talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?

Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).

Or am I missing something?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I get asked all the time, if my signature on the back of the card is faded or hard to read...

Then you re-sign it in front of them.

...I have been outright refused sale for failing to produce my ID at least twice...

They have just violated their merchant agreement (http://consumerist.com/2008/02/apple-demands-id-with-credit-card-purchases-violates-merchant-agreement.html). Report them to your credit card company.

...there are literally so many situations where we might be asked to produce the proper "papers" already.

Thank you for contributing to the slippery slope. They require ID for all this other stuff, it shouldn't be a problem for them to require ID when I'm walking down the street, right? After they've checked it once, they should be able to check it again 20 feet down the road, right? I might have forgotten which card I showed them and slip up the second time!

They need reasonable suspicion, which legally means they would need some kind of arguable fact or circumstance to support it, not just a hunch.

The point of all the protest against this law is that the only legal directive given in the bill is "go by a hunch". What does this law do that probable cause laws already in place don't do? Nothing, except discriminate against brown people.

The law is not demanding that they hunt for and seek out illegals, like an immigration officer.

The law says citizens can sue their police department if they don't like the extent to which the police are cracking down. That is exactly what the law is demanding.

What this law does is say that if they have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone they encounter is breaking the law by being here illegally, they must ask.

Police are not immigration officers. If you pick up a suspect for an unrelated crime, and you find or suspect they are not here legally, you call INS.

The law also states that a valid AZ drivers license, and many other common forms of legally issued ID would be sufficient enough proof.

And if you are a legal citizen and a police officer asks for your papers and you don't have them, that's a six month sentence.

Now governors in other states (such as Texas) are looking at that and thinking gee look at that.....

Gee, that's a great unconstitutional law, let's try it too!

Thank you for contributing to the slippery slope. They require ID for all this other stuff, it shouldn't be a problem for them to require ID when I'm walking down the street, right? After they've checked it once, they should be able to check it again 20 feet down the road, right? I might have forgotten which card I showed them and slip up the second time!

No, they can't just stop you while you're walking down the street and ask for no reason. I think you need to look up the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion". I posted it above, from a couple different sources.

The point of all the protest against this law is that the only legal directive given in the bill is "go by a hunch". What does this law do that probable cause laws already in place don't do? Nothing, except discriminate against brown people.

No it doesn't, it stipulates "reasonable suspicion", with like probable cause, requires something more substantial than a hunch.

The current laws are not being enforced, that's the problem. This law mandates that cops do their job and ask people they encounter if they have a legitimate reason to suspect they are breaking the law. Currently, many cops do not for various reasons--even if they suspect--one being a concern that illegals will not cooperate or report crimes. This is just saying that in situations like that, they can and should be asking.

And if you are a legal citizen and a police officer asks for your papers and you don't have them, that's a six month sentence.

Only if you fail to produce them. The law doesn't specifically state a time limit, but in my state if you get stopped while driving without your drivers license, you have like 24 or 48 hours to produce it...say, if you accidentally forgot or lost your wallet. Or say, if you weren't expecting to drive, but had to drive someone who was intoxicated or incapacitated in an emergency...they are lenient in these situations. I don't see why they couldn't be in AZ as well. But again, they probably wouldn't stop you in the first place unless you were doing something that looked fishy.

Actually all a cop has to do is say "they were responding to a tip" or "there were reported illegals at a party a block away" -- and they can generate scenarios for justifying stopping people.

The 'they cant stop you for walking down the street' argument is naive in the extreme...

No, we were discussing a scenario in which the law enabled cops to question someone, who happened to be walking down the street, based solely on their race. The law doesn't provide for that, and to do so would be abuse.

It has to be a lawful stop, and there needs to be reasonable suspicion. It has to be more than just someone's random 'hunch' and cannot be based solely on race. Read the bill, the recent items that were clarified.

*ahem* The law IS abuse, since it's intended for people to be stopped....otherwise there would be no value to this law.

And notice these things were "clarified" only *after* people screamed loud enough.....?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only