Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: loco on June 02, 2010, 06:15:50 AM
-
June 1, 2010
"But Brewer said Tuesday the law does not target an individual's specific race. She also made clear driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/01/obama.arizona.governor/index.html?hpt=C1
???
-
Obama better not show up in AZ.
I'm just sayin. ;D ;D ;D
-
this law is damn confusing.
If brewer herself say Drivers license isn't sufficient, then what in the world are people supposed to carry with them?
-
She probably meant that if the person provides a bogus out of state license that proves fraudulent, that alone will not be enough to stop further inquiry.
Here in NY, the illegals all get NC drivers licenses, which are utter bs.
-
She probably meant that if the person provides a bogus out of state license that proves fraudulent, that alone will not be enough to stop further inquiry.
Here in NY, the illegals all get NC drivers licenses, which are utter bs.
So if a Latino American citizen who resides in Florida is driving through Arizona, gets pulled over for speeding, is asked to produce proof of citizenship, his Florida drivers license won't be sufficient proof?
-
"She probably meant"
Could be. I would hate to try to interpret her words though.
If the case is now, "Visitors to AZ will have to carry their birth certs", that is gonna be a really big deal. If a cop asked for my birth cert, I would legit tell him to S my D and get me a lawyer. Period. Fuuucik that. People putting up with step one (must show ID) and now we're on step 2... "state papers, please"
-
"She probably meant"
Could be. I would hate to try to interpret her words though.
If the case is now, "Visitors to AZ will have to carry their birth certs", that is gonna be a really big deal. If a cop asked for my birth cert, I would legit tell him to S my D and get me a lawyer. Period. Fuuucik that. People putting up with step one (must show ID) and now we're on step 2... "state papers, please"
Just tell him: "when Obama gives his BC, I'll give mine"
-
Obama better not show up in AZ.
I'm just sayin. ;D ;D ;D
:)
-
I think she might have opened a pandora's box on this one.
I'm sure she'll be retracting shortly, saying Drivers license is adequate.
-
I think she might have opened a pandora's box on this one.
I'm sure she'll be retracting shortly, saying Drivers license is adequate.
I thought it said a valid drivers' license is sufficient evidence as written in the law itself.
-
Why Americans Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
By Ed Koch
According to the May 20th New York Times, a little girl asked First Lady Michelle Obama about immigration reform, stating, "My mom says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn't have papers." The First Lady comforted the little girl, saying, "Yeah, well that's something that we have to work on, right?" The little girl responded, "But my mom doesn't have any papers."
In the same article, the President of Mexico was quoted as saying, "We will retain our firm rejection to criminalize migration so that people that work and provide things to this nation [U.S.] will [not] be treated as criminals," meaning that Arizona should not be arresting people who illegally crossed the U.S. border and are now illegal aliens.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Ed Koch RealClearPolitics
immigration
But why shouldn't people who deliberately violated the law be arrested and deported? In the case of Arizona, illegal immigration has been extremely burdensome. Arizona is being overwhelmed with an estimated 500,000 illegals now in that state and more coming every day. Many of those illegals require medical services and education facilities for their children. The cost to Arizona undoubtedly runs into the multi-millions, if not billions of dollars. If the feds are failing to do their job to protect Arizona from infiltration, that state government has decided it will do the job. For that, Arizona is being denounced by President Obama and by many members of Congress. When Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced Arizona's law when he addressed the joint session of Congress, saying, "It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement...core values we all care about are breached," the Democrats stood up and applauded him. What an outrage, both by Congress and Calderon.
As a result of the furor created by the Arizona law calling for police identification and arrest of illegal immigrants, the Arizona legislature changed the law and now some other incident -- such as a traffic offense or otherwise -- must take place before an Arizona police officer can inquire about a person's right to be in the U.S. This amendment is to insure against racial profiling.
If the little girl had said to the First Lady, "My mom is a shoplifter," I would have felt badly for her, but I would not have discouraged the cops from getting a search warrant. In this little girl's situation, the White House announced there would be no effort to remove the little girl's mother from the U.S., because she was not a danger to the country. Our hearts go out to children and I believe if a child is born here, every effort should be made to keep the family intact in the U.S.
I have heard public officials in ever larger numbers talk about the need to provide the illegals with a "pathway to citizenship." Why? Probably because those politicians -- particularly Democrats -- hope to enlist them to vote for them in the future. They are becoming an ever larger part of the American population, with Hispanics expected to be 29 percent of the population by 2050. Clergy, particularly Roman Catholic, also support giving illegal aliens citizenship. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is a leader in this effort for reasons of compassion and I would think because the Roman Catholic Church is becoming increasingly Hispanic, particularly in the Southwest of the U.S.
People like me oppose granting amnesty to illegals for the same reasons that the people of the U.S. rose up twice during George W. Bush's presidency and defeated two congressional efforts to create amnesty and a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.
We think it is simply wrong to reward illegal conduct by those who crossed the borders without permission or overstayed their visas. If more permanent immigrants are needed -- I think we need more -- they should come from those waiting in line or willing to join the existing line. Our immigration quotas should be increased, doubled or tripled if necessary. We now take in 750,000 permanent immigrants and 250,000 asylees annually. On the other hand, I do not believe in open borders. Mexico doesn't have them, evidenced by the following exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and President Calderon:
BLITZER: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Mexico's laws. I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. Is that true?
CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a -- is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America...
BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?
CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?
And if they explain...
BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.
CALDERON: Yes.
BLITZER: But once they're in...
CALDERON: But not -- but not in -- if -- once they are inside the -- inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is [not] a crime anymore in Mexico.
BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?
CALDERON: It's not a crime.
BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job...
CALDERON: No, no.
BLITZER: They can work.
CALDERON: If -- if somebody do that without permission, we send back -- we send back them.
BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?
CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.
BLITZER: I ask the questions because there's an argument that people in Arizona and New Mexico and -- and Texas, they say they're only trying to do in their states what Mexico itself does in the southern part of Mexico.
CALDERON: I know. And that is a very powerful argument. But that is one of the reasons why we are trying to change our policy. And let me be frank, Wolf. In the past, Mexican authorities were in a -- in a -- in an unfortunate way in the treatment for immigrants. But now we are changing the policy. We changed already the law. And that is different today. We are trying to write a new story, talking about immigrants, especially coming from Central American countries.
When Haitians were coming across the Caribbean in dangerous boats to Florida, the advocates were calling them economic refugees. There is even more reason for them to come now because of the earthquake devastation. We sent them back because we have no special category of admission for economic refugees, only for asylees who fear and can prove they would be subject to bodily harm if sent home.
When Senator John McCain realized his error in supporting the amnesty bill and in the course of his current primary reelection campaign, did a campaign commercial apparently repudiating his earlier support, he was denounced by the New York Times in an editorial which said, "Who else has shown such courage in the long struggle for immigration reform? Not Mr. McCain, who ditched his principled support of rational immigration legislation to better his odds in a close re-election campaign against a far-right-wing opponent." I, however, applaud Senator McCain for changing his position so as to reflect that of the overwhelming number of Arizona's citizens. That is particularly true in this case where 59 percent, according to a Pew Research poll of the people of the U.S. agree with Arizona's action.
The battle in Congress on this issue may come this year, but probably not. The members of Congress and the President himself fear the outcome of such a battle -- they think they will lose. In all probability, our national leaders intend to wait until after the November election to vote on this bill thinking the two years that follow until the next election will protect them. The passage of time they believe will dull memories and the passions that currently exist in opposition to amnesty legislation.
When will they learn the public is not made up of chumps to be taken advantage of? We will remember and hold those people accountable when they next run for office.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
-
Why Americans Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
By Ed Koch
Who on this board supports Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?
-
Who on this board supports Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?
no kidding. has ANYONE here (aside from ppl stupid enough to vote for Mccain, the guy who teamed up with Kennedy to write the Amnesty bill) said Amnesty is a good idea?
We all hate that shit dude.
-
I thought it said a valid drivers' license is sufficient evidence as written in the law itself.
That is what the same bill that Brewer signed into law says. But then she just made it clear that driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship. That shows she didn't even read the bill before signing it.
It is very scary to think that if the governor herself who signed this bill into law doesn't know any better, how can we expect the many people who will be enforcing this law to know any better?
-
That is what the same bill that Brewer signed into law says. But then she just made it clear that driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship. That shows she didn't even read the bill before signing it.
It is very scary to think that if the governor herself who signed this bill into law doesn't know any better, how can we expect the many people who will be enforcing this law to know any better?
I have to see the full transcript to see if she misspoke on this.
-
I like this lady. She will smack the shit out of the street agitator POFSPOTUS
Brewer to Obama:
"I'll see you in Court, I have a good record of winning"
Video at site.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/02/az_gov_brewer_to_obama_if_he_challenges_law_well_meet_you_in_court.html
-
I have to see the full transcript to see if she misspoke on this.
DITTO. Can anyone link her exact quote, etc?
-
Why Americans Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
By Ed Koch
According to the May 20th New York Times, a little girl asked First Lady Michelle Obama about immigration reform, stating, "My mom says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn't have papers." The First Lady comforted the little girl, saying, "Yeah, well that's something that we have to work on, right?" The little girl responded, "But my mom doesn't have any papers."
In the same article, the President of Mexico was quoted as saying, "We will retain our firm rejection to criminalize migration so that people that work and provide things to this nation [U.S.] will [not] be treated as criminals," meaning that Arizona should not be arresting people who illegally crossed the U.S. border and are now illegal aliens.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Ed Koch RealClearPolitics
immigration
But why shouldn't people who deliberately violated the law be arrested and deported? In the case of Arizona, illegal immigration has been extremely burdensome. Arizona is being overwhelmed with an estimated 500,000 illegals now in that state and more coming every day. Many of those illegals require medical services and education facilities for their children. The cost to Arizona undoubtedly runs into the multi-millions, if not billions of dollars. If the feds are failing to do their job to protect Arizona from infiltration, that state government has decided it will do the job. For that, Arizona is being denounced by President Obama and by many members of Congress. When Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced Arizona's law when he addressed the joint session of Congress, saying, "It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement...core values we all care about are breached," the Democrats stood up and applauded him. What an outrage, both by Congress and Calderon.
As a result of the furor created by the Arizona law calling for police identification and arrest of illegal immigrants, the Arizona legislature changed the law and now some other incident -- such as a traffic offense or otherwise -- must take place before an Arizona police officer can inquire about a person's right to be in the U.S. This amendment is to insure against racial profiling.
If the little girl had said to the First Lady, "My mom is a shoplifter," I would have felt badly for her, but I would not have discouraged the cops from getting a search warrant. In this little girl's situation, the White House announced there would be no effort to remove the little girl's mother from the U.S., because she was not a danger to the country. Our hearts go out to children and I believe if a child is born here, every effort should be made to keep the family intact in the U.S.
I have heard public officials in ever larger numbers talk about the need to provide the illegals with a "pathway to citizenship." Why? Probably because those politicians -- particularly Democrats -- hope to enlist them to vote for them in the future. They are becoming an ever larger part of the American population, with Hispanics expected to be 29 percent of the population by 2050. Clergy, particularly Roman Catholic, also support giving illegal aliens citizenship. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is a leader in this effort for reasons of compassion and I would think because the Roman Catholic Church is becoming increasingly Hispanic, particularly in the Southwest of the U.S.
