StarGateWars Forums

Kit-Fox wrote:Yes you can be detained while they attempt to verify who you are, but as i recall they cant actually arrest you or take you down to the station. They have to attempt to do it at the roadside/on the street (wherever you happen to be) & if they cant they have to allow you on your way.

It is entirely on the police in both the US & UK to prove that you are who they say you are. You do not have to provide anything whatsoever & not doing so cannot be used as a reason to search or arrest you as i recall.

Unless you live in Arizona....

you understand why they past the law now wakko

Wakko wrote:Probably cause?
Reasonable suspicion?

You can obstruct by not providing information

Oh, I am all for gathering identifying information when someone is suspected of a crime. However, if the suspicion is that they may be illegals (ie seeing a group of Hispanic people loitering on a street corner - as some do when looking to be picked up for working odd jobs), and only because they might be illegal immigrants, then it would fall under racial profiling.

If there is a fire that could be arson and the people being questioned cannot provide valid ID, then I can see them being questioned as being illegal. But that is already law, so there is no need for Arizona to create their own law if it is nothing more than a redundancy. The difference is that Arizona law specifically addresses "Aliens" instead of allowing for the law to encompass everyone, which is probably how they argue against it being redundant.

Also

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 section directly states that a person can be arrested without a warrant if there is "probably cause" to believe them to be breaking the law (like, ohhhh, I dunno, illegal immigrants). So if a cop sees a Hispanic man/woman sitting on a street corner in unkempt clothes and "suspects" him to be illegal, thus breaking the law, he can arrest the person without actually having a real reason and without warrant.

The law is too vague, and allows too much "wiggle room" for police officers to start using racial profiling. Yes, sometimes race does have a lot to do with it, especially since they are worried about Mexican citizens crossing the border into Arizona, but there have to be limits.

Not producing identification is not a crime. You need a liscense to drive; not walk down the street. That law was instituted to justify racial profilling. The surpreme court will throw it out after the first challenge.

IT represents a bigotry, intollerance, and spitefullness. The people in Arizona should be ashamed it was ever passed.

Your attempt to legitimize it is also very disengenous and i would be embarrsed if i were you.

Actually, you can be detained for failure to produce valid State ID. There are no laws specifically stating that you must carry ID at all times, to my knowledge, but they have the ability detain you for "suspicion" until your identity can be proven.

I see nothing in Wakko's post to be ashamed of or embarrassed about. The intentions of the law are just and sound, like Wakko's arguments, but the actual letter of the law needs to be altered to exclude the option of racial profiling and bigotry.

Psyko wrote:

Wakko wrote:Probably cause?
Reasonable suspicion?

You can obstruct by not providing information

Oh, I am all for gathering identifying information when someone is suspected of a crime. However, if the suspicion is that they may be illegals (ie seeing a group of Hispanic people loitering on a street corner - as some do when looking to be picked up for working odd jobs), and only because they might be illegal immigrants, then it would fall under racial profiling.

and????
it's not like they were convicted, or even arrested based on appearence.
they were only asked to present IDs.
the "politically correct" thing went to such absurd lengths, that my father (who is nearing 60) was asked to present an ID (to verify his age) last time he tried to buy a beer in the US. because if you only ask people that look young it's age profiling. well, you know what? sometimes profiling is just common sense.

Exactly hitch

In the threads context, we are discussing profilling as taking an identifiable group and then labelling them with charateritics which serve to descriminate or alienate the group from the rest of soceity.

which should not be confused with the contructive form in your example where yougn fits a profile of someone who may not be aloud to drink. Like identifying a robber by the red shirt he was wearing in the surveillance video. These are both traits that are analogous to craying out the specific enforement of law.

Being brown doesn't meet the criteria of being an illegal immigrant. Beleiving it does only serves to demonize the group while legetimizing the bigoted and exploitable social inequalities that are still hanging around.

Re: Not knowing how your own country works:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8709517.stm

Hitchkok wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Wakko wrote:Probably cause?
Reasonable suspicion?

You can obstruct by not providing information

Oh, I am all for gathering identifying information when someone is suspected of a crime. However, if the suspicion is that they may be illegals (ie seeing a group of Hispanic people loitering on a street corner - as some do when looking to be picked up for working odd jobs), and only because they might be illegal immigrants, then it would fall under racial profiling.

and????
it's not like they were convicted, or even arrested based on appearence.
they were only asked to present IDs.
the "politically correct" thing went to such absurd lengths, that my father (who is nearing 60) was asked to present an ID (to verify his age) last time he tried to buy a beer in the US. because if you only ask people that look young it's age profiling. well, you know what? sometimes profiling is just common sense.

That isn't technically age profiling. Most places legally have to check ID if you "look under 30". It's a whole lot different to ask for ID when someone looks like they could still be in high school (which should be a compliment to anyone much older than that) than it is to check ID and/or detain someone because they "look like they are here illegally". Two completely different contexts.

I admit that profiling has its uses. They profile serial killers, con artists, and most major criminals. But while most profiling is used to track down major criminals, I cannot morally condone using racial profiling to seek out illegal immigrants. The difference is the profiles themselves. A serial killer profile is vague and essentially a checklist of traits the killer might possess or they could simply not fit the profile, but an illegal immigrant profile is based highly upon race (especially in an area where most of the immigrants who are illegal are from one particular country).

RepliMagni wrote:Re: Not knowing how your own country works:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8709517.stm

Wow...just...wow.

Psyko wrote:[spoiler]

Hitchkok wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Wakko wrote:Probably cause?
Reasonable suspicion?

You can obstruct by not providing information

Oh, I am all for gathering identifying information when someone is suspected of a crime. However, if the suspicion is that they may be illegals (ie seeing a group of Hispanic people loitering on a street corner - as some do when looking to be picked up for working odd jobs), and only because they might be illegal immigrants, then it would fall under racial profiling.

and????
it's not like they were convicted, or even arrested based on appearence.
they were only asked to present IDs.
the "politically correct" thing went to such absurd lengths, that my father (who is nearing 60) was asked to present an ID (to verify his age) last time he tried to buy a beer in the US. because if you only ask people that look young it's age profiling. well, you know what? sometimes profiling is just common sense.

[/spoiler]
That isn't technically age profiling. Most places legally have to check ID if you "look under 30".
so, they are legally bound to age profile
It's a whole lot different to ask for ID when someone looks like they could still be in high school (which should be a compliment to anyone much older than that) than it is to check ID and/or detain someone because they "look like they are here illegally". Two completely different contexts.
I admit that profiling has its uses. They profile serial killers, con artists, and most major criminals. But while most profiling is used to track down major criminals, I cannot morally condone using racial profiling to seek out illegal immigrants. The difference is the profiles themselves. A serial killer profile is vague and essentially a checklist of traits the killer might possess or they could simply not fit the profile, but an illegal immigrant profile is based highly upon race (especially in an area where most of the immigrants who are illegal are from one particular country).

you said it yourself. most illegal immigrants in certain areas fits a certain racial profile. it's common sense to check them. again, it's not a conviction, or even an arrest, it's a cursory examination.
what's next, beat up cars can't have their licence checked, because it's "mechanical profiling"?

Hitchkok wrote:

Psyko wrote:[spoiler]

Hitchkok wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Wakko wrote:Probably cause?
Reasonable suspicion?

You can obstruct by not providing information

Oh, I am all for gathering identifying information when someone is suspected of a crime. However, if the suspicion is that they may be illegals (ie seeing a group of Hispanic people loitering on a street corner - as some do when looking to be picked up for working odd jobs), and only because they might be illegal immigrants, then it would fall under racial profiling.

and????
it's not like they were convicted, or even arrested based on appearence.
they were only asked to present IDs.
the "politically correct" thing went to such absurd lengths, that my father (who is nearing 60) was asked to present an ID (to verify his age) last time he tried to buy a beer in the US. because if you only ask people that look young it's age profiling. well, you know what? sometimes profiling is just common sense.

[/spoiler]
That isn't technically age profiling. Most places legally have to check ID if you "look under 30".
so, they are legally bound to age profile
It's a whole lot different to ask for ID when someone looks like they could still be in high school (which should be a compliment to anyone much older than that) than it is to check ID and/or detain someone because they "look like they are here illegally". Two completely different contexts.
I admit that profiling has its uses. They profile serial killers, con artists, and most major criminals. But while most profiling is used to track down major criminals, I cannot morally condone using racial profiling to seek out illegal immigrants. The difference is the profiles themselves. A serial killer profile is vague and essentially a checklist of traits the killer might possess or they could simply not fit the profile, but an illegal immigrant profile is based highly upon race (especially in an area where most of the immigrants who are illegal are from one particular country).

you said it yourself. most illegal immigrants in certain areas fits a certain racial profile. it's common sense to check them. again, it's not a conviction, or even an arrest, it's a cursory examination.
what's next, beat up cars can't have their licence checked, because it's "mechanical profiling"?

However, your age profiling only occurs when someone tries to purchase cigarettes or alcohol. Profiling should not happen when someone of a certain skin tone is walking down the street. Anyone who buys liquor or cigarettes already knows that they will have their ID checked. A brown person going to the grocery store or sitting in a local park should not have to expect to be stopped by a police officer and forced to show ID. Again, there is a difference.