Ammo For Sale

« « Glock has record sales | Home | Well, yeah » »

By the time I get to Arizona

Papers please.

So, about that immigration bill. One of the dumber ideas out there. It requires police to verify the citizenship of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are illegal immigrants. In other words, if you look Mexican, they might ask you for your papers. And police can be sued for not enforcing the law.

Sure, illegal immigration may be a problem. But randomly harassing people is not the best solution to that problem.

68 Responses to “By the time I get to Arizona”

  1. Weer'd Beard Says:

    I’m a bit split, because I agree with you, but also note that the BEST solution. (ICE deporting illegal Aliens, and putting people who knowingly hire illegal workers in prison *not fines, as it’ll just create a cost-benefit analysis, like some companies do with disposing of illegal waste) Is off the table, and has been for nearly a decade…

  2. Nate Says:

    I see it as not only a desperate act by desperate people trying to get attention from people that are supposed to be protecting them, kinda like emo kids….. It’s not Constitutional, and if I can see that the AZ AG should be able to see that too. I think that suing the feds would have been a better bet. Or *gasp* calling the state militia up and having volunteers patrol the border. Hell even deputizing people who want to do it would be better than this.

  3. Nate Says:

    I guess my previous post was a bit incomplete…um but as also a way to bring the problem back to the forefront of public attention. for some people it’s a political platform, but for others it’s something that they actually have to deal with.

  4. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    It’s probably like those lawsuits wherein states try to excuse themselves from the mandates found in Obamacare. Patently unconstitutional, but great publicity stunts drawing attention to an issue.

    It is a mystery how so many folks ostensibly in favor of “small govt” want agents of the govt to randomly stop people of a certain ethnic description and say “papers, please”.

  5. Mikee Says:

    An article on enforcement of laws against illegal alien labor a few years back defined “reasonable suspicion” pretty succinctly. When the INS arrived at a construction site, the illegal aliens were the ones who dropped their tools and ran away.

    Non-enforcement of the law against illegal immigration is not an option.

  6. Mu Says:

    Even is the law would pass constitutional muster, we all know how they get around the “racial profiling” charge. Same way as the TSA does at the airport, just detain enough 70 year old white grandmothers to make up for the 30 year old Arab-looking males you’re supposed to be on the look-out for.

  7. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    Mu is probably on the money; whattya wanna bet this law gets a lot less popular when those grandmothers and law abiding white guys open carrying start getting detained and asked to show their papers?

    I’d rather see an open border policy that involves some measure of tax revenue stream from those who want to come here. We need consumers to repower our economy; we’re a nation of immigrants, but immigrants who came here the right way and paid into the national coffers.

  8. Bram Says:

    The LEO must already be in “legal contact” with a suspect. In other words, they can only ask for papers after a legitimate traffic stop or arrest.

  9. Mark Says:

    The law will pass constitutional review. My knee jerk reaction was about the same as Uncle’s, but it actually isn’t a bad law.
    The ‘peaceful’ dissenters on the left throwing rocks and bottles at the cops in protest is just a bonus…

  10. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    And the basis for your belief that a law letting a state do something explicitly reserved for the Feds in the COTUS will pass muster is?

    This ought to be good.

    Hint: because you want to is not a good reason.

  11. Standard Mischief Says:

    Bram Says:The LEO must already be in “legal contact” with a suspect. In other words, they can only ask for papers after a legitimate traffic stop or arrest.

    And every year they think up new and creative ways to legally detain anyone at will. Is that a cellphone in your hand? texting while driving. Both headlights and wipers on in the rain? Got your seatbelt on? Too much cold medicine?

    Instead, I was thinking that maybe they could, you know, build a fence or something…

  12. Boondoggie Says:

    The law does nothing more than it requires the enforcement of the federal law. Registered aliens are already required to have their papers on them at all times and show them when requested. Funny how cities that declare themselves sanctuaries are fine, but a state that merely wants the laws on the books enforced is somehow evil.

