Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KingofBrown" data-source="post: 751882" data-attributes="member: 28771">What you mean? Are you sure he’s a first generation immigrant or what? His ancestor might have been here for 100 years, or maybe way before the 13 colonies were established, and if so I don’t think he would care much to prove his legal status in his every day actions. It seems the ID thing got you a bit confused. They were in DC, weren’t they? We must see the law about how a civilian has to identify him/herself when stopped by the police where they were at, so we can talk about that. I don’t think many of them worry much about proving their legal status, but it seems you want them to have their Birth Certificate with them at all times. And I see that you’re so sure that only people who look “illegal” have their proof in their pocket. Why didn’t you mention the cute girl reporter who asked the question? I said she didn’t look quite “Suspicious.” Here’s an example so you understand it better. <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-6-2010/suspicious-behavior-on-cinco-de-mayo" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-6-2010/suspicious-behavior-on-cinco-de-mayo</a> Watch that video, from 1:36 to 1:45. It’s irrational what you say about the proof of legal status. If these girls were in AZ, and if they comitted some sort of act to be questioned by the police in this bar, under 13-2412 all they are compel to is to answer their full name so they have to identify themselves. Now, if it’s July 29, they have to show a Driver License, or a Tribal ID Card, etc. and if they don’t show such, the officer can consider “Reasonable Suspicion” to believe whoever of them is Illegal. The first girl would not be questioned further; the second would get arrested if the officer wants to. The training of the officer doesn’t matter, what matters is what is written and how far the law lets the officer act.</blockquote>

Verification