Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Arizona style immigration law coming to Virginia?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I am PP and I will reiterate--your language is truly offensive. It combines a swear word with a word referring to people of different mental capacity that any educated person knows should not be used as a slur. Please stop. |
Anonymous
|
GREAT
I have no problem at all with this and recent polls show a majority of peopel support the AZ law it is just poeple are not willing to say it out loud. |
Anonymous
|
If you are an illegal alien. GET OUT. How hard is that? Stop breaking our laws, pay all the back taxes you owe for using our services for free then GET OUT and go back to your country.
If you want to come here, do it the right way. Get in line like everyone else, pay all the fees, learn English, move here, pay taxes and assimilate. Simple. |
Anonymous
No. Not if you have broken a law. Any state today can check your immigration status if you have been just charged with a crime. In AZ, f they feel they have any valid reason to stop you on the street, they have enough to invoke the law. The actual standard in the law is "lawful stop, detention or arrest". This is the equivalent of the "broken tail light" traffic stop. Get your facts straight. As for notion that concerns over abuse somehow make me a bad person, well first I have police officers in my own family. And I have friends in the DC police force. So my comment is not coming from paranoia about police. That aside, if you think that there are no bad officers out there, you have your head in the sand and you don't have access to Youtube. My concern stems from the principles laid down by our founders, namely that (1) we are a free people, and (2) we place limits on the power of government to protect against its abuse. We have a Constitution which is designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority. We have a bill of rights. In criminal situations, we have Miranda. We have freedom against self incrimination. We are allowed to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves against a government gone bad. We have all these protections because we believe they are vital to a free society, to be sure that the government does not rule us but is answerable to us. Your notion, that only the guilty will be affected, is a belief that has failed time and again in world history. |
Anonymous
It's reasonable to assume that you know nothing about the hoops and measures that a potential immigrant needs to jump thru to "qualify". Your attitude is "Just get in line" like it's something that anybody can do, if only they'd follow the rules liek everybody else. You are an F*tard. |
Anonymous
Your response is so juvenile I wonder if you're a kid who is out of highschool and just wants to fool around and rile us up. I know about hoops and measures because in life before we can get anything we have to do a dog agnd pony show to an extent for everything. That's just life, again if you don't like it stay in your own country. Pretty simple. |
Anonymous
| VA will probably end up passing this as the non-NOVA residents love to stick it to the NOVA residents who will object. The upside is that it is only a matter of time before a cop detains a well connected lawyer, diplomat, or legal activist who will happily challenge the law, something unlikely to happen in Arizona. I can't imagine that this law would be upheld by the Supreme Court and it will be interesting to hear the testimony of the detaining officer as to what constituted "cause" for suspiscion that the individual was in the US illegally. |
Anonymous
I wrote before and I want to address another element of your post. We protect our freedoms through our laws. At least our founding fathers thought so when they wrote the Bill of Rights the following protections against law enforcement: 2nd Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms, was written to protect people from its military 3rd Amendment: No quartering of troops in someone's house without consent 4th Amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure 5th Amendment: Due process 6th Amendment: right to trial including right to speedy trial (prohibits unreasonable detention without trial) 8th Amendment: prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment So of the first ten amendments to our constitution, six of them are directed at preventing abuses by the people who keep the peace. The founders were fixated on preventing abuse of power. Freedom is the primary goal of the Constitution, and they readily accepted limits to ensure that no one encroached on our freedoms, as demonstrated above. This tradition has been affirmed time and again in the courts. And as for your comment about watchdogs, those groups are the ones who will challenge the law in the courts. |
Anonymous
'Anarchy' (total freedom) also means the freedom of others to abuse you with no checks. Sorry--I LOVE our constitution. I also understand that government is the balance between one's owns rights which often end where they infringe on the rights of others (a balance). This is why we have police, courts etc., to maintain both our personal AND group freedoms. I have zero problem being asked for papers when pulled over for a traffic stop, broken tail light etc. Why is this so threatening to you? Again, I don't LOVE it. I'm the person who often forgets to carry ID and would end up downtown with a load of hassle. That being said, I think it has come to this. Personally, would love to increase immigration quotas from ALL over the world. But currently, I'm horrified that we have a black market economy that exploits wonderful people, and burgeoning gang and border violence, and people taking the place of people who would process here legally. We need to either control our physical border, or make it extremely inhospitable to be here on the inside illegally. Those are my thoughts. I appreciate that you shared yours without degenerating to insult. Thank you. 
|
Anonymous
|
The Arizona law says cause includes anyone in legal contact with an officer. What does that mean? If I ask a cop for directions, is that legal contact? It's certainly not ILlegal contact. Guess I shouldn't do that without my ID.
Let's face facts: this law is motivated by racism, jingoism, and xenophobia. And nothing else. If you think it is, you have fallen for nonsensical talking points. Actually understanding this law, the Constitution, and the intentions of those proposing the law (such as the self-admitted Nazi-sympathizer who originally proposed it), you are simply uninformed and need to keep your bigotry to yourself. |
Anonymous
It was modified due to problems with that language. See post earlier today. But the language is still bad. |
Anonymous
I don't have a problem as long as we require by law all citizens to carry proof of citizenship / residency, we supply everyone with definitive ID to that effect, and we routinely check that ID just like we run every DL when you get pulled over. I'm totally fine with that. But if you tried to pass a law making it illegal to be on the streets without ID, there would be riots, and not by the immigrants. Americans don't want to do it. Can you imagine the outrage when some jaywalking jogger gets stopped, the law says the ID MUST be checked even if you look like George Washington himself, and the jogger gets dragged into the police station because they forgot their card? It would be insanity. |
Anonymous
Accusations of bigotry are truly the last retreat in American-debate. Let's pull out the racism card and wave it wildy! That'll shut everyone up!!! So much for your vaunted free speech. |
Anonymous
Please explain the difference between this law, in its amended current condition, and Federal Law. Thanks! |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
There are significant differences. I'll let Factcheck.org explain them: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/ Bottom line: "Contrary to what the law’s defenders often say, the new statute does more than merely mirror federal law." |