People like me oppose granting amnesty to illegals for the same reasons that the people of the U.S. rose up twice during George W. Bush's presidency and defeated two congressional efforts to create amnesty and a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.
We think it is simply wrong to reward illegal conduct by those who crossed the borders without permission or overstayed their visas. If more permanent immigrants are needed -- I think we need more -- they should come from those waiting in line or willing to join the existing line. Our immigration quotas should be increased, doubled or tripled if necessary. We now take in 750,000 permanent immigrants and 250,000 asylees annually. On the other hand, I do not believe in open borders. Mexico doesn't have them, evidenced by the following exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and President Calderon:
BLITZER: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Mexico's laws. I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. Is that true?
CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a -- is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America...
BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?
CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?
And if they explain...
BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.
CALDERON: Yes.
BLITZER: But once they're in...
CALDERON: But not -- but not in -- if -- once they are inside the -- inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is [not] a crime anymore in Mexico.
BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?
CALDERON: It's not a crime.
BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job...
CALDERON: No, no.
BLITZER: They can work.
CALDERON: If -- if somebody do that without permission, we send back -- we send back them.
BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?
CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.
BLITZER: I ask the questions because there's an argument that people in Arizona and New Mexico and -- and Texas, they say they're only trying to do in their states what Mexico itself does in the southern part of Mexico.
CALDERON: I know. And that is a very powerful argument. But that is one of the reasons why we are trying to change our policy. And let me be frank, Wolf. In the past, Mexican authorities were in a -- in a -- in an unfortunate way in the treatment for immigrants. But now we are changing the policy. We changed already the law. And that is different today. We are trying to write a new story, talking about immigrants, especially coming from Central American countries.
When Haitians were coming across the Caribbean in dangerous boats to Florida, the advocates were calling them economic refugees. There is even more reason for them to come now because of the earthquake devastation. We sent them back because we have no special category of admission for economic refugees, only for asylees who fear and can prove they would be subject to bodily harm if sent home.
When Senator John McCain realized his error in supporting the amnesty bill and in the course of his current primary reelection campaign, did a campaign commercial apparently repudiating his earlier support, he was denounced by the New York Times in an editorial which said, "Who else has shown such courage in the long struggle for immigration reform? Not Mr. McCain, who ditched his principled support of rational immigration legislation to better his odds in a close re-election campaign against a far-right-wing opponent." I, however, applaud Senator McCain for changing his position so as to reflect that of the overwhelming number of Arizona's citizens. That is particularly true in this case where 59 percent, according to a Pew Research poll of the people of the U.S. agree with Arizona's action.
The battle in Congress on this issue may come this year, but probably not. The members of Congress and the President himself fear the outcome of such a battle -- they think they will lose. In all probability, our national leaders intend to wait until after the November election to vote on this bill thinking the two years that follow until the next election will protect them. The passage of time they believe will dull memories and the passions that currently exist in opposition to amnesty legislation.
When will they learn the public is not made up of chumps to be taken advantage of? We will remember and hold those people accountable when they next run for office.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
This new tactic of the media using children to drive home a point is really starting to piss me off. Obama dropped the same type of line last week when he said his daughter asks him every morning if he stopped the oil yet. ::)
-
Its embarassing and idiotic.
They did the same crap with MO and that little girl asking if Obama was going to deport her mother.
-
it's embarassing that in 2008, Dem and Repub voters chose 4 prez and Vp candidates who had ALL supported that amnesty bill.
One of them wrote it (mccain), one of them allowed sanctuary cities (Palin), and the other two just lapdogged and voted for it.
(And don't give me that BS about how governors like Palin can't stop sanctuary cities... Brewer in AZ is stopping it, and Palin could have too. Brewer is the true maverick, let's be honest.)
-
Its embarassing and idiotic.
They did the same crap with MO and that little girl asking if Obama was going to deport her mother.
Last year, a 50-something year old guy was changing a flat tire on the side of the Merritt Parkway down near the Sikorsky Bridge. His wife watched his body fly about 40 feet through the air as he was struck by a car doing about 80. After hitting the guy, the car just kept on trucking along.
About 3 days later they caught the illegal immigrant getting on a plane to Guatemala or w/e the fuck he was from. And he didn't, and still hasn't, shown one iota of remorse for the murder of an innocent, legal American citizen.
::)
-
Congrats on your 10,000th post!
-
Congrats on your 10,000th post!
Haha, thanks but I've been over 10k for a while. Ron wiped out a couple thousand posts of mine a while ago. Think he did the same to 240.
Anyway
BRIDGEPORT -- An illegal immigrant who killed a Norwalk man in a hit-and-run crash on Route 8 in Trumbull last March and was captured on a plane bound for his native El Salvador, was sentenced Tuesday to 45 months in prison.
Ventura Mejia, a 49-year-old dishwasher at a Shelton restaurant, stood before Superior Court Judge Maria Kahn, flanked by his lawyer and a Spanish interpreter as a courtroom packed with family and friends of the man he killed looked on.
"You left the scene, you didn't stop. You left the victim by the side of the road," Kahn said. "Had you made a different choice you might have saved his life, we will never know."
John Burr, 50, was killed March 10 after he was struck by a car while attempting to retrieve boxes that had fallen out of his pickup truck on Route 8. Mejia was arrested two days later while sitting in an airliner on the tarmac at JFK Airport.
Mejia subsequently pleaded guilty to evading responsibility.
