Home› A Moving Train

Texas Governor signs a law to enforce federal law

mattsl1983mattsl1983 Posts: 711
in A Moving Train
Texas governor Abbott signed a law that will penalize "sanctuary cities" for not following federal law.  Good?  Bad?  Opinions, cause I know y'all have them :)

Comments

  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Sanctuary cities kill innocent people.

  • PJPOWERPJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    I'm sure some billionaire liberal philanthropist will gladly pull the money from their celebrity yacht fund to make up for the lack of federal grant money.  Or at least buy bus tickets to California!
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,385
    unsung said:
    Sanctuary cities kill innocent people.

    So do Americans with guns. Maybe the good gubner should curtail those as well?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,385
    unsung said:
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
    Dumb Americans? Sure. Greedy Americans? Yup. Racist, misogynistic, sexist Americans? You betcha. Ignorant, clueless, Russian colluding Americans? Absolutely.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,877
    A few things, anybody else think it was pretty shifty the way he signed this in to law? On a Sunday on Facebook. Seems pretty pathetic and an easy way for him to avoid direct backlash from those who don't support it. It's as cowardly as tweeting out your grievances.

    Secondly, a glaring issue is the lack of actual law enforcement support to this in Texas. This is a politician feeding the fears of the people who are scared of the illegal immigrants looting and pillaging them. This law will have little to no effect on curtailing illegal immigrants.

    From WaPo:

    “We officers work extremely hard to build and maintain trust, communication, and stronger relationships with minority communities through community based policing and outreach programs,” said a commentary endorsed by the top cops in Dallas, Houston, Austin, Arlington, Fort Worth and San Antonio, along with the executive director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association.

    “Broad rules,” such as those in the new law, “will further strain the relationship between local law enforcement and these diverse communities” at a time with “distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police has already become evident among legal immigrants.”

    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    unsung said:
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
    Dumb Americans? Sure. Greedy Americans? Yup. Racist, misogynistic, sexist Americans? You betcha. Ignorant, clueless, Russian colluding Americans? Absolutely.
    Lol

    There's not much left.

    (kidding)
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,171
    unsung said:
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
    Sounds like you want local and state government curtailed, and think they should kowtow to federal power. 
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 11,601
    Go Beavers said:
    unsung said:
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
    Sounds like you want local and state government curtailed, and think they should kowtow to federal power. 
    Consistency isn't a strong suit here.
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 5,195
    Go Beavers said:
    unsung said:
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
    Sounds like you want local and state government curtailed, and think they should kowtow to federal power. 
    The right always wants limited federal power.  Until they don't.
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    edited May 2017
    Go Beavers said:
    unsung said:
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
    Sounds like you want local and state government curtailed, and think they should kowtow to federal power. 
    Kinda like you guys over the last eight years.


    I want immigration laws enforced.
    Post edited by unsung on
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,171
    unsung said:
    Go Beavers said:
    unsung said:
    I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  
    Sounds like you want local and state government curtailed, and think they should kowtow to federal power. 
    Kinda like you guys over the last eight years.


    I want immigration laws enforced.
    Kinda not like me. I don't have multiple posts calling for the federal government have it's power reduced and advocating for states to do as they see fit. I do have posts talking about how people who go on and on about wanting a smaller government actually want a government that fits their individual wants and values. You keep reinforcing my thoughts on that. 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 40,491
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,171
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,877
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,337
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,877
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,337
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure the law in Arizona that is being discussed is based on profiling. If you look a certain way you can be detained. That is entirely different than getting pulled over for violating a law.

    Maybe I'm wrong but that is the way tempo put it. 
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure the law in Arizona that is being discussed is based on profiling. If you look a certain way you can be detained. That is entirely different than getting pulled over for violating a law.

    Maybe I'm wrong but that is the way tempo put it. 
    I read it the way you did. Profiling was the only word in that sentence, so Tempo was highlighting that. Based on that word, I have a problem with the Texas law. If you're stopping a couple of Latino dudes because of their profile, absent any illegal activity or probable cause (I don't think skin color is probable cause, but apparently in Texas it is now), then I hope there will be 4th amendment challenges. 
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 37,354
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure there is a law where I live that anyone over 18 is legally required to carry identification at all times, not just in a car, but all times. I doubt it's enforced much, but if the cops have probable cause, I guess they need to be able to confirm your identity. 

    I'm actually still on the fence about that, though. my mind says "I didn't do fuck all, you have no right to know who I am, arrest me or fuck off", but that's my inner @unsung coming out. :lol: 
    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 40,491
    jeffbr said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure the law in Arizona that is being discussed is based on profiling. If you look a certain way you can be detained. That is entirely different than getting pulled over for violating a law.

    Maybe I'm wrong but that is the way tempo put it. 
    I read it the way you did. Profiling was the only word in that sentence, so Tempo was highlighting that. Based on that word, I have a problem with the Texas law. If you're stopping a couple of Latino dudes because of their profile, absent any illegal activity or probable cause (I don't think skin color is probable cause, but apparently in Texas it is now), then I hope there will be 4th amendment challenges. 
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure the law in Arizona that is being discussed is based on profiling. If you look a certain way you can be detained. That is entirely different than getting pulled over for violating a law.

    Maybe I'm wrong but that is the way tempo put it. 
    Yes.  Both laws focused on Profiling.  Hence why I proposed the Detaining idea, which is 100% legal to do and is enforced now.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,845
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure there is a law where I live that anyone over 18 is legally required to carry identification at all times, not just in a car, but all times. I doubt it's enforced much, but if the cops have probable cause, I guess they need to be able to confirm your identity. 

    I'm actually still on the fence about that, though. my mind says "I didn't do fuck all, you have no right to know who I am, arrest me or fuck off", but that's my inner @unsung coming out. :lol: 
    No, there is no Canadian law requiring anyone to carry identification or to identify themselves unless (1) you are operating a motor vehicle and are stopped because of a possible infraction, or (2) you are asking to do something that has an age limit, like buying alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise there is absolutely no obligation to identify yourself. 

    And I am opposed to automatic detention of anyone unless there is probable cause. 

    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 37,354
    oftenreading said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure there is a law where I live that anyone over 18 is legally required to carry identification at all times, not just in a car, but all times. I doubt it's enforced much, but if the cops have probable cause, I guess they need to be able to confirm your identity. 

    I'm actually still on the fence about that, though. my mind says "I didn't do fuck all, you have no right to know who I am, arrest me or fuck off", but that's my inner @unsung coming out. :lol: 
    No, there is no Canadian law requiring anyone to carry identification or to identify themselves unless (1) you are operating a motor vehicle and are stopped because of a possible infraction, or (2) you are asking to do something that has an age limit, like buying alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise there is absolutely no obligation to identify yourself. 

    And I am opposed to automatic detention of anyone unless there is probable cause. 

    thanks for clarifying. I thought for sure I was once told that. Excellent. 
    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,845
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    oftenreading said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure there is a law where I live that anyone over 18 is legally required to carry identification at all times, not just in a car, but all times. I doubt it's enforced much, but if the cops have probable cause, I guess they need to be able to confirm your identity. 

    I'm actually still on the fence about that, though. my mind says "I didn't do fuck all, you have no right to know who I am, arrest me or fuck off", but that's my inner @unsung coming out. :lol: 
    No, there is no Canadian law requiring anyone to carry identification or to identify themselves unless (1) you are operating a motor vehicle and are stopped because of a possible infraction, or (2) you are asking to do something that has an age limit, like buying alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise there is absolutely no obligation to identify yourself. 

    And I am opposed to automatic detention of anyone unless there is probable cause. 

    thanks for clarifying. I thought for sure I was once told that. Excellent. 
    Was it a police officer who told you that ;)? 

    Seriously, although I am not anti-police by any stretch of the imagination I have seen them do some shady shit, and it is legal for them to lie to you in the course of an investigation. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 37,354
    oftenreading said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    oftenreading said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure there is a law where I live that anyone over 18 is legally required to carry identification at all times, not just in a car, but all times. I doubt it's enforced much, but if the cops have probable cause, I guess they need to be able to confirm your identity. 

    I'm actually still on the fence about that, though. my mind says "I didn't do fuck all, you have no right to know who I am, arrest me or fuck off", but that's my inner @unsung coming out. :lol: 
    No, there is no Canadian law requiring anyone to carry identification or to identify themselves unless (1) you are operating a motor vehicle and are stopped because of a possible infraction, or (2) you are asking to do something that has an age limit, like buying alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise there is absolutely no obligation to identify yourself. 

    And I am opposed to automatic detention of anyone unless there is probable cause. 

    thanks for clarifying. I thought for sure I was once told that. Excellent. 
    Was it a police officer who told you that ;)? 

    Seriously, although I am not anti-police by any stretch of the imagination I have seen them do some shady shit, and it is legal for them to lie to you in the course of an investigation. 
    funny, when I was typing my reply I was going to say "a cop told me", but:

    a) that would have made me sound like a supremely gullible idiot, and
    b) I can't recall for sure it was a cop or not, so I didn't want to say
    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,877
    oftenreading said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    tbergs said:
    dignin said:
    tbergs said:
    Go Beavers said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    OK Back on topic.

    The law passed is similar to what they had in Arizona.  Profiling.

    What should and can be done is simply ask for an ID.  No ID?  Then you get detained until we can find out who you are.

    Any problems with that?
    Several. 
    If someone is legitimately stopped, asked for an ID and can't provide one nor can they be verified, you have a problem with them being detained until that can happen? That is one of the few cases where detainment should be allowed all the time without exception. 
    I disagree. If you have no reason to detain me, I shouldn't be detained. Period.
    Let's clarify, if you are walking down the street, I would agree, unless there is a report/complaint about you where it would require contact in a legal manner. If you are in a vehicle, violate a law and are pulled over (as the driver) you don't think you can be detained for no ID or failure to verify ID? Do you know how many serious criminals are caught merely from traffic stops? If detainment isn't allowed under those circumstances, then when? If you're actively assaulting someone?
    I'm pretty sure there is a law where I live that anyone over 18 is legally required to carry identification at all times, not just in a car, but all times. I doubt it's enforced much, but if the cops have probable cause, I guess they need to be able to confirm your identity. 

    I'm actually still on the fence about that, though. my mind says "I didn't do fuck all, you have no right to know who I am, arrest me or fuck off", but that's my inner @unsung coming out. :lol: 
    No, there is no Canadian law requiring anyone to carry identification or to identify themselves unless (1) you are operating a motor vehicle and are stopped because of a possible infraction, or (2) you are asking to do something that has an age limit, like buying alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise there is absolutely no obligation to identify yourself. 

    And I am opposed to automatic detention of anyone unless there is probable cause. 

    I concur on your detainment statement. There should be an infraction or probable cause, not related to a profile of a person. That's just bullshit.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • PP193448PP193448 Here Posts: 4,282
    Wonder if Mexico will create sanctuary cities for foreigners??  Hope it's Cancun or maybe Puerto Vallarta or somewhere with nice beaches... Then maybe I quit my job and move down there with my family and not have to renew my passport.
    2006 Clev,Pitt; 2008 NY MSGx2; 2010 Columbus; 2012 Missoula; 2013 Phoenix,Vancouver,Seattle; 2014 Cincy; 2016 Lex, Wrigley 1&2; 2018 Wrigley 1&2; 2022 Louisville
Sign In or Register to comment.