SCOTUS rejects most of Arizona immigration law - Page 4

Neally · 26th June 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

No but the SCOTUS clearly left that argument open to be made. They were quite clear about that.

I realize that. Are you claiming that the law is impossible to be enforced as written without unlawful discrimination/profiling?

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 08:08 AM

On a related note I can only imagine how great this will be for tourism in our state. Not just tourists from south of the border but from all over the world.

Skeptic Ginger · 26th June 2012, 08:16 AM

No link?

Originally Posted by crimresearch

When this debate started, I accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it. ....

Interesting you make claims like this and can't support it.

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

I realize that. Are you claiming that the law is impossible to be enforced as written without unlawful discrimination/profiling?

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent.

MattusMaximus · 26th June 2012, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced, and that will determine a lot. Allowing officers to "check immigration status" may mean that they can perform a routine check, which I suspect would turn up such things. I'm basically okay with that, since background checks are SOP for most places. However, if they demand that those who have been stopped "show papers", then they must demand it of everyone, otherwise it is profiling. The next move will be Arizona's. If they try to use profiling and enforce the law differently depending on appearance or last name, then they could wind up back in court again.

This is an important point. In fact, it is so important that the court explicitly warned the state of Arizona in this ruling that it will be keeping an eye on how they implement this particular aspect of the law. And based upon the 5-3 ruling yesterday, any kind of shenanigans (racial profiling, etc) will likely end up in this law being thrown out entirely in a future SCOTUS ruling.

MattusMaximus · 26th June 2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I hope this is evidence that Roberts and Kennedy are not as fanatically right wing as Thomas, Scalia and Alito are. That would make the court more balanced for decisions we can expect in the long run.

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the ruling, especially with Chief Justice Roberts ruling with the majority in this case. It's nice to know that we cannot pigeon-hole some people to fit with our preconceptions, especially when they are a judge

BenBurch · 26th June 2012, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the ruling, especially with Chief Justice Roberts ruling with the majority in this case. It's nice to know that we cannot pigeon-hole some people to fit with our preconceptions, especially when they are a judge

The founders believed that after a while on the court, your perception would lose its political character and you'd rule as you really see the Constitution. And we have seen that in many cases.

daredelvis · 26th June 2012, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Lucky for you...

You assume I was not talking about the family that lives next to my pal's renter.

Originally Posted by jj

So, I can be arrested for "driving without a licence" if I'm a passenger in a car with a tail light out, then?

That's pretty absurd, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I am not worried about legal immigrants and such. My concern is for the 10 of thousand of US citizens that don't fit onto the set of leave it to beaver.

There are a lot of americans who speak little or poor english but here in southern AZ that doesn't indicate citizenship as spanish is almost as common as english. Lots of American's speak and prefer spanish in AZ.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Then they'll have a drivers license, ID, or other papers proving they're citizens.

Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Driving a car is only one way that one might encounter the police, and as has been demonstrated in the past, law enforcement has few qualms about profiling based on race. Arpio's roundup of brown skinned people is a perfect example, and the repercussions for Arpio were slim.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Now lets say me (a 30 something white guy) and my friend Alex (a 30 something hispanic) both get pulled over. We have both forgotten our DL's at home and neither of us feels like talking to the cop so we say only "yes" or "no." Does anyone here really believe that there will be point when the officer thinks that he has probable cause to think I am here illegally? How about my brown friend alex?

No. I don't see any similar situations in which a white guy and a hispanic guy will be treated equally without profiling under this law.

Originally Posted by WildCat

I forgot my wallet once when I went to work way back in the 1980s. As luck would have it, I got pulled over for speeding that day. I gave the cop my name, address, and SS#. And guess what? It matched what was in the SoS's database! He let me off with a warning. This really isn't that difficult.

Your personal experience not withstanding, you really can't see how this might impact citizens who aren't out of a Norman Rockwell painting?

Originally Posted by WildCat

You don't have the right to conceal your identity. In particular if you're operating a motor vehicle on a puiblic street.

Originally Posted by WildCat

You both go to jail for driving without a license. Once there your identities will be sorted out, unless you'd rather stay in jail than reveal it. Your choice I guess...

Your above example was one...

Why would they both go to jail? Was this learned at the Cooter, or Barny Fife school of law enforcement? Is riding in a car without a license a crime, or is it simply riding while brown without that is a crime?

Daredelvis

daredelvis · 26th June 2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Did you see the great big print on the top of the page?

It looks like a private company trying to make money selling insurance or something. I have never heard of this requirement on a license that expires every 50 years.

I think it expires on your 65th birthday. At least that is the way it used to be. The Arizona license I got when I moved to Arizona in 1994 and still had when when I moved to Texas in 2006 expired in 2032. It might be that they have revised that system, and new licenses issued have use a different system. But who would take your word for it, you actually living in the state and all. I can see where a guy in living Chiago with an internet connection would know better.

Daredelvis

daredelvis · 26th June 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the ruling, especially with Chief Justice Roberts ruling with the majority in this case. It's nice to know that we cannot pigeon-hole some people to fit with our preconceptions, especially when they are a judge

I was too, but I suspect part of Roberts motivation was to negotiate a ruling more to his liking. A pragmatic move since a 4-4 tie would have left the lower court ruling in place. That would effectively be a total a loss for the right wing state's rights Scalito branch of the court.

Daredelvis

I Ratant · 26th June 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent.

.
Eh? (from a Canuckian)

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by daredelvis

I think it expires on your 65th birthday. At least that is the way it used to be. The Arizona license I got when I moved to Arizona in 1994 and still had when when I moved to Texas in 2006 expired in 2032. It might be that they have revised that system, and new licenses issued have use a different system. But who would take your word for it, you actually living in the state and all. I can see where a guy in living Chiago with an internet connection would know better.

Daredelvis

Thank you! I don't mean to argue from authority but I actually kind am an authority on state ID's especially the AZ ones and not just because I live here but because I spend my weekends seizing fakes.

The source cited by wildcat appears to have zero legitimate standing and I have never heard of this 12 year rule. I could be wrong, I don't know everything.

I have looked all over my AZ ID. It expires in 2045 and I must report a change of address within 10 days otherwise I have no indication that I need a new one every 12 years per that website. It would seem if that was the law then the DL would expire every 12 years.

I don't think a state issued ID is a good indicator of citizenship.

1. They can be obtained and retained by none citizens
2. There are extremely good fakes
3. There is a good chance for fraud by people in the motor vehicle department. Especially as the price for illegal ID's will sky rocket with this law.
4. A police officer doesn't really have all the resources one needs to establish citizenship based on a state ID. It can be time consuming and relies on accurate records and data entry. (Case in point I am a healthy 215lbs but they entered my weight as 115lbs on my ID. Based on that alone an officer would have sufficient suspicion to think the ID was not mine and detain me until ICE can figure it out)

Lets say some brown skinned guys get some very good fakes from california these could easily fool an officer so that he doesn't bother with a radio call to check them unless its because the people who handed them over were brown.

So what should AZ require we carry to prove ourselves?

BenBurch · 26th June 2012, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

...

So what should AZ require we carry to prove ourselves?

A six pack and a loaded pistol.

000063 · 26th June 2012, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

I realize that. Are you claiming that the law is impossible to be enforced as written without unlawful discrimination/profiling?

I'm not sure how it would be unlawful if the law in question permitted it. Profiling is dodgier, because most Mexicans actually look like Hispanic people. Plenty of them look white, I know. I'm not sure what criteria could be used to make these decisions if not apparent race.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A six pack and a loaded pistol.

No, that's the stereotype for Texas. Get it right.

daredelvis · 26th June 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A six pack and a loaded pistol.

Originally Posted by 000063

No, that's the stereotype for Texas. Get it right.

Yep, in Arizona it is a carne asada burrito and a loaded pistol.

Daredelvis

Ausmerican · 26th June 2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Yep, in Arizona it is a carne asada burrito and a loaded pistol.

Daredelvis

Yes but they are some damn good carne asada burritos!

daredelvis · 26th June 2012, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

Yes but they are some damn good carne asada burritos!

You know it. Carne asada burritos are about the only thing I eat when visiting the rents.

Daredelvis

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A six pack and a loaded pistol.

tequila y una pistola

crimresearch · 26th June 2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by daredelvis

You assume I was not talking about the family that lives next to my pal's renter.

Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Driving a car is only one way that one might encounter the police, and as has been demonstrated in the past, law enforcement has few qualms about profiling based on race. Arpio's roundup of brown skinned people is a perfect example, and the repercussions for Arpio were slim.

Your personal experience not withstanding, you really can't see how this might impact citizens who aren't out of a Norman Rockwell painting?

Why would they both go to jail? Was this learned at the Cooter, or Barny Fife school of law enforcement? Is riding in a car without a license a crime, or is it simply riding while brown without that is a crime?

Daredelvis

Answered in Hiibel, which Wildcat has been schooled on before... and chooses to pretend doesn't exist.

People are not required by law to provide paper IDs, absent specific circumstances like *driving* on public streets, entering restricted areas, military personnel and so on.
People can be required to give verbal identification, and on valid PC, provide exemplars like fingerprints or lineups for investigative purposes.

Immigrants can be required to carry papers, but how does an officer develop the PC in a car full of people, to know Cheech from Chong?

BOATGOD · 26th June 2012, 02:20 PM

Biscuit- # 32 for the photo requirement.

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/script...ory=1&Keyword=

Skeptic Ginger · 26th June 2012, 02:25 PM

Still no link, Crimresearch? I'm beginning to doubt your brag.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Did you see the great big print on the top of the page?

It looks like a private company trying to make money selling insurance or something. I have never heard of this requirement on a license that expires every 50 years.

Are you sure you live in Arizona?

Quote:

32) When will I need to update my photo?

You are required to update your photo every 12 years. At the end of 12 years, a notice will be sent to you requesting that you visit a driver license facility for a new photo and replacement driver license.

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/script...ory=1&Keyword=

That's from a .gov site.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Which I can assure you are easily faked or obtained via fraud. Checking all these ID's using the cops method of calling into the database will take massive amounts of time and slow down the regular duties of the police.

Any law can be broken, it's certainly not a reason to repeal all laws. I really don't understand the point you're making here.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

All these resources are far better spent going after the magnet that draws the immigrants here in the first place. Go after the people providing the jobs. Catching immigrants 2 or 3 at time is a joke of a policy.

If I understand the ruling correctly, Arizona can't do that. Only the Feds can, and they aren't trying very hard.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

But which of us will they suspect is an illegal immigrant and why?

None, one, or both of you depending on whether or not your identities chack out.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I obviously disagree. In identical police/civilian interactions the only thing that would lead to suspicion is the color of ones skin.

So you claim.

crimresearch · 26th June 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Still no link, Crimresearch? I'm beginning to doubt your brag.

What would you like me to link to? The text of the ruling that I posted on the 1st page, that you are busy pretending doesn't exist?

The part where I pointed out that the Constitution and previous Supreme Court rulings don't allow police to use random traffic stops as pretexts to demand people show ID? So that you can claim that your 'browser' only shows a blank page again?

If you've got a problem with the Supreme Court striking down the part of the AZ law that would require people from 'my culture' (your words), to carry papers, then go ahead and own that, and quit playing these chat room gossip/gotcha games.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Those checks will be a massive waste of time and resources that are better applied and can compromise the regulr police duties.

Yeah, I feel the same about traffic and parking tickets. Why are they ticketing me for turning right on red at a time there's no traffic when people are getting shot in Englewood?

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Thank you for not reading my claim. I said we have more tools which I did demonstrate. Also our tools are faster and more effective. Care to guess why?

If they were so effective you wouldn't need the police to confirm. All you really can have is a strong suspicion.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

It may surprise you to know that in 100% of the country that isn't AZ the laws of AZ do not apply. This is law is intended to catch people from south of the border not dutch invaders.

Are illegal Dutch immigrants a significant portion of your illegal immigrant population?

BenBurch · 26th June 2012, 02:42 PM

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-182b5e1.pdf

Ginger, RIGHT-click on the link and save to disk. That you get a blank page when you merely click on it means that your browser couldn't display the PDF for some reason.

But I get a SC decision at that link.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

On a related note I can only imagine how great this will be for tourism in our state. Not just tourists from south of the border but from all over the world.

How would it affect tourists, especially foreign ones?

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent.

Funny, in the example you gave skin color and accent had nothing to do with it, it all boils down to your identities.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Driving a car is only one way that one might encounter the police, and as has been demonstrated in the past, law enforcement has few qualms about profiling based on race. Arpio's roundup of brown skinned people is a perfect example, and the repercussions for Arpio were slim.

I never claimed citizens were required to carry anything while not driving. But if that citizen gets arrested for selling drugs on the corner or robbing the local 7-11 he'll be able to prove who he or she is. And if they come under the scrutiny of the police for other reasons not involving breaking any laws I think this ruling makes clear they can't detain them just because they look a certain way.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Why would they both go to jail? Was this learned at the Cooter, or Barny Fife school of law enforcement? Is riding in a car without a license a crime, or is it simply riding while brown without that is a crime?

Daredelvis

In the example they were both driving, in different vehicles of course.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I have looked all over my AZ ID. It expires in 2045 and I must report a change of address within 10 days otherwise I have no indication that I need a new one every 12 years per that website. It would seem if that was the law then the DL would expire every 12 years.

I've already cited the AZ DOT page on the matter, I presume it doesn't expire in the sense that you don't need to take any sort of driving test but you do need to update your pic.

Skeptic Ginger · 26th June 2012, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

What would you like me to link to? The text of the ruling that I posted on the 1st page, that you are busy pretending doesn't exist? ....

Changing your claim now, are you?. I wanted you to link to the post where you accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it. I'm beginning to think you never really predicted anything here.

Post #84:

Originally Posted by CR

When this debate started, I accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it.

Did you make this brag up?

The "ruling" you linked to is after the fact. "Prediction" refers to before the ruling was published.

WildCat · 26th June 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Answered in Hiibel, which Wildcat has been schooled on before... and chooses to pretend doesn't exist.

People are not required by law to provide paper IDs, absent specific circumstances like *driving* on public streets, entering restricted areas, military personnel and so on.
People can be required to give verbal identification, and on valid PC, provide exemplars like fingerprints or lineups for investigative purposes.

Immigrants can be required to carry papers, but how does an officer develop the PC in a car full of people, to know Cheech from Chong?

Do you have any reading comprehension abilities at all? In the examples given the people in question were driving on public streets.

I hilited it this time so even you couldn't miss it.

crimresearch · 26th June 2012, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Changing your claim now, are you?. I wanted you to link to the post where you accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it. I'm beginning to think you never really predicted anything here.

Post #84

id you make this brag up?

The "ruling" you linked to is after the fact. "Prediction" refers to before the ruling was published.

If you are going to play the game, you need to go back and type in the words 'here at JREF', and insert it into that cut and paste job...

I said I predicted that they wouldn't make people start carrying papers to show on demand, because I knew the legal reasons that they would cite in this ruling, and my link proves me correct.

Your games prove something as well, but not about me.

Neally · 26th June 2012, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent.

Originally Posted by 000063

I'm not sure how it would be unlawful if the law in question permitted it. Profiling is dodgier, because most Mexicans actually look like Hispanic people. Plenty of them look white, I know. I'm not sure what criteria could be used to make these decisions if not apparent race.

Despite my previous resistance to returning to ground that has already been covered in previous discussions several times, and the easily found examples, I'll repeat them yet again:

1. If a law enforcement officer were to pull someone over for speeding only to find that the driver did not have a valid license or other identification, could not speak English, and wasn’t familiar with the procedure of a traffic stop it could be probable cause to ask about immigration status.

2. A law enforcement officer sees a minivan on a deserted, unpaved road without a valid license plate on it. Children in the van all waved at the agent in unison, as if instructed to do so. Smugglers were known to drive minivans, and smugglers often passed through the area. It could be probable cause to ask about immigration status.

3. A u-haul truck is pulled over for a traffic violation and there are 15 people stuffed in the back. The driver gives evasive answers as to who the people are in the back and why they are there. It could be probable cause to ask about immigration status.

4. A noise complaint is received from a neighbor. A law enforcement officer knocks on the door and asks about who the residents are and who lives there. The person who answers the door gives evasive contradictory answers and a bunch of people run out the back door. It could be probable cause to ask about immigration status.

Many more simple examples could be invented that don't involve any sort of illegal profiling.

MattusMaximus · 26th June 2012, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The founders believed that after a while on the court, your perception would lose its political character and you'd rule as you really see the Constitution. And we have seen that in many cases.

True enough. Remember Judge Jones in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case? Wow, who saw that ruling coming?

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

How would it affect tourists, especially foreign ones?

Like this.

Just google search and you can see it all.

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Are you sure you live in Arizona?
[/indent]http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/script...ory=1&Keyword=

That's from a .gov site.

I can assure that is not grounds for suspicion here. I have seen cops accept ID with much much older pictures. Nor does it cause your ID to be invalidated for any purpose.

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by BOATGOD

Biscuit- # 32 for the photo requirement.

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/script...ory=1&Keyword=

Its a request that does not affect the scenario that bore the discussion in the first place.

Even with this in place someone with a work visa can obtain a 50 year license in AZ, over stay their visa, and keep the license.

I have had an AZ drivers license since 1996 and have never seen this request via mail or any others means.

Biscuit · 26th June 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Any law can be broken, it's certainly not a reason to repeal all laws. I really don't understand the point you're making here.

That its a waste of resources.

Originally Posted by WildCat

If I understand the ruling correctly, Arizona can't do that. Only the Feds can, and they aren't trying very hard.

AZ has had an unchallenged law on the books for nearly a decade that will severely punish the employers. Jan brewer et al refuse to enforce it instead going for this BS approach that will never solve the problem.

They bitch that the fed doesn't enforce the laws it has when they are doing the same thing. In 10 years I believe 3 employers have been charged.

I don't know what makes you think AZ can't enforce employment law.

Originally Posted by WildCat

So you claim.

So I fear. Wait and see.

26th June 2012, 08:04 AM	#121
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by Biscuit No but the SCOTUS clearly left that argument open to be made. They were quite clear about that. I realize that. Are you claiming that the law is impossible to be enforced as written without unlawful discrimination/profiling?
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

26th June 2012, 08:08 AM	#122
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	On a related note I can only imagine how great this will be for tourism in our state. Not just tourists from south of the border but from all over the world.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

26th June 2012, 08:16 AM	#123
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,624	No link? Originally Posted by crimresearch When this debate started, I accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it. .... Interesting you make claims like this and can't support it.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

26th June 2012, 08:19 AM	#124
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	Originally Posted by Neally I realize that. Are you claiming that the law is impossible to be enforced as written without unlawful discrimination/profiling? I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

26th June 2012, 08:20 AM	#125
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Tricky I'm not sure how this is going to be enforced, and that will determine a lot. Allowing officers to "check immigration status" may mean that they can perform a routine check, which I suspect would turn up such things. I'm basically okay with that, since background checks are SOP for most places. However, if they demand that those who have been stopped "show papers", then they must demand it of everyone, otherwise it is profiling. The next move will be Arizona's. If they try to use profiling and enforce the law differently depending on appearance or last name, then they could wind up back in court again. This is an important point. In fact, it is so important that the court explicitly warned the state of Arizona in this ruling that it will be keeping an eye on how they implement this particular aspect of the law. And based upon the 5-3 ruling yesterday, any kind of shenanigans (racial profiling, etc) will likely end up in this law being thrown out entirely in a future SCOTUS ruling.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

26th June 2012, 08:23 AM	#126
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I hope this is evidence that Roberts and Kennedy are not as fanatically right wing as Thomas, Scalia and Alito are. That would make the court more balanced for decisions we can expect in the long run. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the ruling, especially with Chief Justice Roberts ruling with the majority in this case. It's nice to know that we cannot pigeon-hole some people to fit with our preconceptions, especially when they are a judge
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

26th June 2012, 08:40 AM	#127
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the ruling, especially with Chief Justice Roberts ruling with the majority in this case. It's nice to know that we cannot pigeon-hole some people to fit with our preconceptions, especially when they are a judge The founders believed that after a while on the court, your perception would lose its political character and you'd rule as you really see the Constitution. And we have seen that in many cases.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

26th June 2012, 08:54 AM	#128
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,876	Originally Posted by WildCat Lucky for you... You assume I was not talking about the family that lives next to my pal's renter. Originally Posted by jj So, I can be arrested for "driving without a licence" if I'm a passenger in a car with a tail light out, then? That's pretty absurd, isn't it? Originally Posted by Biscuit I am not worried about legal immigrants and such. My concern is for the 10 of thousand of US citizens that don't fit onto the set of leave it to beaver. There are a lot of americans who speak little or poor english but here in southern AZ that doesn't indicate citizenship as spanish is almost as common as english. Lots of American's speak and prefer spanish in AZ. Originally Posted by WildCat Then they'll have a drivers license, ID, or other papers proving they're citizens. Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Driving a car is only one way that one might encounter the police, and as has been demonstrated in the past, law enforcement has few qualms about profiling based on race. Arpio's roundup of brown skinned people is a perfect example, and the repercussions for Arpio were slim. Originally Posted by Biscuit Now lets say me (a 30 something white guy) and my friend Alex (a 30 something hispanic) both get pulled over. We have both forgotten our DL's at home and neither of us feels like talking to the cop so we say only "yes" or "no." Does anyone here really believe that there will be point when the officer thinks that he has probable cause to think I am here illegally? How about my brown friend alex? No. I don't see any similar situations in which a white guy and a hispanic guy will be treated equally without profiling under this law. Originally Posted by WildCat I forgot my wallet once when I went to work way back in the 1980s. As luck would have it, I got pulled over for speeding that day. I gave the cop my name, address, and SS#. And guess what? It matched what was in the SoS's database! He let me off with a warning. This really isn't that difficult. Your personal experience not withstanding, you really can't see how this might impact citizens who aren't out of a Norman Rockwell painting? Originally Posted by WildCat You don't have the right to conceal your identity. In particular if you're operating a motor vehicle on a puiblic street. Originally Posted by WildCat You both go to jail for driving without a license. Once there your identities will be sorted out, unless you'd rather stay in jail than reveal it. Your choice I guess... Your above example was one... Why would they both go to jail? Was this learned at the Cooter, or Barny Fife school of law enforcement? Is riding in a car without a license a crime, or is it simply riding while brown without that is a crime? Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

26th June 2012, 09:07 AM	#129
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,876	Originally Posted by Biscuit Did you see the great big print on the top of the page? It looks like a private company trying to make money selling insurance or something. I have never heard of this requirement on a license that expires every 50 years. I think it expires on your 65th birthday. At least that is the way it used to be. The Arizona license I got when I moved to Arizona in 1994 and still had when when I moved to Texas in 2006 expired in 2032. It might be that they have revised that system, and new licenses issued have use a different system. But who would take your word for it, you actually living in the state and all. I can see where a guy in living Chiago with an internet connection would know better. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

26th June 2012, 09:11 AM	#130
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,876	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with the ruling, especially with Chief Justice Roberts ruling with the majority in this case. It's nice to know that we cannot pigeon-hole some people to fit with our preconceptions, especially when they are a judge I was too, but I suspect part of Roberts motivation was to negotiate a ruling more to his liking. A pragmatic move since a 4-4 tie would have left the lower court ruling in place. That would effectively be a total a loss for the right wing state's rights Scalito branch of the court. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

26th June 2012, 09:40 AM	#131
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Biscuit I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent. . Eh? (from a Canuckian)

26th June 2012, 10:15 AM	#132
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	Originally Posted by daredelvis I think it expires on your 65th birthday. At least that is the way it used to be. The Arizona license I got when I moved to Arizona in 1994 and still had when when I moved to Texas in 2006 expired in 2032. It might be that they have revised that system, and new licenses issued have use a different system. But who would take your word for it, you actually living in the state and all. I can see where a guy in living Chiago with an internet connection would know better. Daredelvis Thank you! I don't mean to argue from authority but I actually kind am an authority on state ID's especially the AZ ones and not just because I live here but because I spend my weekends seizing fakes. The source cited by wildcat appears to have zero legitimate standing and I have never heard of this 12 year rule. I could be wrong, I don't know everything. I have looked all over my AZ ID. It expires in 2045 and I must report a change of address within 10 days otherwise I have no indication that I need a new one every 12 years per that website. It would seem if that was the law then the DL would expire every 12 years. I don't think a state issued ID is a good indicator of citizenship. 1. They can be obtained and retained by none citizens 2. There are extremely good fakes 3. There is a good chance for fraud by people in the motor vehicle department. Especially as the price for illegal ID's will sky rocket with this law. 4. A police officer doesn't really have all the resources one needs to establish citizenship based on a state ID. It can be time consuming and relies on accurate records and data entry. (Case in point I am a healthy 215lbs but they entered my weight as 115lbs on my ID. Based on that alone an officer would have sufficient suspicion to think the ID was not mine and detain me until ICE can figure it out) Lets say some brown skinned guys get some very good fakes from california these could easily fool an officer so that he doesn't bother with a radio call to check them unless its because the people who handed them over were brown. So what should AZ require we carry to prove ourselves?
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

26th June 2012, 11:06 AM	#133
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by Biscuit ... So what should AZ require we carry to prove ourselves? A six pack and a loaded pistol.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

26th June 2012, 11:30 AM	#134
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,738	Originally Posted by Neally I realize that. Are you claiming that the law is impossible to be enforced as written without unlawful discrimination/profiling? I'm not sure how it would be unlawful if the law in question permitted it. Profiling is dodgier, because most Mexicans actually look like Hispanic people. Plenty of them look white, I know. I'm not sure what criteria could be used to make these decisions if not apparent race. Originally Posted by BenBurch A six pack and a loaded pistol. No, that's the stereotype for Texas. Get it right.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

26th June 2012, 11:51 AM	#135
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,876	Originally Posted by BenBurch A six pack and a loaded pistol. Originally Posted by 000063 No, that's the stereotype for Texas. Get it right. Yep, in Arizona it is a carne asada burrito and a loaded pistol. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

26th June 2012, 11:58 AM	#136
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,381	Originally Posted by daredelvis Yep, in Arizona it is a carne asada burrito and a loaded pistol. Daredelvis Yes but they are some damn good carne asada burritos!
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,381	__________________ Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing. Henry David Thoreau

26th June 2012, 12:06 PM	#137
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 1,876	Originally Posted by Ausmerican Yes but they are some damn good carne asada burritos! You know it. Carne asada burritos are about the only thing I eat when visiting the rents. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

26th June 2012, 12:23 PM	#138
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	Originally Posted by BenBurch A six pack and a loaded pistol. tequila y una pistola
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,774	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

26th June 2012, 01:23 PM	#139
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by daredelvis You assume I was not talking about the family that lives next to my pal's renter. Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Driving a car is only one way that one might encounter the police, and as has been demonstrated in the past, law enforcement has few qualms about profiling based on race. Arpio's roundup of brown skinned people is a perfect example, and the repercussions for Arpio were slim. Your personal experience not withstanding, you really can't see how this might impact citizens who aren't out of a Norman Rockwell painting? Why would they both go to jail? Was this learned at the Cooter, or Barny Fife school of law enforcement? Is riding in a car without a license a crime, or is it simply riding while brown without that is a crime? Daredelvis Answered in Hiibel, which Wildcat has been schooled on before... and chooses to pretend doesn't exist. People are not required by law to provide paper IDs, absent specific circumstances like driving on public streets, entering restricted areas, military personnel and so on. People can be required to give verbal identification, and on valid PC, provide exemplars like fingerprints or lineups for investigative purposes. Immigrants can be required to carry papers, but how does an officer develop the PC in a car full of people, to know Cheech from Chong?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

26th June 2012, 02:20 PM	#140
BOATGOD Scholar Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 59	Biscuit- # 32 for the photo requirement. http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/script...ory=1&Keyword=
BOATGOD Scholar Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 59

26th June 2012, 02:25 PM	#141
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,624	Still no link, Crimresearch? I'm beginning to doubt your brag.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

26th June 2012, 02:31 PM	#142
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Biscuit Did you see the great big print on the top of the page? It looks like a private company trying to make money selling insurance or something. I have never heard of this requirement on a license that expires every 50 years. Are you sure you live in Arizona? Quote: 32) When will I need to update my photo? You are required to update your photo every 12 years. At the end of 12 years, a notice will be sent to you requesting that you visit a driver license facility for a new photo and replacement driver license. http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/script...ory=1&Keyword= That's from a .gov site.

26th June 2012, 02:36 PM	#143
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Biscuit Which I can assure you are easily faked or obtained via fraud. Checking all these ID's using the cops method of calling into the database will take massive amounts of time and slow down the regular duties of the police. Any law can be broken, it's certainly not a reason to repeal all laws. I really don't understand the point you're making here. Originally Posted by Biscuit All these resources are far better spent going after the magnet that draws the immigrants here in the first place. Go after the people providing the jobs. Catching immigrants 2 or 3 at time is a joke of a policy. If I understand the ruling correctly, Arizona can't do that. Only the Feds can, and they aren't trying very hard. Originally Posted by Biscuit But which of us will they suspect is an illegal immigrant and why? None, one, or both of you depending on whether or not your identities chack out. Originally Posted by Biscuit I obviously disagree. In identical police/civilian interactions the only thing that would lead to suspicion is the color of ones skin. So you claim.

26th June 2012, 02:40 PM	#144
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Still no link, Crimresearch? I'm beginning to doubt your brag. What would you like me to link to? The text of the ruling that I posted on the 1st page, that you are busy pretending doesn't exist? The part where I pointed out that the Constitution and previous Supreme Court rulings don't allow police to use random traffic stops as pretexts to demand people show ID? So that you can claim that your 'browser' only shows a blank page again? If you've got a problem with the Supreme Court striking down the part of the AZ law that would require people from 'my culture' (your words), to carry papers, then go ahead and own that, and quit playing these chat room gossip/gotcha games.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 26th June 2012 at 02:45 PM.

26th June 2012, 02:41 PM	#145
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Biscuit Those checks will be a massive waste of time and resources that are better applied and can compromise the regulr police duties. Yeah, I feel the same about traffic and parking tickets. Why are they ticketing me for turning right on red at a time there's no traffic when people are getting shot in Englewood? Originally Posted by Biscuit Thank you for not reading my claim. I said we have more tools which I did demonstrate. Also our tools are faster and more effective. Care to guess why? If they were so effective you wouldn't need the police to confirm. All you really can have is a strong suspicion. Originally Posted by Biscuit It may surprise you to know that in 100% of the country that isn't AZ the laws of AZ do not apply. This is law is intended to catch people from south of the border not dutch invaders. Are illegal Dutch immigrants a significant portion of your illegal immigrant population?

26th June 2012, 02:42 PM	#146
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-182b5e1.pdf Ginger, RIGHT-click on the link and save to disk. That you get a blank page when you merely click on it means that your browser couldn't display the PDF for some reason. But I get a SC decision at that link.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

26th June 2012, 02:43 PM	#147
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Biscuit On a related note I can only imagine how great this will be for tourism in our state. Not just tourists from south of the border but from all over the world. How would it affect tourists, especially foreign ones?

26th June 2012, 02:44 PM	#148
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Biscuit I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent. Funny, in the example you gave skin color and accent had nothing to do with it, it all boils down to your identities.

26th June 2012, 02:51 PM	#149
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by daredelvis Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Driving a car is only one way that one might encounter the police, and as has been demonstrated in the past, law enforcement has few qualms about profiling based on race. Arpio's roundup of brown skinned people is a perfect example, and the repercussions for Arpio were slim. I never claimed citizens were required to carry anything while not driving. But if that citizen gets arrested for selling drugs on the corner or robbing the local 7-11 he'll be able to prove who he or she is. And if they come under the scrutiny of the police for other reasons not involving breaking any laws I think this ruling makes clear they can't detain them just because they look a certain way.

26th June 2012, 02:52 PM	#150
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by daredelvis Why would they both go to jail? Was this learned at the Cooter, or Barny Fife school of law enforcement? Is riding in a car without a license a crime, or is it simply riding while brown without that is a crime? Daredelvis In the example they were both driving, in different vehicles of course.

26th June 2012, 02:59 PM	#151
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Biscuit I have looked all over my AZ ID. It expires in 2045 and I must report a change of address within 10 days otherwise I have no indication that I need a new one every 12 years per that website. It would seem if that was the law then the DL would expire every 12 years. I've already cited the AZ DOT page on the matter, I presume it doesn't expire in the sense that you don't need to take any sort of driving test but you do need to update your pic.

26th June 2012, 03:00 PM	#152
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,624	Originally Posted by crimresearch What would you like me to link to? The text of the ruling that I posted on the 1st page, that you are busy pretending doesn't exist? .... Changing your claim now, are you?. I wanted you to link to the post where you accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it. I'm beginning to think you never really predicted anything here. Post #84: Originally Posted by CR When this debate started, I accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it. Did you make this brag up? The "ruling" you linked to is after the fact. "Prediction" refers to before the ruling was published.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 26th June 2012 at 03:01 PM.*

26th June 2012, 03:01 PM	#153
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by crimresearch Answered in Hiibel, which Wildcat has been schooled on before... and chooses to pretend doesn't exist. People are not required by law to provide paper IDs, absent specific circumstances like driving on public streets, entering restricted areas, military personnel and so on. People can be required to give verbal identification, and on valid PC, provide exemplars like fingerprints or lineups for investigative purposes. Immigrants can be required to carry papers, but how does an officer develop the PC in a car full of people, to know Cheech from Chong? Do you have any reading comprehension abilities at all? In the examples given the people in question were driving on public streets. I hilited it this time so even you couldn't miss it.

26th June 2012, 03:12 PM	#154
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Changing your claim now, are you?. I wanted you to link to the post where you accurately predicted today's ruling, and gave the specific legal reasoning for it. I'm beginning to think you never really predicted anything here. Post #84id you make this brag up? The "ruling" you linked to is after the fact. "Prediction" refers to before the ruling was published. If you are going to play the game, you need to go back and type in the words 'here at JREF', and insert it into that cut and paste job... I said I predicted that they wouldn't make people start carrying papers to show on demand, because I knew the legal reasons that they would cite in this ruling, and my link proves me correct. Your games prove something as well, but not about me.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

26th June 2012, 03:20 PM	#155
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by Biscuit I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to how that could happen. In identical interactions the only suspicion is from skin color or accent. Originally Posted by 000063 I'm not sure how it would be unlawful if the law in question permitted it. Profiling is dodgier, because most Mexicans actually look like Hispanic people. Plenty of them look white, I know. I'm not sure what criteria could be used to make these decisions if not apparent race. Despite my previous resistance to returning to ground that has already been covered in previous discussions several times, and the easily found examples, I'll repeat them yet again: 1. If a law enforcement officer were to pull someone over for speeding only to find that the driver did not have a valid license or other identification, could not speak English, and wasn’t familiar with the procedure of a traffic stop it could be probable cause to ask about immigration status. 2. A law enforcement officer sees a minivan on a deserted, unpaved road without a valid license plate on it. Children in the van all waved at the agent in unison, as if instructed to do so. Smugglers were known to drive minivans, and smugglers often passed through the area. It could be probable cause to ask about immigration status. 3. A u-haul truck is pulled over for a traffic violation and there are 15 people stuffed in the back. The driver gives evasive answers as to who the people are in the back and why they are there. It could be probable cause to ask about immigration status. 4. A noise complaint is received from a neighbor. A law enforcement officer knocks on the door and asks about who the residents are and who lives there. The person who answers the door gives evasive contradictory answers and a bunch of people run out the back door. It could be probable cause to ask about immigration status. Many more simple examples could be invented that don't involve any sort of illegal profiling.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101