"He acted like a coward fleeing rather than living up to his responsibility and he deserves five years in prison," Assistant State's Attorney Amy Bepko told the judge.
As Burr's friends and relatives rose, one by one, to state their name and relationship to the victim, his brother, Alan Burr Jr., told the judge of the devastation they all felt in the wake of John Burr's death.
"What an irresponsible and cowardly act. The decision the defendant made that night was cruel and he must be held responsible," he said.
Mejia's lawyer, Adrian Rebollo, told the judge his client began working in El Salvador's coffee fields when he was 8 years old and he has never been in trouble before. "He apologizes to the Burr family for his error in judgment, his thoughtlessness," he added.
According to State Police, the fatal accident took place shortly after 9:30 p.m. March 10 in the southbound lanes of Route 8, just north of exit 7 in Trumbull.
When officers got to the scene they found Burr's wife sitting on the side of the roadway by her husband's body, cushioning his bloody head in her lap.
Police said Mary Burr told them she and her husband had been traveling south in their Dodge pickup truck when several large boxes fell from the bed of the truck. She said they pulled over and her husband got out of the truck to pick up the boxes.
Burr managed to retrieve one box and was going back to get a second when his wife said he was hit by another car, which fled from the scene.
Police were contacted the next day by Mejia's former daughter in-law, who told them she had confronted the defendant about the crash after she noticed damage to the red Mercury sedan he was driving.
State police said they subsequently questioned Mejia's wife and she told them he had said he had only hit some boxes on Route 8.
Investigators learned he bought a one-way ticket to El Salvador, leading to his capture at JFK Airport.
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Man-sentenced-in-fatal-crash-15160.php
Better give these people amnesty. ::)
-
That's it? 45 months?
WTF?
-
That's it? 45 months?
WTF?
Pretty sad. :-\
-
June 1, 2010
"But Brewer said Tuesday the law does not target an individual's specific race. She also made clear driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/01/obama.arizona.governor/index.html?hpt=C1
???
Did she say that on the clip? Here is the excerpt from the article:
But Brewer said Tuesday the law does not target an individual's specific race. She also made clear driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship.
"It wouldn't matter if you are Latino or Hispanic or Norwegian," she said. "If you didn't have proof of citizenship and the police officer had reasonable suspicion, he would ask and verify your citizenship. I mean, that's the way that it is. That's what the federal law says. And that's what the law in Arizona says."
-
Did she say that on the clip? Here is the excerpt from the article:
But Brewer said Tuesday the law does not target an individual's specific race. She also made clear driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship.
"It wouldn't matter if you are Latino or Hispanic or Norwegian," she said. "If you didn't have proof of citizenship and the police officer had reasonable suspicion, he would ask and verify your citizenship. I mean, that's the way that it is. That's what the federal law says. And that's what the law in Arizona says."
I can't watch the clip. I just read the article. Beach, if driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship, do you see what's wrong with this? Are citizens now required to carry passports or birth certificates with them at all times if they drive through Arizona?
-
I can't watch the clip. I just read the article. Beach, if driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship, do you see what's wrong with this? Are citizens now required to carry passports or birth certificates with them at all times if they drive through Arizona?
I think it is burdensome for American citizens to have to carry anything other than a DL or state ID to prove citizenship during something like a traffic stop or other encounter with law enforcement. States ought to make people provide proof of citizenship before issuing DLs and IDs.
-
I can't watch the clip. I just read the article. Beach, if driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship, do you see what's wrong with this? Are citizens now required to carry passports or birth certificates with them at all times if they drive through Arizona?
the clip doesnt say anything about this and neither does the article
all it says is But Brewer said Tuesday the law does not target an individual's specific race. She also made clear driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship.
"It wouldn't matter if you are Latino or Hispanic or Norwegian," she said. "If you didn't have proof of citizenship and the police officer had reasonable suspicion, he would ask and verify your citizenship. I mean, that's the way that it is. That's what the federal law says. And that's what the law in Arizona says."
where in there or the clip does it give anything that leads to that conclusion?... ::) not all states require you to prove citizenship for a drivers license so maybe if she did allude to that she was referring to that...
nothing in the clip or article that I have read would bring anybody to the conclusion that this thread is about... :o
-
the clip doesnt say anything about this and neither does the article
all it says is But Brewer said Tuesday the law does not target an individual's specific race. She also made clear driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship.
"It wouldn't matter if you are Latino or Hispanic or Norwegian," she said. "If you didn't have proof of citizenship and the police officer had reasonable suspicion, he would ask and verify your citizenship. I mean, that's the way that it is. That's what the federal law says. And that's what the law in Arizona says."
where in there or the clip does it give anything that leads to that conclusion?... ::) not all states require you to prove citizenship for a drivers license so maybe if she did allude to that she was referring to that...
nothing in the clip or article that I have read would bring anybody to the conclusion that this thread is about... :o
tonymctones,
What are you talking about? It is right there in the article, and you yourself quoted it above.
-
If this is true,then Id say the law is crap.A drivers license should be enough to prove citizenship.
-
Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski sent a letter to City Manager David Cavazos, suggesting that if the bill becomes law, police should request citizenship proof from everyone they stop in order to avoid charges of racial profiling.
The bill states that an Arizona driver's license is sufficient to prove citizenship. Nowakowski argued that licenses from other states, however, may not be sufficient because some states do not require proof of citizenship to get a license, as Arizona does.
"That means that anyone who drives in the city of Phoenix and gets pulled over better have a passport or a visa," he said.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/21/20100421arizona-immigration-bill.html#ixzz0pjHcSSYe
-
Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski sent a letter to City Manager David Cavazos, suggesting that if the bill becomes law, police should request citizenship proof from everyone they stop in order to avoid charges of racial profiling.
The bill states that an Arizona driver's license is sufficient to prove citizenship. Nowakowski argued that licenses from other states, however, may not be sufficient because some states do not require proof of citizenship to get a license, as Arizona does.
"That means that anyone who drives in the city of Phoenix and gets pulled over better have a passport or a visa," he said.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/21/20100421arizona-immigration-bill.html#ixzz0pjHcSSYe
Thats insane!!Who carries a passport when your going from say Indiana to AZ?
-
tonymctones,
What are you talking about? It is right there in the article, and you yourself quoted it above.
what did she say that brought the author to that conclusion? I understand the article says that but if you read it there is nothing to suppor that statement in the article...KINDA LIKE IF YOU READ THE LAW there is nothing to support the idea that it promotes racial profiling... ;)
-
Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski sent a letter to City Manager David Cavazos, suggesting that if the bill becomes law, police should request citizenship proof from everyone they stop in order to avoid charges of racial profiling.
The bill states that an Arizona driver's license is sufficient to prove citizenship. Nowakowski argued that licenses from other states, however, may not be sufficient because some states do not require proof of citizenship to get a license, as Arizona does.
"That means that anyone who drives in the city of Phoenix and gets pulled over better have a passport or a visa," he said.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/21/20100421arizona-immigration-bill.html#ixzz0pjHcSSYe
This is what I said, and is what is likely meant by the intentionally misleading article and thread...
if the states did what they needed to than guess what arizona wouldnt need this law...
-
This is what I said, and is what is likely meant by the intentionally misleading article and thread...
if the states did what they needed to than guess what arizona wouldnt need this law...
Are you okay with Arizona law enforcement requesting citizenship proof from everyone they stop? Are you okay with Arizona requiring all American citizens visiting the state to have their passport or birth certificate at all times?
According to Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski, that is the case no matter what the law says.
-
Are you okay with Arizona law enforcement to request citizenship proof from everyone they stop? Are you okay with Arizona requiring all American citizens visiting the state to have their passport or birth certificate at all times?
According to Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski, that is the case no matter what the law says.
LOL man you like to twist the facts dont you...
first off they never said that out of state licenses wouldnt count as proof they said they MAY not count as proof....
second off yes im ok with LEO requesting PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION, which if the states did their jobs would be sufficient in ascertaining proof of citizenship
-
LOL man you like to twist the facts dont you...
first off they never said that out of state licenses wouldnt count as proof they said they MAY not count as proof....
second off yes im ok with LEO requesting PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION, which if the states did their jobs would be sufficient in ascertaining proof of citizenship
The law is crap no matter what. It says that out of state licenses do count as proof of citizenship, when everybody knows that some states do not require proof of citizenship to get a license, as Arizona does. So how can that be sufficient proof?
You say "if states did their jobs." What is that supposed to mean? You already know some states don't require proof of citizenship to get a license. How can anybody enforce the Arizona law this way? It doesn't make any sense.
-
So to everyone who supports this law...
Are you now okay with AZ police requiring PASSPORT or BIRTH CERTIFICATE of people they stop?
And do you want such a law in your state?
-
I thought central issuance of driver's licenses required stricter ID standards in order to prevent fake ID's, among others.
Not every state requires citizens to carry identification with them.
-
So to everyone who supports this law...
Are you now okay with AZ police requiring PASSPORT or BIRTH CERTIFICATE of people they stop?
And do you want such a law in your state?
If it meant ridding my state of every scumbag pofs illegal alien stealing and raping my state blind yes absolutely.
NYS is on the brink of fiscal collapse and the illegal alien vermin are greatly adding to this mess.
-
She probably meant that if the person provides a bogus out of state license that proves fraudulent, that alone will not be enough to stop further inquiry.
Here in NY, the illegals all get NC drivers licenses, which are utter bs.
Many illegals come from NC and work their way up the Eastern seaboard. Prince William Co, Va in effect, threw them out, then they came to MD, which is like a "safe state", it's almost like "slave states", "free states", and "border states". Maryland has mad a move to stop being "santuary".
Many drive w/o licenses, and when questioned say that it cost too much.
I have personally seen a dude wearing a Mexican b-ball jersey, Mexican flag tattoo on his arm, and has been living in NC for 5 yrs and has never gotten a NC license! He said he applied 2 yrs ago...he was in MD, but he works in Delaware.
Then the Guatemalan Consulate helps get people "papers", or should I say "provides papers"...one big scam.
-
The law is crap no matter what. It says that out of state licenses do count as proof of citizenship, when everybody knows that some states do not require proof of citizenship to get a license, as Arizona does. So how can that be sufficient proof?
You say "if states did their jobs." What is that supposed to mean? You already know some states don't require proof of citizenship to get a license. How can anybody enforce the Arizona law this way? It doesn't make any sense.
show me where this bill states that out of state licenses count as proof...
you make it seem that they are only going off of drivers licenses...even if you have a valid drivers license but it maybe tampered with then they are still going to ask you questions more than likely...
you get stuck on one thing loco and miss the forest for the trees...
-
show me where this bill states that out of state licenses count as proof...
you make it seem that they are only going off of drivers licenses...even if you have a valid drivers license but it maybe tampered with then they are still going to ask you questions more than likely...
you get stuck on one thing loco and miss the forest for the trees...
The bill states that a person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer any valid state or local government issued identification.
http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
An out of state drivers license is a valid state issued identification, but not necessarily proof of citizenship. This law doesn't make any sense.
-
If it meant ridding my state of every scumbag pofs illegal alien stealing and raping my state blind yes absolutely.
Well, we all know that removing EVERY illegal is impossible, so... is that a NO?
We now know that in many circumstances, police in AZ will need to see a passport or birth cert when they stop you. And they are now going to card everyone they stop.
So is this a good idea in 50 states? It is suddenly going to make the predictions of "Papers please!" come true, ya know. Needing to show birth cert or passport to drive in america.
-
The bill states that a person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer any valid state or local government issued identification.
http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
An out of state drivers license is a valid state issued identification, but not necessarily proof of citizenship. This law doesn't make any sense.
actually the revised bill doesnt include that language...AGAIN DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... ;)
legal residents of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States shall submit at least one of the following documents to the entity that administers the federal public benefit demonstrating lawful presence in the United States:
1. An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2. A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3. A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4. A United States passport.
5. A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6. An I-94 form with a photograph.
7. A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8. A United States certificate of naturalization.
9. A United States certificate of citizenship.
10. A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11. A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.
not knowing and passing judgement seems to be your thing in regards to this bill loco
-
Well, we all know that removing EVERY illegal is impossible, so... is that a NO?
We now know that in many circumstances, police in AZ will need to see a passport or birth cert when they stop you. And they are now going to card everyone they stop.
So is this a good idea in 50 states? It is suddenly going to make the predictions of "Papers please!" come true, ya know. Needing to show birth cert or passport to drive in america.
we already live in a papers now society 240, what do you think a drivers license is?
now will this lead to a more papers please society perhaps just depends on how long ppl want to keep ignoring the problem...the reason we are at this point now is b/c of the actions that are being continued...do you want to be an open borders country? well brosky thats the way we are heading...
-
actually the revised bill doesnt include that language...AGAIN DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... ;)
legal residents of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States shall submit at least one of the following documents to the entity that administers the federal public benefit demonstrating lawful presence in the United States:
1. An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2. A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3. A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4. A United States passport.
5. A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6. An I-94 form with a photograph.
7. A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8. A United States certificate of naturalization.
9. A United States certificate of citizenship.
10. A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11. A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.
not knowing and passing judgement seems to be your thing in regards to this bill loco
If this is true, then this only confirms what I've been saying all along, and it confirms my fears. American citizens shouldn't be required to carry these things with them at all times. But I see Arizona, and soon the rest of your country, will become a police state. Good luck with that!
-
If this is true, then this only confirms what I've been saying all along, and it confirms my fears. American citizens shouldn't be required to carry these things with them at all times. But I see Arizona, and soon the rest of your country, will become a police state. Good luck with that!
LMAO coming from a person who is against any and all legislation that targets illegals this doesnt mean much ;)
the same thing could be said for those against this legislation...its going to lead to open borders...
but you see that much like your analogy is a straw man...
-
LMAO coming from a person who is against any and all legislation that targets illegals this doesnt mean much ;)
the same thing could be said for those against this legislation...its going to lead to open borders...
but you see that much like your analogy is a straw man...
It targets non-whites, whether they are American citizens or not. You can't enforce this law without racial profiling, and both the Mayor and the Vice Mayor of Phoenix agree.
It will turn Arizona into a police state. I don't see how you can support this.
This law does not address the border at all. Illegals will get deported only so that they can come right back.
Why are you arguing that Brewer said driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship? What you posted confirms that what the article claims she said is true. Why wouldn't she have said it?
-
wait, Tony, I thought you had reason to be against this? Have you changed your mind?
-
It targets non-whites, whether they are American citizens or not. You can't enforce this law without racial profiling, and both the Mayor and the Vice Mayor of Phoenix agree.
It will turn Arizona into a police state. I don't see how you can support this.
Why are you arguing that Brewer said driver's licenses are not sufficient to prove citizenship? What you posted confirms that what the article claims she said is true. Why wouldn't she have said it?
it doesnt target minorities, QUIT SAYING THAT SHIT!!!!!!!! show me how this law targets minorities...
Im agree that some states licenses may not be proof an arizona license is proof of citizenship...
Im not in total support of this bill loco I understand that this bill could lead to racial profiling but it is not inherint in the bill like you want to believe...Ive said before that id like to see the bills language tightened up a bit...
but there is a difference you see i understand that you have to be able to identify illegals from legals in the US, you think that there shouldnt be any laws in place in which to do so...
-
wait, Tony, I thought you had reason to be against this? Have you changed your mind?
I have reason to be suspect of this law just like I do on all laws...
im for the idea of being able to ascertain residency status if its determined that a person may be an illegal...how that is accomplished is the tricky part
-
I have reason to be suspect of this law just like I do on all laws...
im for the idea of being able to ascertain residency status if its determined that a person may be an illegal...how that is accomplished is the tricky part
it didn't use to be tricky, I'm not sure why the hell it is now. They've added drama and bs where it didn't need to be. Most cities around the country could already investigate if or if not someone detained was a citizen. I remember well Lou Dobbs highlighting the cities that didn't do that and labeling them sanctuary cities. I might be wrong but I don't even think any cities in AZ were listed as sancturary cities... What we have now with this Arizona law starts shit into a whole different direction. And yea yea, I've heard the, "we already have" arguments to death. That doesn't mean much to me.
-
it didn't use to be tricky, I'm not sure why the hell it is now. They've added drama and bs where it didn't need to be. Most cities around the country could already investigate if or if not someone detained was a citizen. I remember well Lou Dobbs highlighting the cities that didn't do that and labeling them sanctuary cities. I might be wrong but I don't even think any cities in AZ were listed as sancturary cities... What we have now with this Arizona law starts shit into a whole different direction. And yea yea, I've heard the, "we already have" arguments to death. That doesn't mean much to me.
its tricky b/c i can see why loco is concerned but again its like that with every law so...
how did arizona take this in a whole different direction if you dont mind elaborating...
-
so wait...
if i'm driving to cali, and I stop in AZ for a cheeseburger and make an illegal turn into the McD... and I only have my FL drivers licence and not my birth certificate... my ass is going to jail?
Dude, really? Yall are okay with that?
-
so wait...
if i'm driving to cali, and I stop in AZ for a cheeseburger and make an illegal turn into the McD... and I only have my FL drivers licence and not my birth certificate... my ass is going to jail?
Dude, really? Yall are okay with that?
you forgot the part where you gave them reason to believe that you were not a legal resident of the US ::) moron...
-
you forgot the part where you gave them reason to believe that you were not a legal resident of the US ::) moron...
See, I thought you might be right - until I read your own words that said
"It wouldn't matter if you are Latino or Hispanic or Norwegian," she said. "If you didn't have proof of citizenship and the police officer had reasonable suspicion, he would ask and verify your citizenship. I mean, that's the way that it is.
It doesn't matter what my race is. I'm Irish, german and hungarian. I'm gettin carded. They can't be profiling - so they're gonna profile everyone.
And that means everyone they stop is going to have to show not drivers license - but passport or birth certificate.
it's a police state now, when drivers license to drive isn't enough anymore - at this point, it's birth certificate req'd.
-
See, I thought you might be right - until I read your own words that said
It doesn't matter what my race is. I'm Irish, german and hungarian. I'm gettin carded. They can't be profiling - so they're gonna profile everyone.
And that means everyone they stop is going to have to show not drivers license - but passport or birth certificate.
it's a police state now, when drivers license to drive isn't enough anymore - at this point, it's birth certificate req'd.
they still have to have reasonable suspicion brain child...and those were beach's words not mine ;)
hey get ahold of your state legislatures and start a movement to require them to check residency status before giving a florida license... ;)
-
The people who should be most concerned about this are illegals. And those here legally who can't speak English.
-
they still have to have reasonable suspicion brain child...
yeahhhhh
a lot of ppl are having problems defining this. If the cop doesn't like you, he has reasonable suspicion, anyone over the IQ of 85k knows this.
-
The people who should be most concerned about this are illegals. And those here legally who can't speak English.
I disagree Beach. The law requires all American citizens passing through or living in Arizona to carry passport or birth certificate with them at all times. How in the world is an American citizen supposed to know when he/she will be suspected to be an illegal by law enforcement officers when stopped for any other reason? Not the governor, not the Arizona legislature, not even law enforcement agencies and officers can yet agree on how this law will be enforced.
-
you forgot the part where you gave them reason to believe that you were not a legal resident of the US ::) moron...
That doesn't work now does it. We've already seen a youtube vid of an American Citizen speaking good english having their asses detained until his wife could drive the distance with his birth certificate. ::) Also, you should know and I think you do know the answer to your prior question.
-
That doesn't work now does it. We've already seen a youtube vid of an American Citizen speaking good english having their asses detained until his wife could drive the distance with his birth certificate. ::) Also, you should know and I think you do know the answer to your prior question.
Link to that video, hugo?
Such a link would really does shit on all the 'theory' part of it. The proof is in the pudding. If legal americans with drivers license are being detained against their will, well, the constitution is being used as toilet paper - as conservatives like Jeb, tancredo, Rubio and Krystol said it would. Sure, your RINOs like palin and mccain are going to support the bill - they supported amnesty also, remember? ;)
-
Link to that video, hugo?
Such a link would really does shit on all the 'theory' part of it. The proof is in the pudding. If legal americans with drivers license are being detained against their will, well, the constitution is being used as toilet paper - as conservatives like Jeb, tancredo, Rubio and Krystol said it would. Sure, your RINOs like palin and mccain are going to support the bill - they supported amnesty also, remember? ;)
-
that's the one... thanks loco.
-
that's the one... thanks loco.
De nada, Hugo! :)
-
Wow.... proof positive right there...
He had his social sec # and his drivers license... and it wasn't enough for them. They handcuffed him, threw him in the bus, and drove him to INS.
This man was deprived of his constitutional rights - PERIOD. If you're okay with this, you might as well be okay with obama tossing tea party members in camps lol...
-
yeahhhhh
a lot of ppl are having problems defining this. If the cop doesn't like you, he has reasonable suspicion, anyone over the IQ of 85k knows this.
and what you dont seem to understand is ITS LIKE THAT WITH EVERY LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
whats your IQ? ;)
-
That doesn't work now does it. We've already seen a youtube vid of an American Citizen speaking good english having their asses detained until his wife could drive the distance with his birth certificate. ::) Also, you should know and I think you do know the answer to your prior question.
Id like to hear your take on the prior queston...
this was before the law was implemented, all we had is there side of the story, anybody get the immigration response from 5:30? yaaaa didnt think so but will all jump to conclusions wont we? ;)
look if it happened the way he said it did and he had a valid arizona license then the cop needs to be reprimanded...this doesnt mean that a law that wasnt even in place at the TIME needs to be scrapped...
you ppl act like no law has ever been abused...you dont repeal the law b/c it gets abused you reprimand the officers who abuse it...
-
tony,
the guy showed his ID and provided his SS#. He complied with the law.
the law is flawed if you can drive in AZ with any state DL, but you can't prove citizenship in AZ with any state DL.
-
tony,
the guy showed his ID and provided his SS#. He complied with the law.
the law is flawed if you can drive in AZ with any state DL, but you can't prove citizenship in AZ with any state DL.
THE LAW WASNT EVEN SIGNED AT THAT POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how can a law be flawed NOT ONLY BEFORE ITS BEEN INACTED... BUT BEFORE ITS EVEN BEEN SIGNED?????
I swear not knowing and passing judgement is the hallmark of opposition for this bill
even if that is the case 240 THE LAW obviously states that the person would have been legal, so this isnt a problem with the law its a problem with the officer enforcing the law...
-
the law is flawed if you can drive in AZ with any state DL, but you can't prove citizenship in AZ with any state DL.
not at all some states dont require you to show citizenship to get a drivers license...why would you think that if thats the case that a drivers license from a state that doesnt, proves citizenship? thats assinine
again instead of bitching about this law get ahold of your reps and get them to change the policy in your state...
-
so youre currently allowed to drive in AZ without being a citizen?
-
not at all some states dont require you to show citizenship to get a drivers license...why would you think that if thats the case that a drivers license from a state that doesnt, proves citizenship? thats assinine
again instead of bitching about this law get ahold of your reps and get them to change the policy in your state...
Are Arizona cops going to be required to know which states require legal residence or citizenship for a DL and which states do not?
-
so youre currently allowed to drive in AZ without being a citizen?
with a valid drivers license...as far as I know the law hasnt been enacted yet...
and like I said at THAT POINT the law hadnt even been signed by brewer
drivers licenses are NOT NECISSARILY PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP...b/c not all states require proof of citizenship to obtain one...if you have a problem with carrying around proof of citizenship then get ahold of your reps...
-
Are Arizona cops going to be required to know which states require legal residence or citizenship for a DL and which states do not?
why would he need to know they run the drivers license...they system could easily tell him...and even if it didnt he could carry a list or heaven forbid remember....
youre grabbing at straws guys...
ive proven your misconceptions wrong time and time again...youre going to be against this law no matter what youve made up your mind not only before it was put into action BUT BEFORE IT WAS EVEN SIGNED INTO LAW
-
why would he need to know they run the drivers license...they system could easily tell him...and even if it didnt he could carry a list or heaven forbid remember....
youre grabbing at straws guys...
ive proven your misconceptions wrong time and time again...youre going to be against this law no matter what youve made up your mind not only before it was put into action BUT BEFORE IT WAS EVEN SIGNED INTO LAW
A useless law that's only going to cause trouble for American citizens, turning the state of Arizona into a police state. Illegals will be detained and deported for what? Just so that they can come right back, while many American citizens will be harassed, wrongly detained and some even deported.
-
A useless law that's only going to cause trouble for American citizens, turning the state of Arizona into a police state. Illegals will be detained and deported for what? Just so that they can come right back, while many American citizens will be harassed, wrongly detained and some even deported.
remember that arizona is working on securing their border...remember another part of the multiple part approach?
while some citizens will be detained which is the case WITH ALLL LAWSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!
again there are ppl in prison that are innocent, should we quit prosecuting criminals b/c we may prosecute an innocent or should we try to limit that but still prosecute criminals?
right now youre advocating not prosecuting criminals b/c a few may be innocent when you should be advocating limiting the innocent and prosecuting the criminals
that is if you believe the illegals to be criminals? I dont believe Ive ever asked you that...yay or nay?
-
remember that arizona is working on securing their border...remember another part of the multiple part approach?
while some citizens will be detained which is the case WITH ALLL LAWSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!
again there are ppl in prison that are innocent, should we quit prosecuting criminals b/c we may prosecute an innocent or should we try to limit that but still prosecute criminals?
right now youre advocating not prosecuting criminals b/c a few may be innocent when you should be advocating limiting the innocent and prosecuting the criminals
that is if you believe the illegals to be criminals? I dont believe Ive ever asked you that...yay or nay?
Better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent.
-
Better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent.
what about 100 men? 1000?
I understand youre just making a point holmes but you see the problem is with that logic we wouldnt be able to convict anybody...so why even have laws?
your point is good in theory but many things are good in theory...the solution is somewhere between the 2 as in covicting those you believe to be guilty while trying everything to limit the conviction of innocents...
-
I disagree Beach. The law requires all American citizens passing through or living in Arizona to carry passport or birth certificate with them at all times. How in the world is an American citizen supposed to know when he/she will be suspected to be an illegal by law enforcement officers when stopped for any other reason? Not the governor, not the Arizona legislature, not even law enforcement agencies and officers can yet agree on how this law will be enforced.
I didn't read that in the law loco. What specific provision says American citizens must have a passport (which many don't have) or a birth certificate?
-
what about 100 men? 1000?
I understand youre just making a point holmes but you see the problem is with that logic we wouldnt be able to convict anybody...so why even have laws?
your point is good in theory but many things are good in theory...the solution is somewhere between the 2 as in covicting those you believe to be guilty while trying everything to limit the conviction of innocents...
True, but it also depends on the crime... Of course we probably send more innocent people to prison for murder than assault, because one is given a greater social impact.
I'm sure it's probably closer to 1000 to one, but I can't be certain... I think it's easy to think less of the systems mistakes until the mistake is made to you.
-
True, but it also depends on the crime... Of course we probably send more innocent people to prison for murder than assault, because one is given a greater social impact.
I'm sure it's probably closer to 1000 to one, but I can't be certain... I think it's easy to think less of the systems mistakes until the mistake is made to you.
so should we simply do away with the system entirely or try to limit the mistakes within the system?
-
so should we simply do away with the system entirely or try to limit the mistakes within the system?
That's not what I'm saying... I'm simply pointing out that it's not black and white like you seem to infer.