    Try being an illegal alien in the EU, India, or Mexico and access government services without the proper documentation and see what happens to you. In India you have to show your passport just to check into a hotel.

  13. Madrocketscientist Says:

    We do need some kind of Work Visa that is easy to get. The current system is far too onerous for even educated people to navigate.

  14. TomareUtsuZo Says:

    I am normally proud of my state (we have unlicensed concealed carry *jumps up and down*). This really made me butt hurt. I am going to write an email to my buddy today apologizing cuz he’s right, my state will harass his wife after I told him we don’t do that in Az. Crap what a stupid addition to a good law.

  15. ParatrooperJJ Says:

    You have to already be breaking a law in order for a cop to ask you your immigration status. It is already a federal law that non citizens carry their immigration documents on their person at all times. I don’t see why you think this law is bad?

  16. Boondoggie Says:

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    Care to point out where it says this is the exclusive domain of the Feds?

    Perhaps: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    But then you’d have to interpret enforcing the immigration laws as making War.

    Funny thing, the Constitution. So many people don’t bother to read it and just believe what the media tells them it says.

  17. ExurbanKevin Says:

    *ding*

    This is exactly my concern with it. I’m on board with 90% of the rest of the bill, it’s just that I can’t reconcile this part of the law with no longer having to carry a CCW permit here. If we trust the citizens of Arizona with walking around with a concealed firearm and no government papers, why can’t we trust the citizens of Arizona to just walk around without government papers?

    This will *kill* Hispanic support for the GOP for the next 50 years, and considering that Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S., the Arizona GOP has seriously hampered the national party’s future growth.

  18. ericire12 Says:

    Illegal is a crime, its not a race. Its already federal law that all legal aliens must carry their papers with them at all times.

    —-IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).—-

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/24/correction-the-actual-arizona-immigration-bill/

    Cops wont be randomly harrassing people. Profiling is already illegal and if any cops profile they will be held accountable. Thats just empty rhetoric. What will basically happen is when a cop does a traffic stop or any other common interaction with a person and they are not able to produce ANY identification, then that will be viewed as “reasonable suspicion” and the cops will take them down to the station. “Reasonable suspicion” is a pretty well founded legal term that has been used without objection for a long long time now. Its not something they just made up. There is a great deal of precedent to back it all up.

    The law is not unconstitutional either. This law basicly replicates the federal law, but allows it to be enfourced at the state level….. And thats not unprecedented either…. Local LEOs were enfourcing prohibition because there were not enough feds to do the job.

    The bottom line here is that 70% of the people of Arizona want this law, and they feel like it will reduce their violent crime levels. The 10th amendment gives them the power to make this law, and it will not effect anyone outside their state… I say let them have it.

  19. Standard Mischief Says:

    Sebastian-: …I’d rather see an open border policy that involves some measure of tax revenue stream from those who want to come here. We need consumers to repower our economy; we’re a nation of immigrants, but immigrants who came here the right way and paid into the national coffers.

    We need a NAFTA for humans. The trade shit treaty we’ve got is designed to help big corporations move goods and jobs across the border, and that treaty does nothing for us except cheaper imports and fewer jobs.

    We want an open door policy? Demand the same from Mexico. Let US citizens buy coastal land, cross the border at will, carry firearms responsibility. Clean up the corruption and promote freedom.

    To get there, we need to negotiate from a position of strength. Tax the shit out of money transfers and build a high tech fence. Mexico needs us and our economy way more than we need them.

    It just floors me that we spend so much money nation building in the middle east, when we have such a dire need just south of us.

  20. Phelps Says:

    It isn’t randomly harassing people. The TSA is randomly harassing people. The whole uproar is that it isn’t random.

  21. Bob S. Says:

    I’m hearing a lot of complaints of “how” the law will be executed, not with the actual law itself.

    Wow….maybe instead of complaining about the law — people step up and make sure the cops are doing their job right, eh?

    I’m sorry but I’m not having much sympathy with the illegals on this one.

