under AZ 13-2412. you can do this either by giving them your DL or by telling them this verbally.

    This is not a “what-if” my friend. I am trying to get rid of my SS number/card. Without that, I cannot get a true-blue Arizona license. I also won’t be able to get a Passport and other numerous other things. If so, how then am I going to prove who I am? And if you think I am retarded for asking this what-if, then you are going to have to prove to me that (A) if I live in Arizona I must have a SS, (B) must have a passport, (C) must have a driver’s licence, (D) must have a birth certificate… or any other documentation. (I.e. I am born in a small town in Ohio where the people don’t believe in birth certificates and don’t record the births in any record. The babies are born by midwives. Furthermore I was home schooled and any medical care was done by homeopathic means. All money interactions have been in gold and not in any fiat currency so no SS to open an account. Check a similar case here.)

    what do you propose is done to stifle illegals from comming into AZ

    I’ve already answered this.

    detect the illegals that are here

    Well, that is the question isn’t it? As I argue in the marriage post, I believe everyone should be treated equally. So to get the remaining people here we can do a few things – a SWAT sweep of every person in Arizona or make everyone carry papers around and we are checked to do anything to make sure we are legal. As it is, this is the only way I see of getting everyone illegal. With the current law (+ SB1070) we have to wait until they do something wrong. Right? So let me ask you, if some guy rides a bike his entire time here and always abides by the law, how are we going to get him?

    You do agree that there are illegals here, don’t you?

    I’ve already answered this numerous times.

  15. 15 DJ
    7 May 2010 at 04:02

    K2,

    My bad on the wording of my first sentence, the word “not” was supposed to be removed, I edited my post a couple times and missed it. I do agree that if detained, the cop can ask questions and the answers need be provided. That goes back to my question Why is providing bogus/no ID, not akin to probable cause that someone is illegal? In the example you provided, you would have your “true blue” AZ DL, ergo you would not be considered illegal, someone without said DL or any other valid documents should be detained and further questioned.

    I do not think it is possible or probable that any law nor any enforcement measure is going to get EVERY illegal, hell, our system, as it is now cannot get EVERY child molester or EVERY mugger off the streets. We can, however, take steps to reduce the criminal element by enforcing SB-1070, it is a good law, it does not infringe on anyone’s natural or civil rights, and it does not advocate profiling in any manner. Just as the illegal who rides a bike and never breaks the law will not get caught, no one else who does not break a law is going to get unlawfully detained. I wish the law would go a step further, if someone cannot speak enough English to answer basic questions when detained for an infraction, they should be detained until their legal status is verified. There! I said it…you can now call me a racist!

    You said “So when an officer makes a stop with someone that may look like an illegal, I can definitely see that there is a probable suspicion but I am not sure that we can see a probable cause. how do you guys see probably CAUSE in this whole SB 1070?”

    Probable cause stems from the arguments I have been making. First, if the cop says “hmmm, I stopped this dude for speeding, and he looks illegal, I better dig deeper” then I would argue that IS a problem, proving that may be difficult unless the stop was unwarranted. However, in a warranted stop, i.e. speeding, reckless driving, running a red light, or being involved in an accident, the cop will gather information, some of the information he gathers is “who are you,” “do you have insurance,” “is the vehicle registered,” and so on. When he does not get valid information, SB-1070 allows him to dig. If your car was stolen, and the officer stopped the thief for speeding, how would you feel if the officer failed to check the registration and detain the thief for the secondary offense of car theft? SB-1070 is the same thing, an obvious secondary offense suspected after the primary offense has been committed. A bag of cocaine is just a bag of white powder until it is analyzed, surely you do not advocate the cop letting a person go with a bag full of white powder on their front seat.

    The registration check for a stolen car, the no/bogus/fake ID, and the bag of white powder are all secondary offenses which have, as you pointed out, been supported by case law as legal avenues for a cop after he has stopped someone for an infraction. I am not implying, nor does SB-1070 that a cop can arbitrarily stop someone who has committed no infraction, and search their person, in the event this did happen, all evidence gathered would be inadmissible.

  16. 7 May 2010 at 11:46

    DJ: I use a “true blue” Arizona license because I don’t know how you get a license without a SSN. So if you know how to get one, then please let me know. So again, the question still remains… what would I use to “make me legal” if I had no SS card, no DL, no birth certificate, etc?

    I do think your English statement is racist. What about tourist. Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? You go up there and people are speaking every language EXCEPT English. I am not sure how much English they know, but are you wanting to just detain all these tourist too? All I gotta say is, wow what a way to attract visitors…

    Whoa, stop. Where in the heck am *I* advocating that SB-1070 say will allow people to be stopped and checked without cause? I am not saying that or implying that anywhere here so quit setting up the straw man.

    My entire argument here kind of stems from my belief of “the system.” Back in the day people popped out of the womb unbeknownst to the world. The government never “logged” their birth or kept track of them. The birth certificate was a thing the doctor kept of the family. They never issued numbers. People drove cars if they could reach the pedals. So, if that was the case then… then how would THOSE people be “legal” here? Ideally, I wish that I was never registered at the Vital Statistics. I wish I was never issued a Social Security Number. THEN I’d be free… like people were back then. But now, I’d be illegal because what would I show them to insure them that I was “legal.” Nothing. I’d have nothing on their list of valid documents to show them who I was… because I was just a sovereign being that happened to be born in America but unregistered by the government.

    So, again, I’d like you to show me in law where it says that I must (A) have a SS, (B) must have a passport, (C) must have a driver’s licence, (D) must have a birth certificate or (E) must have some sort of other documentation that says I am “legal” (and what is this document and how do I get it without all the other aforementioned documents).

  17. 17 DJ
    8 May 2010 at 00:43

    K2,

    “… what would I use to “make me legal” if I had no SS card, no DL, no birth certificate, etc?” When you are free from the system, that will be an interesting question, as it stands, right now, today, you DO have a DL, BC,and possibly a PP. Have you asked AZDOR how to obtain a DL without having an SSN?

    “Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get many benefits and services without a Social Security number. You do not need a number to get a driver’s license, register for school…” (Retrieved from: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html)

    It appears Tennessee and Utah will issue a driving cerificate (not valid for ID purposes though). I know, I know, useless information…

    “Whoa, stop. Where in the heck am *I* advocating that SB-1070 say will allow people to be stopped and checked without cause? I am not saying that or implying that anywhere here so quit setting up the straw man.” I never indicated you said any of those things, I stated SB-1070 does not allow it, I made no straw man.

    Regarding the “racist” statement, my quote was “if someone cannot speak enough English to answer basic questions when detained for an infraction, they should be detained…” I did not in anyway imply a tourist at the Grand Canyon, doing nothing wrong should be detained or questioned, again, PROBABLE CAUSE; if the tourist is caught speeding and cannot speak enough English to convey to the cop who they are, detain them, get an interpreter, and ensure the tourist undrstands what is going on.

    “My entire argument here kind of stems from my belief of “the system.”” OK. Fine, but the debate is, I thought, on SB-1070, not your “beliefs”. I understand this is your blog, and you your beliefes go into the makeup of each article you post, but I do not think you allow for an honest debate when we the responders are arguing facts about the law, and you are rebuuting with what you believe. I actully beliee a lot of the same hings you do, but this law is about fixing a broken system, it complies with existing federal laws, and when applied, rid AZ (and the country) of criminal aliens.

    “So, again, I’d like you to show me in law where it says that I must (A) have a SS, (B) must have a passport, (C) must have a driver’s licence, (D) must have a birth certificate or (E) must have some sort of other documentation that says I am “legal” (and what is this document and how do I get it without all the other aforementioned documents).”

    I do not know, I was debating SB-1070, and how it applies to the world we live in, not in the world you wish to live in. Do not misinterpret what I wrote, I agree with you that none of the crap was needed “back in the day”, today, however, it is needed. If we want to get back to where we were, I think we have to first control the borders, after we get the illegals out, we can start moving back to what America was founded to be.

  18. 8 May 2010 at 07:55

    DJ:

    “Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get many benefits and services without a Social Security number. You do not need a number to get a driver’s license, register for school…” (Retrieved from: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html)

    D. The application for an instruction permit or a driver license shall state the following:
    5. The social security number of the applicant unless the application is for a nonresident commercial driver license. (Retrieved from ARS 28-3158 (D)(5))

    if the tourist is caught speeding and cannot speak enough English to convey to the cop who they are, detain them, get an interpreter, and ensure the tourist undrstands what is going on.

    Interpreter makes a big difference in this statement, IMHO. It doesn’t make sense to ask someone who they are and they play the stupid card until you let them go. I can agree with that.

    I do not know, I was debating SB-1070, and how it applies to the world we live in, not in the world you wish to live in. Do not misinterpret what I wrote, I agree with you that none of the crap was needed “back in the day”, today, however, it is needed. If we want to get back to where we were, I think we have to first control the borders, after we get the illegals out, we can start moving back to what America was founded to be.

    But where is the law that says it is needed? I’ve already rebutted your argument above about the SSN being required for an Arizona DL. This is wrong. This is even wrong by the Social Security memos/suggestions back when SSNs came out! You cannot use a Federal entitlement benefit number for a non-related service, but we do.

    Again, this “system” is part of the issue here and this is part of the reason why I wrote this blog article. I’ve stated this many times in this blog and I will state this again. I support getting illegals out. I do not know how to exactly. I believe that this will work to a large degree. I do not believe that people will be stopped just for being non-white. What I do not support is the idea that this could be used as a springboard to do something like the Real-ID Act, which I do not support. I am sure that the Feds are already licking their lips going, “we need to do SOMETHING” and using this “crisis” to implement more legislation that has been largely unpopular such as the RIDA or something as crazy as RF chipping people.

    So this issue of immigration in Arizona of course puts us in a pickle because if we don’t then we leave ourselves vulnerable. Wait for the Feds and leave our borders unsecure or do something about it. As you said, it is the Arizona’s duty to protect it’s people. I applaud this! However, this will undoubtedly move onto something more harmful. This issue is on the front-burner now and the Feds and their Communist ways are going to try to implement something on the national level to “verify” everyone. Do you doubt this?

    I think that you need to go back and reread my original post and see that I do generally support the bill, but am just scared of what it could end up being. As I later mentioned, I also think it muddies the situation as I understand it to be – where we don’t need all this government issued **** such as SSN, vital-stat birth certificate (this is different than a doctor signed BC), etc. Again, I ask you where in the law does it require us to have these documents which prove that we are legal- where does it say that I must have a SSN, must have a DL, must have a vital-stat BC, must have a state-issued ID, etc. If there is no law for these things and they are voluntary to have (as the SSN is) then how are we supposed to prove who we are? Are we supposed to just accept these forms of government IDs and whatever connotations go with them, just so we can be “verified”? You should know as well as I do that while things may seem innocent, but they can hold a whallop of a punch legally when it comes to your rights and your sovereignty level. These are the things that I am concerned about.

  19. 19 DJ
    9 May 2010 at 00:54

    K2,

    I get your concerns. I have not researched the laws mandating a birth certificate or anything else. The reason for the item from the SSA is because I believe it supports your position, SSA does not require a number is needed in order to obtain a DL. Perhaps the answer is in the court system. If AZ is requiring you to have a number the SSA says is not required, the courts can settle the issue-seems cut and dry to me-but I am just a technician, not a law dog.

    Is ther a potential for SB-1070 to get nasty? You bet! I trust the governemnt about as much as you do, but again, when a cop detains someone for no apparent infraction, the courts will this, until a cop screws up, whether intentional or no, we ned this law enforced.

    “I think that you need to go back and reread my original post and see that I do generally support the bill…” I think you are being a bit dishonest here; the title of this thread is : “Arizona SB 1070 and Why I Cannot Support It”

  20. 9 May 2010 at 20:13

    @DJ:

    “I think that you need to go back and reread my original post and see that I do generally support the bill…” I think you are being a bit dishonest here; the title of this thread is : “Arizona SB 1070 and Why I Cannot Support It”

    The cliche statement of “Never judge a book by a cover” rings true here, too. I then go on to say in reference to it becoming a Nazi paper stop, “I can see this going that direction very easily and this is the exact reason that I refuse to support this bill.” It’s all in the context.

  21. 21 Truth from Mesa, AZ
    4 August 2010 at 13:10

    I must agree.

    How many times has the government (I’m referring to all levels of government) encroached on our civil liberties on the basis of doing it for our own good or for the overall good.

    Courts have ruled that warantless searches (that is, searches without a probable cause issued) are an unjust infringement of liberty unless there is imminent danger. Somebody’s sitting on top of a high-rise and taking people out with a sniper rifle, okay. Somebody in Virginia committed a fatal hit-and-run with a red Toyota and you search all red Toyotas in Virginia, not okay. Driving a red Toyota does not constitute probable cause, and what Arizona is attempting to do is assign reasonable suspicion to every red Toyota. Officers don’t KNOW if the plate on the red Toyota is real or was replaced with the plate from a different car, but that still is not probable cause.

    We should all fight tooth and nail for every last inch of liberty. Even if the liberty that isn’t being encroached is not ours. Because it one day will be. Arizona is relying on a Supreme Court decision that says race can be a probable cause for Border Patrol agents along the US-Mexico border and possibly extending to check points as far as 5 miles out. We all figured that was reasonable.

    See what happens when you give an inch? The government will try to take it a mile. Government always, always, ALWAYS seeks to increase and expand. Expanded authority needs expanded resources, which commands expanded budgets.

  22. 22 DJ
    7 August 2010 at 01:42

    @Truth from Mesa, AZ

    “Arizona is attempting to do is assign reasonable suspicion to every red Toyota” No they are not. Arizona is not looking at the red Toyota unless, and until the Red Toyota violates an existing law-like speeding, reckelss driving, running a red light, rape, murder, etc. When a law is violated, say speeding for example, the cop asks for liscense and registration, if the driver has none, or has ID from another country, the cop can then ask for a proof of citizenship, if they do not have proof of citizenship, or a valid visa (which by law is requred to be carried at all times) then the cop has a resonable suspicion that the driver is here illegaly. A bunch of stuff has to happen before an illegal is found, and non of it interfere with the Constitutional rights of an American. If all illegals obey our existing laws, not a single one has anything to fear…I realize that an illegal obeying laws may sound like an oxymoron, but I think my point is clear.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: