Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

raging moderate · 06-03-2010, 10:09 AM

The problem with this whole controversy surrounding the law is that enforcement agents were already doing this, and will continue to do this (stopping those who "look" illegal for whatever crime and demanding papers). This isn't going to start, or stop, just because of this one law.

On the other hand, if you've ever been pulled over late at night and asked if you've been drinking, you've been a victim of this same situation. It's 2AM, on Saturday, and you're driving, so it's possible you've been drinking and you stand a decent chance of getting pulled over for any reason just so they can check and see. I've always thought of it as "fishing." Ever been pulled over with an out taillight and then have your license and insurance ran through the database, asked if you'd been drinking, etc.?

Speaking of which, if there's anyone involved in this discussion that has been pulled over EVER and then not asked for identification, please speak up. You can't really cry racism if everyone is subject to this type of treatment, which they are. Driving is not a RIGHT.

whether you need another reason (ie driving to fast/slow/swervy/straight/etc) to pull someone over or not, cops are still going to "fish" and, in our country, that's pretty much how it goes. If one takes a step back and looks at the big picture, they will realize that this law, unspecific and hazy as it is, actually enacts very few real-world changes.

The only major issue with the law is this: E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. This pretty much means that anyone can be arrested for any reason, at any time, without a warrant. This provision definitely makes the whole damn thing unconstitutional because, as far as I understand, the Supreme court does not have a line item veto. This is so vague and broad-based as to be inarguable. ANYONE could be an illegal.

EDIT: PS as far as the situation stands with Obama and whether or not he should step in and moderate the boycott, it really should fall to someone in his administration such as the VP or attorney general or someone to deal with the boycott, if it needs to be dealt with at all. If the state governments are not appealing to the fed for moderation, the fed should stay out of it. The stance that Obama took - that is not the job of the president of the USA to determine what boycotts should be taken and when, etc. is exactly right. Enough time is spent on this at the state and local level as it is, getting the federal gov't involved would undoubtedly only draw out the debate and make the problem worse. It's all pretty much political posturing anyway, as discussed earlier.

06-03-2010, 10:09 AM	#38 (permalink)
raging moderate Insane Location: Whatever house my keys can get me into	The problem with this whole controversy surrounding the law is that enforcement agents were already doing this, and will continue to do this (stopping those who "look" illegal for whatever crime and demanding papers). This isn't going to start, or stop, just because of this one law. On the other hand, if you've ever been pulled over late at night and asked if you've been drinking, you've been a victim of this same situation. It's 2AM, on Saturday, and you're driving, so it's possible you've been drinking and you stand a decent chance of getting pulled over for any reason just so they can check and see. I've always thought of it as "fishing." Ever been pulled over with an out taillight and then have your license and insurance ran through the database, asked if you'd been drinking, etc.? Speaking of which, if there's anyone involved in this discussion that has been pulled over EVER and then not asked for identification, please speak up. You can't really cry racism if everyone is subject to this type of treatment, which they are. Driving is not a RIGHT. whether you need another reason (ie driving to fast/slow/swervy/straight/etc) to pull someone over or not, cops are still going to "fish" and, in our country, that's pretty much how it goes. If one takes a step back and looks at the big picture, they will realize that this law, unspecific and hazy as it is, actually enacts very few real-world changes. The only major issue with the law is this: E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. This pretty much means that anyone can be arrested for any reason, at any time, without a warrant. This provision definitely makes the whole damn thing unconstitutional because, as far as I understand, the Supreme court does not have a line item veto. This is so vague and broad-based as to be inarguable. ANYONE could be an illegal. EDIT: PS as far as the situation stands with Obama and whether or not he should step in and moderate the boycott, it really should fall to someone in his administration such as the VP or attorney general or someone to deal with the boycott, if it needs to be dealt with at all. If the state governments are not appealing to the fed for moderation, the fed should stay out of it. The stance that Obama took - that is not the job of the president of the USA to determine what boycotts should be taken and when, etc. is exactly right. Enough time is spent on this at the state and local level as it is, getting the federal gov't involved would undoubtedly only draw out the debate and make the problem worse. It's all pretty much political posturing anyway, as discussed earlier. __________________ These are the good old days... formerly Murp0434 Last edited by raging moderate; 06-03-2010 at 10:21 AM..