    As someone who carries a firearm, I have to present identification to the law enforcement when I’m in legal contact with them.

    Remember, for someone with a CHL, that is basically anything more then shooting the breeze with a cop.

    In order to exercise a Constitutionally Protected, Specifically Enumerated Right, I have to “show papers please”.

    So forgive me if my heart doesn’t bleed for the illegals.

  22. Rustmeister Says:

    Does this mean I have to carry my birth certificate around when I go to Arizona? I think not, but how else can someone verify my citizenship?

  23. Rivrdog Says:

    Where does it say “randomly stop” in this legislation? I haven’t seen that phrase elsewhere.

    These comments should read, “WHEN police stop an individual, AND they reasonably suspect that the individual may not be a citizen, THEN they are empowered and encouraged to ask for proof of citizenship.”

    Under Terry vs. Ohio, the ruling Supreme Court case, ALL police stops must be made on the basis of reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. This was true when I swore in as a cop in 1973, and it is true today.

    Is the new AZ law an unwarranted intrusion into Federal affairs? Maybe.

    Is the new AZ law a dangerous growth of government? Maybe.

    Does the new law guarantee police abuse? Definitely not.

    BTW, I have resided in countries where carriage of “papers” was required. I never felt it to be a burden to carry ID, nor to present it when asked by a uniformed member of the government.

    I now reside in a country where individual citizens AND non-citizens feel free to lie about their identity, and what has THAT brought us? More freedom? Hell, no. It has brought us more crime, and it threatens to bring down this constitutional Republic when and if all these un-identifiable aliens are “grandfathered in” as citizens.

    We need to be taking action to rid our nation of un-permitted non-citizens, not encouraging more of them to come by fighting requirements for carriage of ID.

    Any of you show me where the Constitution says we have an in-alienable right to deceive others about our identity, and I’ll retract these words, but until then, THIS conservative thinks we should all be clamoring FOR better ID, not against it.

  24. comatus Says:

    We do trust the “citizens of Arizona.” It’s the non-citizens of Arizona who raise this question, and they vote. That’s your “fastest-growing segment,” right there, and there’s no chance of them showing up on the GOP primary roster now or in 50 years. Not all Hispanics support the status quo; Cesar Chavez, for instance, was dead-set against it. You calling him Tio Tomas?

    Until 1921, only the states had authority over accepting immigrants. The current crisis dates from the Amendments of 1965, and I remember the debate. Maybe we should look that one up.

    Arizona considers itself invaded. Our response is “Shut up.” What would you have them do? If the state were as passive-aggressive as accused, they’d float a measure to join Mexico. That would get the UN’s attention, at least. Then we’d get some action!

  25. wizardpc Says:

    A lot of the arguments against the AZ law sound just like the arguments against CCW, guns in restaurants, and open carry.

    “ZOMG! TEH WORLD WILL END according to what the media says, not what the actual law is!”

  26. TDC Says:

    Living in the zone as I do I have no sympathy at all for the “poor illegals” being harassed. And unless by some chance you do live in an area where there are a very large group of “illegal immigrants” I would be inclined to listen and take what you say with a kilo of salt.

    The law is a mirror of the federal law which is not being enforced. Read it yet? If not, do.

    And Uncle, I have to admit to some disappointment here. I would have expected you to have looked a bit further into what it actually is and just how severe the problem is before posting. Possibly you might be of a different opinion if you were living in the center of the issue and watching ICE decline to do anything.

    But it is your blog, your dime and your opinions and views.

  27. Jake Says:

    It’s probably like those lawsuits wherein states try to excuse themselves from the mandates found in Obamacare. Patently unconstitutional, but great publicity stunts drawing attention to an issue.

    Um… the suits are not unconstitutional. The states can sue to dispute the Constitutionality of a law (or part of a law) if they want. They may not win, but it is perfectly Constitutional for them to sue.

  28. Jake Says:

    Bram Says:The LEO must already be in “legal contact” with a suspect. In other words, they can only ask for papers after a legitimate traffic stop or arrest.

