As per the subsequent memo appointing me as TimeWinder’s immediate superior in the global liberal heirarchy, I am authorized to clarify that under this world order the US would retain the right to subject resident noncitizens to the tax structure.
My father-inl-aw is from Mexico, but is now a US citizen. What kind of documentation must he carry around with him?
There is no federal law requring that people be stopped on the street and asked to prove legal residence, nor is there any law that they be asked to prove it during a routine stop for other reasons. Arizona wouldn’t have been enforcing a federal law, they would be imposing news laws which they have no jurisdiction to pass.
These right wing complaint algorithms are getting pretty elaborate. This one almost looks like real speech.
My Green Card acceptance letter says, “When you receive your card you must carry it with you at all times if you are 18 or older. It is the law.”
Anyone know the penalty for failing to carry it with me?
Oh, that’s easy. If someone’s got white skin instead of brownish, or blond hair, then they’re almost certainly immigrants (or at least mostly descended from immigrants). Non-immigrants in this country all have brownish skin and black hair.
A $100 fine.
Unlike Canada, in which the vast majority of criminal statutes are enacted federally, in the States, the individual states are the source of a great deal of criminal statutes. U.S. federal criminal statutes occupy more of a niche field of special federal issues that deal with exclusively federal or inter-state issues, such as crimes involving federal employees or facilities, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or issues involving the national border. Since many of the crimes set forth by federal statutes do not have corresponding crimes under a given state’s criminal laws and the federal government has not expressly granted a particular law enforcement agency in a given state to enforce certain federal laws, then enforcing federal laws is usually outside of a local law enforcement officer’s scope of jurisdiction. This is assuming there is no corresponding state law possibly giving rise for a local law enforcement officer to enforce or there is no agreement between the feds and the local law enforcement agency that allows them to enforce certain federal laws.
Given that reasonable, articulable suspicion is used by law enforcement officers to justify Terry stops or vehicle stops on a daily basis, the fact that there is no overarching criteria that could cover all situations for what could constitute a reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien in the US unlawfully is not really determinative. Reasonable suspicion in the the SB 1070 context is whatever a prosecutor, with the testimony of one or more police officers, argues and what a judge will ultimately decide. That is one of the lesser problems of SB 1070.
All he has to do is say he is a US citizen, and there is nothing the police can do, unless they already have evidence that he is not a citizen. They cannot detain people just because they look Mexican, or speak Spanish, or dress like an immigrant. Any US citizen who was detained should sue the hell out of the law enforcement body that detained them without being able to articulate what reasonable suspicion existed to justify the detention.
If this law is ever allowed to go into effect, it should be renamed the Attorney Full Employment Act, because a cottage industry of lawyers will bloom overnight, ready to sue any police department who detains a US citizen without reasonable suspicion. It will cost local municipalities a fortune to defend these lawsuits.
According to the internet:
I understand that last part is a staple of “barely legal” porn.
And then there’s the “barely illegal” porn, with Mexican actors saying, “Green cards? We don’t need no stinking green cards!”, while they fornicate with two or more women.
Nice how you just skip over the whole “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” part. That means a legal stop has to be made FIRST. And currently, formerly, and in the future, it is not legal in AZ to stop someone because of the color of their skin or just to check their papers.
It’s funny to see such outrage by the left by a law that they know nothing about.
Right, and after you make a legal stop you ask the brown people for their papers. Nothing to get outraged about there at all right?
Despite the many threads on this issue, you don’t recall that this provision was modified before the law went into effect, and “lawful contact” was stricken? Really? That completely escaped your attention?
You know you’re quoting the text of the bill in the Arizona Senate anyway, right? You’re not actuallylinking to the Arizona laws as enacted, right?
I mean… seriously. How many threads have I spent rebutting this kind of lying crap?
In my opinion, no. But that’s not the point I was trying to make. I’m disputing the whole notion that you can be stopped just to show papers, which is just not true. No matter how many times people try to scream, cry, yell the opposite, it doesn’t make it true.
On a side note to the whole “papers” thing though, I have lived as a foreigner in both France and Belgium, where I was required by law to have my identification on me. And in Belgium especially because of the neighborhood I lived, I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id. Was it inconvenient? Yes. The end of the world? No. Oh the horrors!
NIce anecdote. Does it apply to the US? Only in the sense that “I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id.” So, you were stopped for what–violating a law? Or just because you looked different? See the connection yet?
I think that if people believed that this wasn’t going to be used as a tool to specifically harass the brown people, there’d be a lot less complaint about it. Which is to say, if everyone had to carry papers and produce them regularly, the lefties would murmur less.
(The righties would murmer more, though.)
There was a valid objection to this phrase, however. A “lawful contact” is made between the police and Emma when Emma reports that her home was burglarized, and the police respond to investigate.
For this reason, the phrase was removed by the passaage of HB 2162, and replaced with:
This change was referred to in SDMB threads approximately 8,876,621 times.
Now make that 8,876,622. Not that liberals let facts get in the way of good ol’ outrage.
Yes, I was actually stopped because I looked different. I happened to live in a predominantly North African neighborhood, which was also well known for having a few parks where hashish dealers hung out. I have no doubt I was stopped because I was a white guy walking around such a neighborhood. I guess I should be suing the Belgian government for racial profiling…