Texas Governor signs a law to enforce federal law

mattsl1983

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

unsung

Sanctuary cities kill innocent people.

PJPOWER

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!

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

Sanctuary cities kill innocent people.

So do Americans with guns. Maybe the good gubner should curtail those as well?

unsung

I bet you want Americans to be curtailed.  

Halifax2TheMax

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.

tbergs

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.”

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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)

Go Beavers

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 Baller

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.

OnWis97

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.

unsung

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.

Go Beavers

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_groove

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 Beavers

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. 

tbergs

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. 

dignin

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.

tbergs

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?

dignin

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. 

jeffbr

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. 

HughFreakingDillon

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.  

tempo_n_groove

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.

oftenreading

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.  

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. 

HughFreakingDillon

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.  

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. 

oftenreading

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.  

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. 

HughFreakingDillon

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.  

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

tbergs

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.  

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.

PP193448

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.