    Remember, it’s estimated that the average person commits three felonies a day.

  29. Oscar Says:

    We live in interesting times, that’s for sure…

    I am conflicted about this law, as well, but AZ sure has been taking a beating recently and with no help from the Feds. I recall reading that Phoenix was the kidnapping capital of the U.S. because of the drug cartel wars spilling over the border. Desperate times and all…

    As for the GOP losing the Hispanic vote: maybe yes, maybe no… It depends. You’d be surprised how many Latinos (who are American citizens) support this law, despite the obvious effect it might have on them. I recall that something like 20-30% of California Latinos supported Proposition 187 (ballot measure to deny social services to illegal immigrants). That is not insignificant. Latinos are not some monolithic voting bloc that reflexively votes Democrat. In hard economic times, when unskilled and low-skilled Latinos (residents and citizens) are being edged out of jobs by illegal immigrants, the usual assumptions cannot be relied on. Additionally, you’d be surprised how many Latinos don’t care about immigration at all. I’ve always found it amusing that the GOP and white Americans think that our vote begins and ends with immigration.

    Time will tell.

  30. nk Says:

    I got into a drunken brawl about this at Patterico’s, so I’ll stay relatively quiet here, but I agree with you, Uncle.

  31. Wolfwood Says:

    What ericire12 said in comment #18 is absolutely spot-on.

    I can see how a layman reading these provisions might be outraged, but if you have any knowledge of criminal justice and procedure, you’ll be aware of all the things that automatically go on (I haven’t RTFB yet, but I suspect you still have to do things like arraigning). “Reasonable Suspicion” is itself a highly-litigated term that has been given pretty detailed analysis by the Supreme Court. “He looks Hispanic” is not going to meet that test; “He had no ID on him and kept telling me different stories when I stopped him for shoplifting” probably is.

  32. Stormy Dragon Says:

    It is a mystery how so many folks ostensibly in favor of “small govt” want agents of the govt to randomly stop people of a certain ethnic description and say “papers, please”.

    Most of them only want small govt for nice, normal middle class suburbanites. They want everyone else curb stomped; after all, they’re not “real” people.

  33. Hypnagogue Says:

    This law is not unconstitutional either. Congress has the exclusive power to define lawful naturalization, but they have done that… This law simply enforces it, in a state that is battling an invasion. If you don’t think this is an invasion, you might want to talk to some Arizonans. The invasion of Arizona alone is double that of Normandy on D-Day. The total occupation of illegals in this country is double our total armed forces, active and reserve.

    For a semi-automated RSS aggregator, Uncle, you sure know how to be wrong.

  34. SayUncle Says:

    Semi-automated. LOL. Speaking of knowing how to be wrong, immigration = invasion?

  35. Wolfwood Says:

    For once, I actually kind of agree with Hypnagogue. Certainly not all of them agree with this, but there does seem to be a definite bit of “let’s resettle Greater Mexico and eventually get it back.” IIRC, there was even something of an encouragement to that effect from a past Mexican administration.

    (and, as an addendum to my earlier post: IANAL, TINLA)

  36. Dann Says:

    As a former police officer and as one who took time to download and read the new AZ law, you are stating the same BS as the mainstream news media. You WILL NOT get stopped for “looking mexican” and asked for papers, BUT… for example…

    If you are speeding and I pull you over… I ask for a driver’s license and you don’t have one, or any other ID… I ask for a social security number to verify you and your driving privileges and you don’t have one, you can’t provide a verifiable address to put on the traffic citation – NOW I MAY HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO ASK ABOUT YOU STATUS AS A CITIZEN!

    Nothing random about it.

  37. Bugei Says:

    Why not go the other way? I’d just be as proud as punch to wear on my shirt an ID card that says to the whole world that I’m an American citizen. If everyone else did, too, well, it certainly wouldn’t be profiling on racial makeup, ethnic background or national origin if you’re walking around without it.
    At that point, the bad guys would stick out like a sore thumb.

    Wouldn’t even have to be a law. A custom would suffice. Constitutionality wouldn’t enter the equation at all.

    If we need to know who’s a citizen and who’s not, in order to get rid of people who aren’t here, let’s do it cleanly and in the open by identifying US.

    Come on, ever’body. Show everybody you’re an American!

  38. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    Dann–that’s probably the way it’s SUPPOSED to work.

    And the Patriot Act was supposed to be used to go after terrorists. RICO was supposed to go after the mob.

    Both have been used tons of times to go after strip club owners who don’t pay their taxes and political activists who object to the govt spying on them.

    Once you give the agents of the govt a power, there’s no guarantee they’ll use it just for what they said they wanted it for.

    In fact, there’s probably a greater likelihood they’ll use it for a heck of a lot more.

  39. JKB Says:

    I find it interesting all this rending of closes and tearing of hair over compliance with federal law. The Dems I understand, they selectively enforce and throw a tantrum when some one actually complies with the law. Remember Waxaman and the CEOs announcing the impact of Obamacare on their earnings. Arizona has simply codified in law that state and local officials must verify suspected illegal aliens and must turn them over to federal authorities. It is more about officials turning a blind eye than profiling, which by the way, racial profiling is expressly prohibited by the statute. There is no usurpation of federal law or encroachment on foreign relations. Simply state law codifying federal restrictions predicated on federally determined immigration status.

    Now Jammiewearingfool has a post regarding how this very thing Arizona is doing has been the law in Cobb and Gwinnett counties in GA for some time. To very good effect, I might add.

  40. mulligan Says:

    #34 immigration is legal.
    illegal immigration = invasion

  41. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    I’m still surprised at the number of people bristling at the idea that immigration is federal purview. Probably news to all those folks at ICE and Customs.

  42. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    In case you’re curious:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

    Immigration regulation is a federal power…and will be until the SCOTUS overrules itself. Get over it.

    Can you REALLY fathom 50 different states deciding for themselves 50 different ways to do the Feds’ jobs for them?

    Please.

  43. Wolfwood Says:

    Immigration may be the feds’ job, but Instapundit offered the argument that the Constitution allows a state to do it if the federal government isn’t (either officially or effectively).

  44. Phelps Says:

    Right. Federal preemption is a two-way street. States don’t have the right to step on their toes in enforcing Federal law if they are actually enforcing the law. If they are failing to enforce it, the states have the right to pick up the slack. (And yes, this is all rooted in an ancient SCOTUS case about a state repelling an invasion when the Feds refused to.)

  45. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    That would imply the states have the right to make that determination, which they don’t.

  46. mulligan Says:

    “That would imply the states have the right to make that determination, which they don’t.”

    they don’t? The FedGov drops the ball on something and the States can’t call ‘em out on it?

  47. hellferbreakfast Says:

    To the progressives, “illegal”, is a sick bird.

  48. ericire12 Says:

    Sebastian-

    AZ is not redefining the immigration process. They are mearly enforcing the federal law, and arresting people that are here illegally….. The determination of legal/illegal status will still be done by the Feds.

  49. ericire12 Says:

    *BTW – Whats the record number of comments for a post on your blog Uncle? ….Probably should combine the two posts

  50. Stormy Dragon Says:

    Why not go the other way? I’d just be as proud as punch to wear on my shirt an ID card that says to the whole world that I’m an American citizen. If everyone else did, too, well, it certainly wouldn’t be profiling on racial makeup, ethnic background or national origin if you’re walking around without it.

    Hey great idea. Maybe we could sew little colored stars to everyone’s sleeve, with a color to tell what their status is. One color for registered voters, one for other citizens, one for resident aliens, etc.

  51. SPQR Says:

    Godwin’s Law.

  52. Sebastiantheguywithnoblog Says:

    Call them out? Sure. Enforcing the law is still a Federal power. Not something the state can do.

    This isn’t hard, guys.

  53. SayUncle Says:

    Whats the record number of comments for a post on your blog Uncle?

    Top 5: Link, link, link, link and link.

  54. John Smith Says:

    I see this as no different than any other type of police harassment. I get hassled simply for how I look or that my car does not cost high in the 5 figures. What do I care if they come up with another reason. When I came over the border in my semi from canada. The border guard accused me of being a russian sneaking into the border and that was only a 4 years back. As I said no big deal.

  55. mike Says:

    everyone is looking at the law and what ‘might’ happen.

    but all we need to do is look at what’s already happening and know this opens the doors for abuse. Border patrol is already illegally detaining and harassing Citzens at the checkpoints found now on EVERY roadway in Southern AZ, 40+ miles from the border. ICE has hundreds of US Citzens in custody, and in some cases have deported Citizens to countrys they have no ties to.

    Im not so concerened with the rights of illegals being violated but those of US Citizens because a LEO doesnt happen to belive they are here legally. Of course aliens need to carry their papers around, but we Citizens do not. AZ is full of Citzens of Mexican descent who have never set foot in Mexico. Is there no concern for how they will be treated if they cant produce on the spot proof of Citzenship? And once in ICE custody it becomes damn near impossible to obtain that proof because as a suspected alien you are denied rights of due process and legal representation afforded Citizens.

    The only answer is that border patrol needs to be enforcing immigration AT the border. But that isnt going to happen because simply, the mexicans shoot at agents across the border and it’s much safer for them to be 40 miles away detaining US Citizens.

    Just because the law states one thing does not in anyway ensure it wont be violated, intentionally or not. There is too great a potential for violations of the rights of US Citzens for this law to be considered good.

  56. mike Says:

    “As someone who carries a firearm, I have to present identification to the law enforcement when I’m in legal contact with them.

    Remember, for someone with a CHL, that is basically anything more then shooting the breeze with a cop.”

    AZ does not require that unless asked.

  57. Jake Says:

    Im not so concerened with the rights of illegals being violated but those of US Citizens because a LEO doesnt happen to belive they are here legally. Of course aliens need to carry their papers around, but we Citizens do not. AZ is full of Citzens of Mexican descent who have never set foot in Mexico. Is there no concern for how they will be treated if they cant produce on the spot proof of Citzenship?

    Mike has stated pretty exactly my – and I think most people’s – main concern with this law.

    Remember everybody, laws should be written as if they are meant to be enforced by your worst enemy.

  58. RosieRac Says:

    My concern is the same as Mike’s and Jake’s: Legal citizens being unlawfully deported. A little over 1% of the deportations are done accidentally.

    The internet has scores of horror stories of people (US citizens) who have been deported by mistake, usually to countries they have no ties to.

  59. Chris Says:

    My concern is the same as Mike’s and Jake’s: Legal citizens being unlawfully deported.

    The internet has scores of horror stories of people (US citizens) who have been deported by mistake, usually to countries they have no ties to.

    Sounds like your beef is with the feds, not Arizona. Even with this legislation, Arizona can’t deport on their own authority.

  60. straightarrow Says:

    I’m not even going to try to educate the “touchy-feely” crowd. You’re just wrong and don’t seem to know a damn thing about the laws that have been in effect for a very long time. So now you’re all butthurt over a state doing what the Feds have been doing on a selective basis? Puhleeze!

  61. Paul Says:

    Well I’m required to carry my DL and my CHL, which pretty much proves I’m an American. So what’s the big deal.

    The LEOs are supposed to look at the total circumstance of the situation. If the one being interviewed does not speak english, has no ID, AND HAS BEEN STOPPED FOR AN INFRACTION OF THE LAW, well yea, they can ask for citizenship I would think!

  62. hank Says:

    You said: “Sure, illegal immigration may be a problem. But randomly harassing people is not the best solution to that problem.”

    First, I call bullshit – we don’t care if it is the best solution or not. Insisting on the “best” solution is the same as prohibiting any solution – somebody will always complain that things should have met some higher standard. What we should be looking for is a “good enough” solution, and this may be part of one.

    Second, with the modern politically correct rules and regulations, checking people at random is about all there is left. We can’t pick people because they speak Spanish, or have a thick accent, or have brown skin, or are named Mario or Jose, or even Mohamed.

    Third, calling a identification check in the course of a traffic stop or other police contact “harassment” is an exaggeration – either that or I have been harassed during every ticket I’ve ever received, and every break-in that I have reported.

    What this all boils down to is that some people have a political agenda that biases them against border enforcement, and I think that may include you.

  63. Rignerd Says:

    My son got stopped in Oklahoma the other day, speeding just a little. He gave his DL to the officer, and the officer recognized his name. he had just stopped someone with the same name not an hour earlier!. they reviewed the dash cam, and a “friend” of my son’s was seen getting out of his truck.

    I support arresting and detaining people who cannot provide positive ID, especially if they are driving, until their true ID and status can be determined. If they are fugitives or illegal aliens then they can be dealt with. If they just left their DL in their other pants a call or two and they should be on their way.

    I also support showing .GOV issued ID before voting. maybe they need to have a no cost ID for non drivers above 18, but you should present a convincing proof of citizenship and identity before it is issued.

  64. tjbbpgobIII Says:

    Every one of us on this blog today have to prove our citizenship every time we change to a new job. This was in a bunch of laws pass during the Clinton years. I say if there illegal send them home or to Guantanmo bay like the terrorist they are becoming. Seriously though does anybody remember a time when any sort of crisis happened in this country and the Feds or the popo didn’t go all crazy on our own citizens. Hell, I can it’s happened to me twice. Once profiled by a cop for having patriot and prior military stickers on my car. Once or twice for the car I was driving WHITE MAN IN A CADILLAC, WHITE MAN IN A CADILLAC.

  65. Ken Says:

    Since when does the constitution that was paid for with American blood work for folks that aren’t willing to go through the steps to become American?

    You’re spitting on patiots graves to call this unconstitutional.

    How many illegals do you see in your neck of the woods? Where I grew up you could empty whole neighborhoods by just driving a green van. They would think you were the border patrol.

    I don’t like the papers idea, but dumping the problem back on the people might get it fixed. Americans do things when we’re pissed.

  66. Ken Says:

    Since when does the constitution that was paid for with American blood work for folks that aren’t willing to go through the steps to become American?

    You’re spitting on patiots graves to call this unconstitutional.

    How many illegals do you see in your neck of the woods? Where I grew up you could empty whole neighborhoods by just driving a green van. They would think you were the border patrol.

    I don’t like the papers idea, but dumping the problem back on the people might get it fixed. Americans do things when we’re pissed.

  67. straightarrow Says:

    Uh no! Remember the high school in Ca. where the students lowered the American flag, turned it upside down and flew it UNDER the Mexican flag? NOt only no, but Hell no. These children are not the issue of immigrants who wish to be American. They are the offspring of an invading horde of enemies of this country. Were I governor, I would have closed that school, denied any transfers to other schools and told them to look to Mexico for their education.

    They have the right to stand up in their own home and make it better rather than stealing the labors of others.

    Let them fix their own country instead of ruining ours by turning it into where they left.

  68. Laughingdog Says:

    I’m a little late to the party on this one, but I have a big issue with one fallacy that Uncle threw in there.

    “And police can be sued for not enforcing the law.”

    You can file a suit for damn near anything. But if you try to sue the police for not enforcing the law, you’re going to lose. First, there’s Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The police refused to help a woman whose children were abducted by their father. The USSC said she can’t sue, despite the fact that the kids were killed in the end by the father.

    Second, the executive branch of the government, at any level, is not required to enforce every law. They are only limited to enforcing no more than the laws enforced by the legislative branch. That’s supposed to act as a check against the legislative branch passing stupid laws. Sadly, it never seems to work out that way. Prosecutors and the police will joyfully enforce absolutely any stupid law out there if it will get their arrest/conviction numbers up, or generate some revenue.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills


blog advertising is good for you

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives