Sorry bub. But Arizona doesn't get to overrule federal immigration law. That's what the recent SCOTUS bitchslap was about.
Obviously, you don't have a very good grasp of the ruling from the Supreme Court, nor the law on which it ruled. First of all, nothing in the Arizona law "overruled" anything in Federal law. They merely copied bits from Federal law so they could enforce them. The Supreme Court decided that doing so violated the Federal government's sovereign authority since it effectively was setting immigration policy at the state level.
*NO* state-issed driver's license establishes both both identity and immigration status! Did you even bother to read my link? It's right there in black-and -white. Have you ever had a legitimate job? You would have had to fill out an I-9 and provide appropriate identification if you had.
Go ahead... shred your passport and social security card and take your precious arizona driver's license and try to use it to show citizenship on an I-9 or at a border crossing. I'll bring the popcorn, watch, and laugh.
You people may think you're a law unto yourselves. But you're not.
You really just aren't paying attention at all. For the purposes of the Arizona law, any Federal, state, or local government identification document which requires proof of legal residence as a prerequisite for issuance acts as proof of legal residence. Have you read the Arizona law? It's available for free right on the Internet. Would you like me to quote it for you?
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION. 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF
The law said nothing of stopping someone simply because they were suspected of being in the country illegally. The purpose of that portion of the law was to have police question the immigration status of people who were detained or arrested for a crime if the police had an articulable reason to suspect that person is in the US illegally. Further, there's nothing requiring anyone to have an Arizona drivers license. Arizona simply added multiple fail-safes to ensure that nearly all citizens would very quickly and easily be able to stop any questioning of their immigration status as part of this law.
The Federal government doesn't have those fail-safes in place. You can pull out your passport, birth certificate, and Social Security card, and Federal immigration authorities can still toss you in a cell while they consider whether or not you're actually here legally. In Arizona, any Federal, state, or local government identification that requires proof of residence for issuance ends any questioning of your immigration status under this Arizona law.
I do have a problem with that position because it's simply not practical for honest cops who are trying to do a decent job. There needs to be a rebalancing to better protect the rights of US citizens, but that doesn't mean everyone walking down the street tells the police to bug off and the police have to just sit there with their hands in their pockets while people who are obviously up to no good march down the street with impunity.
The Arizona law doesn't even come into effect unless you're stopped by the police for another reason and they have good reason to believe you're in the country illegally. If you have a state, Federal, or even local form of identification whose issuance requires proof of legal residence, you're golden and the police can't question you any further about it.
I'm in total agreement with you and I'd like nothing more than to see Terry v Ohio overturned or fixed via amendment to the Constitution.
That said, again, the Arizona law isn't your problem. There's nothing in the Arizona law that doesn't already exist in Federal law. If you have a problem with something that Arizona passed, you first have a problem with either Federal law or with laws passed in states around the country and upheld by the SCOTUS. Arizona hasn't changed anything except that they've attempted to pick up some slack from the Federal government by passing some laws that mirror existing Federal laws.
Everyone complaining about this is doing nothing but flailing Kermit arms in a manufactured outrage over nothing. From what I've seen, almost no one who's complaining about this law has even read the damn thing, let alone taken the time to learn about other, existing state and Federal laws in the US.
Are you of the opinion that it's proper to comment on provisions of a law you haven't read and obviously know nothing about? I don't.
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION. 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF
Please educate yourself before commenting further. And no, listening to Rachel Maddow spew liberal talking points while flailing her little Kermit arms around doesn't count.
None of this escapes the legislators who drafted the Arizona law in question. The reason for using the Arizona drivers license is that it provides for a simple, effective way for citizens of the state of Arizona to end any and all questions regarding their immigration status. It's there to ensure Arizona's legal citizens aren't affected in a negative way by the law. If the police pull you over for speeding and you hand them your license (as you're already required to do), any doubt in their minds as to your legal status become irrelevant. While some criminals will slip through that loophole, that's a known cost to keep the people of Arizona from having to deal with undue burdens associated with this law's enforcement.
This law isn't intended to allow for a dragnet that'll catch every single person residing in Arizona illegally. It's intended to make Arizona less hospitable to those who are there illegally and to scare off those who actually care about being arrested and deported.
That's generally still the case (laws vary by states). However, if police have an articulable reason to believe you're lying about who you are, and an articulable reason to believe you're committing a crime, they can detain you for a reasonable period of time and possibly arrest you for a reasonable period (not a month, but likely a few hours to maybe a day or two depending on the state) in order to confirm your identity and to ensure there are no outstanding warrants against you.
So for instance, if you're walking down the sidewalk at noon on Tuesday holding a McDonald's bag a block from McDonald's, the police can stop you and ask you who you are and what you're doing. In that situation, in some states you'll be required to provide your name. You simply say "My name is Mike Andrews" and then ask if you're being detained. In most states, in that situation, it's likely they'll say no (because they'd need an actual reason to detain you) and at that point you're free to continue walking down the street. In fact, unless the police state that you're being detained or arrested (and those are two very different things with very different levels of supporting evidence required), you don't have to say another word to them or respond to any further questions. Even if they want to ask some other questions, it's highly unlikely they'll have any legally supportable way to compel you to respond unless they have a damn good reason (such as a report that someone matching your description who just robbed that McDonald's).
Now let's say you're walking through an industrial park at 3am on a Sunday. The police can again stop you and ask you who you are and what you're doing. If you - in a very snarky tone - tell them you're "John Smith" and you're on your way to fuck their mothers, they have all kinds of reasons to detain you. Firstly, it's suspicious to have someone walking through an industrial park, alone, without any apparent reason, at 3am on a Sunday. Maybe you're taking a shortcut, and that's fine. But of 100 guys who are in that place at that hour, 98 of them are up to no good in the experience of a veteran police office. (That's actually a legally acceptable argument, by the way. If, in a police officer's experience, nearly everyone doing what you're doing when, where, and how you're doing is up to no good, that's an articulable reason for an investigatory stop and detention/questioning). Secondly, replying that your name is "John Smith", particularly in a tone that suggests you're blowing off their question, is again suspicious. Or maybe you don't say "I'm John Smith", but instead reply with "Fuck you!". It's extremely unlike your parents have burdened you with such an unfortunate name, and thus you're more likely refusing to identify yourself. In either case, the chances that you're actually on your way to have intercourse with the mother of that particular police officer are vastly lower than the chances that you're simply blowing off the question and refusing to cooperate.
In that case, depending on how uncooperative you are and the state in which this is taking place, you can be detained for questioning and possibly even arrested pending confirmation of your identity and some investigation into your background and whether any crimes have taken place nearby where you were found that you may have been involved in committing. If you're living well off the grid (homeless and on no public assistance or using any public services at all since before turning 18, no arrests, etc), finding out who you are could be one heck of a challenge. In such a case, you might end up in a holding cell for up to a day or two. In some states, refusing to identify yourself to the police is, itself, a crime. In any case, at some point they'll have to either charge you with a crime or let you go. In every case, if you get to the point of being in a police station simply because you didn't want to cooperate with basic information, the police aren't going to like you very much and they're going to use every ounce of legal authority to be as much a pain in your ass as possible for wasting their time.
All state issued licenses are valid for the purpose for which they were issued: driving. A drivers license is not the same thing as proof of legal residence. The reason Arizona's own drivers license is specifically written into the law as providing proof of legal residence is because Arizona (unlike some other states) will not issue a license to someone not legally in the country and makes a certain effort to verify that those who apply for licenses are - in fact - here legally.
What they clearly intend is to ensure that those most likely to be questioned about their immigration status in error (US citizens living in the state where the questions are being raised) have a very simple and effective way to immediately end such questioning. This is an extra protection provided in the Arizona law which is not present in the Federal laws. You see, Federal immigration authorities - particularly those operating within 50 miles of a national border - have enormous amounts of power in detaining individuals who can't prove they're here legally. In some cases, United States citizens have been deported by Federal authorities who are either too lazy or incompetent to do their jobs effectively.
Arizona, in contrast, has provided a very simple, easily available out for those most likely to have to deal with the Arizona law: their own citizens. They aren't denying anything in relation to driving privileges or recognition of state documents from other states for their intended purpose. They're simply providing an easy out for those holding an Arizona drivers license. There's no reason they have to do that. The Feds certainly don't. Arizona put that in so their police questioning of immigration status would be less intrusive to those in Arizona legally.
Somebody please mod this up. People act like ultimate, philosophically sound proof beyond any and all possible doubt is being required of them. No, the police don't want to waste time with you if you're a decent human being. The vast, vast majority just want a quick and simple resolution if what they observed or heard (the reason they stopped you) isn't leading to preventing or solving a crime.
There's nothing different about Arizona except that the police there are allowed to inquire about your immigration status if there are articulable reasons to suspect you may be in the country illegally. In every single state in the union, the US Constitution allows for laws requiring you to identify yourself to police and for police to have a reasonable path to confirm what you're telling them is true.
Your beef isn't with Arizona in this regard. Your beef is with Terry v Ohio.
Per the Arizona law, displaying a valid Arizona drivers license to Arizona police ends any and all question of immigration status.
Further, you don't have to carry it with you if you aren't driving. If you're stopped and the police ask you to identify yourself, you're already required to do so (Terry v Ohio) and if you can't or won't provide enough information for the police to verify your identity, you can be detained while that's investigated. That's the same across the US. Has been for a long time.
Further still, Federal law (8 USC 1304(e) 264(e)) already requires all non-citizens to have their immigration paperwork with them at all times. The Arizona law doesn't add anything in terms of legal requirements for anyone except police.
You're already required to carry a drivers license in every state in the US while you're driving. Further, in every state in the US, if you're unable or otherwise refuse to identify yourself to police, you can be detained until your identity can be confirmed. Further still, Federal law (8 USC 1304(e) 264(e)) requires all non-citizens to carry their immigration "papers" with them at all times.
Your outrage is based entirely on your ignorance of existing laws. Arizona hasn't done anything extraordinary here. They copied existing Federal law and added in extra protections to keep hassles for citizens to a minimum (Arizona drivers license being considered legal proof of residence for the purposes of this law). They did so because they wanted to do what the Federal government has failed to do: enforce immigration law.
Citizens are not required to carry "papers" or identification of any kind. However, if police are unable to confirm your identity, you can be detained pending confirmation of that information. Non-citizens are required by Federal law (and have for a long time) to carry their "papers" at all times. 8 USC 1304(e) 264(e).
Your problem is not firstly with Arizona or its new law. Rather, it begins with the origin of said law, which is US Federal immigration law. Arizona merely copied much of what's already in place at the Federal level so they could begin doing what the Federal government has so utterly failed to do thus far: enforce it.
Enforcing every law, aside from somehow knowing them all, would grind the system to a halt. Discretion has been around for a long time. Could you imagine what would happen if every jaywalker got hauled into court? If everyone who went over the speed limit got a ticket?
That's a problem with the laws; not anything else. Selective enforcement of the law is a democratic society's back door to tyranny. Whereas a despot requires no reason to imprison anyone he pleases on a whim, that's not possible in a government of limited power unless you ensure that everyone is guilty of some kind of crime. Once you've achieved that, imprisoning who you please is a simple matter of finding which of the innumerable laws they've violated and using those as an excuse to do what the despot could have done just slightly easier.
Fix the laws or become a prisoner of them, subject to the whims of the ruling class.
For the purpose of Arizona's law, an Arizona drivers license is de facto proof of legal residence. Once it's displayed to Arizona police enforcing this law, any and all questions surrounding immigration status end.
Citizens along with everyone else can be detained until their identity can be confirmed if the police have reasonable suspicion that they're engaged in illegal activity and/or are lying to police about their identity. Further, 8 USC 1304(e) 264(e) requires all aliens to carry their "papers" at all times. If you aren't a US citizen and you don't have your immigration paperwork on you, you're already violating Federal law.
Magically coincidental, isn't it? Sorry, but I'm just a little suspicious of the fact that every story on this mess of manufactured outrage lacks the other side of the story. I don't trust coincidences. So far as I'm concerned, she and her uncle were talking about how much shipping is to Tehran for an iPad when the Farsi-speaking employee overheard them.
If Apple (and by extension, its employees) has reason to believe the device will be sent, illegally, to a country with export restrictions levied against it, Apple (and its employees) has a legal duty to refuse the sale. In any case, I hope ICE is sitting there waiting for this dummy to show up at the UPS store with the iPad in hand and an Iranian address on the box.
Think about it: you're trying to ship a gift to a relative oversees. An employee at the store informs you (if you didn't know already) that it's illegal for you to send that product to that country without the express permission of the US Federal government. You come back with a news crew and explain to them how the mean store employee won't help you violate Federal law. When you're again explained how what you're trying to do is illegal, you then go home and call the company, still trying to accomplish what you've already been twice told is absolutely against Federal law. When you get your hands on the gift that you want to ship oversees in violation of Federal law, you call the news crew back to tell them.
This woman is a moron with no respect for the law and no common sense. Further, she's an instigator of manufactured outrage. I have zero sympathy for her. I hope she gets caught trying to ship the thing, I hope they confiscate it from her, and I hope they prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law.
They're selling to a US citizen. What happens after that is none of Apple's business.
Customer: "I need a gun so my friend can finally kill that bitch ex-wife of his that's been trying to bleed him dry. He can't buy it because he's got a felony conviction or twelve for various assaults against her." Gun store owner: "So... you aren't going to use the gun for an illegal purpose, you're just going to give it to someone who isn't allowed to have it so they can do something illegal with it?" Customer: "Yes." Gun store owner: "Well, I don't think I can sell it to you, because you're just going to give it to your friend, who isn't supposed to have it, so he can do something bad with it." bhagwad: "You're selling to a US citizen. What happens after that is none of your business." *Kermit arm flailing*
If Apple (and by extension, one of its employees), knowingly participates in the commission of a criminal act by allowing what's tantamount to a straw purchase, they can reasonably assume themselves to be in a very actionable position. Whether the employee would have any legal action taken against him or punitive action by Apple against him is purely theoretical and irrelevant. What matters is that it's reasonable for the employee and for Apple to assume that if they have knowledge that someone will violate the law with their product, they have some liability if they proceed with the sale.
We aren't talking about what someone might do with a computer or a car or whatever; we're talking about what someone said they were going to do with it. The guy in the example above doesn't have to drag his friend and the ex-wife into the gun owner's store to prove he's actually telling the truth. If that gun store owner sells the guy the gun and the ex-wife gets shot with it, he may (and should) be held liable for the sale.
The issuing bank, the processor, Visa/Mastercard, and the merchant service company all make money at the merchant end. If he's paying off the card during the grace period, he's doing nothing wrong. In fact, everyone involved has a reliable stream of income with zero hassles. Everything he's doing is automated and costs them nothing. Any card issuer will take 100 of him before they take 1 customer who's on the phone to customer service three times a month and is paying a bit of interest.
What's a card issuer's dream? Someone who pays the minimum due the day after the due date every month, who's paying 30% interest, who's carrying an enormously high balance, and whose account gets automatic fees racked up every single month in addition to the slew that were already there. That customer is an idiot, but God love him because he's subsidizing my cash back.
The insulting part is I have friends who are irresponsible and have been through foreclosures and vehicle repossessions who obtained financing through a particular lender - and they turned me down. I then mentioned friends by name who obtained financing through them after defaulting on loans through them, and their response? "But so-and-so has a credit history. You don't." I asked "So, the bottom line is that you're telling me is that no credit is worse than really bad credit?" His answer amounted to a reluctant yes.
Of course that's the case. Their business model is based on assessing and pricing risk. They have absolutely no data on you. Someone with a 550 credit score (bad) can find lenders who'll take them on for outrageous fees and interest. Why? Because they know that x% of borrowers with that score will default. They price the loan such that after that x% defaults, they're still making money based on the fees and interest paid by that x% plus the fees and interest still being paid by the 100-x% that didn't. When you come to them without any history at all, they have no method of pricing you and they don't even know if you're who you claim to be. Someone with a long history of bad credit may be unreliable, but they're reliably unreliable from a statistical model's point of view. A blank slate is a total wild card. You could be pulling a scam or you could be someone who'd have a perfect score if they used credit. There's no way to know when you've got a blank slate. Blank slates aren't part of their business model.
The credit system is total BS because their preferred customer is those willing to be enslaved by credit.
I then opened a small VISA but the fees, shitty customer service and their holding payments for 7-20 days was driving me nuts
That isn't true at all. The preferred customer of a particular institution is different based on the model that institution has chosen to follow. Some lend to high-risk borrowers and structure their fees and interest to compensate (as above). Some only cater to those with outstanding credit scores and base their model on providing incredible services for equally incredible fees. Most fall in the middle and serve those with ok to great credit scores, pricing rates, fees, and rewards to match the type of customer coming to them. You can't come in at the very bottom rung of the ladder and say the whole system sucks because it's bad for people with no credit or bad credit. I makefree money off my credit cards. My car loan? I'll pay them less interest over the life of the loan than what I make in a year from my cash-back credit card. A mortgage? Can get them as cheap as 2.75% with 2 minutes checking. I bought a computer last year and didn't pay a dime for weeks. When I did, it was in 12 monthly installments at 0% interest. I didn't pay a dime more than the guy who paid in cash, yet he had to front the money and I had someone float it for me for free.
If you think debt sucks, if you think credit's BS or a scam, then you don't understand either one, nor how to use them. Educating yourself is the first step to taking control and making it work for you. Don't be like the computer user that sits down at a Linux terminal, can't figure out how to check email in 30 seconds, and decides that Linux sucks. Start with the man pages at myfico.com and go from there.
Cars and credit cards are just fine. Cars you can buy at 0 - 1% interest if you maintain good credit. Credit cards? You never have to pay a dime of interest if you're careful and with a rewards card, they'll pay YOU to use the thing. It's literally getting free money handed to you.
Last year I bought a new computer through NewEgg with the Preferred card. They floated $1700 (I needed monitors and some extra drives) for a year and I didn't pay a dime of interest. Bad debt? Not a chance. I had the computer the entire time and I didn't spend a penny until a few weeks after I had it all set up and running (when the first payment came due).
Anyone looking at debt as a bad thing doesn't understand debt or how to use it.
Where do you live that you save money by renting? I want to live there.
I've lived all up and down the East coast and I can tell you first-hand that if you're saving anything remotely significant by renting, you're living in the ghetto and likely dealing with mice, roaches, and all sorts of other fun things. If renting were that much cheaper, no one would buy.
Also, it doesn't matter whether you stay in one house for 30 years. In 10, you'll have equity that you can put toward the new place. How much equity do you have after renting a place for the same period?
I feel bad you've had such a bad experience with that bank. They sound like a bunch of assholes, honestly.
To add a different story to this, a friend of mine in the US had his debit card (bank card) cloned at a shady gas station. They managed to get $1,000 out of the ATM (the max they could) that night. He quickly saw it and reported it. The bank killed the card and he had his money back (they didn't even charge him the $50 you're technically liable for) within about 24 hours.
Just mentioning it so that people understand the importance of shopping around for their bank/credit union. You have some places that really care about their customers (even the little guys who aren't pulling a half million a year in business) and you have some places that couldn't give a damn less unless you're rich.
That's not actually true anymore. The model has shifted such that people with fairly good credit (680+ FICO scores) have plenty of cash back cards available to them without an annual fee. I'm not looking for a new credit card right now, but I do still look at what they send. The first thing I look at is if there's an annual fee and those go immediately into the shredder (as they should in nearly every case for nearly every person).
That's guaranteed cash out of your wallet and into their's. They've already got a huge advantage on you (they're rich!), so there's no reason to give up money like that. Anyone with an annual fee on a card needs to pay off that card ASAP and then call up to get the fee taken off. If the fee is high enough (over $50/yr or so) and they have enough other cards of similar of higher age, it may even be worthwhile to cancel the thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry bub. But Arizona doesn't get to overrule federal immigration law. That's what the recent SCOTUS bitchslap was about.
Obviously, you don't have a very good grasp of the ruling from the Supreme Court, nor the law on which it ruled. First of all, nothing in the Arizona law "overruled" anything in Federal law. They merely copied bits from Federal law so they could enforce them. The Supreme Court decided that doing so violated the Federal government's sovereign authority since it effectively was setting immigration policy at the state level.
*NO* state-issed driver's license establishes both both identity and immigration status! Did you even bother to read my link? It's right there in black-and -white. Have you ever had a legitimate job? You would have had to fill out an I-9 and provide appropriate identification if you had.
Go ahead... shred your passport and social security card and take your precious arizona driver's license and try to use it to show citizenship on an I-9 or at a border crossing. I'll bring the popcorn, watch, and laugh.
You people may think you're a law unto yourselves. But you're not.
You really just aren't paying attention at all. For the purposes of the Arizona law, any Federal, state, or local government identification document which requires proof of legal residence as a prerequisite for issuance acts as proof of legal residence. Have you read the Arizona law? It's available for free right on the Internet. Would you like me to quote it for you?
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF
Does that help? Do you understand yet?
The law said nothing of stopping someone simply because they were suspected of being in the country illegally. The purpose of that portion of the law was to have police question the immigration status of people who were detained or arrested for a crime if the police had an articulable reason to suspect that person is in the US illegally. Further, there's nothing requiring anyone to have an Arizona drivers license. Arizona simply added multiple fail-safes to ensure that nearly all citizens would very quickly and easily be able to stop any questioning of their immigration status as part of this law.
The Federal government doesn't have those fail-safes in place. You can pull out your passport, birth certificate, and Social Security card, and Federal immigration authorities can still toss you in a cell while they consider whether or not you're actually here legally. In Arizona, any Federal, state, or local government identification that requires proof of residence for issuance ends any questioning of your immigration status under this Arizona law.
I do have a problem with that position because it's simply not practical for honest cops who are trying to do a decent job. There needs to be a rebalancing to better protect the rights of US citizens, but that doesn't mean everyone walking down the street tells the police to bug off and the police have to just sit there with their hands in their pockets while people who are obviously up to no good march down the street with impunity.
The Arizona law doesn't even come into effect unless you're stopped by the police for another reason and they have good reason to believe you're in the country illegally. If you have a state, Federal, or even local form of identification whose issuance requires proof of legal residence, you're golden and the police can't question you any further about it.
I'm in total agreement with you and I'd like nothing more than to see Terry v Ohio overturned or fixed via amendment to the Constitution.
That said, again, the Arizona law isn't your problem. There's nothing in the Arizona law that doesn't already exist in Federal law. If you have a problem with something that Arizona passed, you first have a problem with either Federal law or with laws passed in states around the country and upheld by the SCOTUS. Arizona hasn't changed anything except that they've attempted to pick up some slack from the Federal government by passing some laws that mirror existing Federal laws.
Everyone complaining about this is doing nothing but flailing Kermit arms in a manufactured outrage over nothing. From what I've seen, almost no one who's complaining about this law has even read the damn thing, let alone taken the time to learn about other, existing state and Federal laws in the US.
Are you of the opinion that it's proper to comment on provisions of a law you haven't read and obviously know nothing about? I don't.
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF
Please educate yourself before commenting further. And no, listening to Rachel Maddow spew liberal talking points while flailing her little Kermit arms around doesn't count.
None of this escapes the legislators who drafted the Arizona law in question. The reason for using the Arizona drivers license is that it provides for a simple, effective way for citizens of the state of Arizona to end any and all questions regarding their immigration status. It's there to ensure Arizona's legal citizens aren't affected in a negative way by the law. If the police pull you over for speeding and you hand them your license (as you're already required to do), any doubt in their minds as to your legal status become irrelevant. While some criminals will slip through that loophole, that's a known cost to keep the people of Arizona from having to deal with undue burdens associated with this law's enforcement.
This law isn't intended to allow for a dragnet that'll catch every single person residing in Arizona illegally. It's intended to make Arizona less hospitable to those who are there illegally and to scare off those who actually care about being arrested and deported.
That's generally still the case (laws vary by states). However, if police have an articulable reason to believe you're lying about who you are, and an articulable reason to believe you're committing a crime, they can detain you for a reasonable period of time and possibly arrest you for a reasonable period (not a month, but likely a few hours to maybe a day or two depending on the state) in order to confirm your identity and to ensure there are no outstanding warrants against you.
So for instance, if you're walking down the sidewalk at noon on Tuesday holding a McDonald's bag a block from McDonald's, the police can stop you and ask you who you are and what you're doing. In that situation, in some states you'll be required to provide your name. You simply say "My name is Mike Andrews" and then ask if you're being detained. In most states, in that situation, it's likely they'll say no (because they'd need an actual reason to detain you) and at that point you're free to continue walking down the street. In fact, unless the police state that you're being detained or arrested (and those are two very different things with very different levels of supporting evidence required), you don't have to say another word to them or respond to any further questions. Even if they want to ask some other questions, it's highly unlikely they'll have any legally supportable way to compel you to respond unless they have a damn good reason (such as a report that someone matching your description who just robbed that McDonald's).
Now let's say you're walking through an industrial park at 3am on a Sunday. The police can again stop you and ask you who you are and what you're doing. If you - in a very snarky tone - tell them you're "John Smith" and you're on your way to fuck their mothers, they have all kinds of reasons to detain you. Firstly, it's suspicious to have someone walking through an industrial park, alone, without any apparent reason, at 3am on a Sunday. Maybe you're taking a shortcut, and that's fine. But of 100 guys who are in that place at that hour, 98 of them are up to no good in the experience of a veteran police office. (That's actually a legally acceptable argument, by the way. If, in a police officer's experience, nearly everyone doing what you're doing when, where, and how you're doing is up to no good, that's an articulable reason for an investigatory stop and detention/questioning). Secondly, replying that your name is "John Smith", particularly in a tone that suggests you're blowing off their question, is again suspicious. Or maybe you don't say "I'm John Smith", but instead reply with "Fuck you!". It's extremely unlike your parents have burdened you with such an unfortunate name, and thus you're more likely refusing to identify yourself. In either case, the chances that you're actually on your way to have intercourse with the mother of that particular police officer are vastly lower than the chances that you're simply blowing off the question and refusing to cooperate.
In that case, depending on how uncooperative you are and the state in which this is taking place, you can be detained for questioning and possibly even arrested pending confirmation of your identity and some investigation into your background and whether any crimes have taken place nearby where you were found that you may have been involved in committing. If you're living well off the grid (homeless and on no public assistance or using any public services at all since before turning 18, no arrests, etc), finding out who you are could be one heck of a challenge. In such a case, you might end up in a holding cell for up to a day or two. In some states, refusing to identify yourself to the police is, itself, a crime. In any case, at some point they'll have to either charge you with a crime or let you go. In every case, if you get to the point of being in a police station simply because you didn't want to cooperate with basic information, the police aren't going to like you very much and they're going to use every ounce of legal authority to be as much a pain in your ass as possible for wasting their time.
All state issued licenses are valid for the purpose for which they were issued: driving. A drivers license is not the same thing as proof of legal residence. The reason Arizona's own drivers license is specifically written into the law as providing proof of legal residence is because Arizona (unlike some other states) will not issue a license to someone not legally in the country and makes a certain effort to verify that those who apply for licenses are - in fact - here legally.
What they clearly intend is to ensure that those most likely to be questioned about their immigration status in error (US citizens living in the state where the questions are being raised) have a very simple and effective way to immediately end such questioning. This is an extra protection provided in the Arizona law which is not present in the Federal laws. You see, Federal immigration authorities - particularly those operating within 50 miles of a national border - have enormous amounts of power in detaining individuals who can't prove they're here legally. In some cases, United States citizens have been deported by Federal authorities who are either too lazy or incompetent to do their jobs effectively.
Arizona, in contrast, has provided a very simple, easily available out for those most likely to have to deal with the Arizona law: their own citizens. They aren't denying anything in relation to driving privileges or recognition of state documents from other states for their intended purpose. They're simply providing an easy out for those holding an Arizona drivers license. There's no reason they have to do that. The Feds certainly don't. Arizona put that in so their police questioning of immigration status would be less intrusive to those in Arizona legally.
Somebody please mod this up. People act like ultimate, philosophically sound proof beyond any and all possible doubt is being required of them. No, the police don't want to waste time with you if you're a decent human being. The vast, vast majority just want a quick and simple resolution if what they observed or heard (the reason they stopped you) isn't leading to preventing or solving a crime.
There's nothing different about Arizona except that the police there are allowed to inquire about your immigration status if there are articulable reasons to suspect you may be in the country illegally. In every single state in the union, the US Constitution allows for laws requiring you to identify yourself to police and for police to have a reasonable path to confirm what you're telling them is true.
Your beef isn't with Arizona in this regard. Your beef is with Terry v Ohio.
Per the Arizona law, displaying a valid Arizona drivers license to Arizona police ends any and all question of immigration status.
Further, you don't have to carry it with you if you aren't driving. If you're stopped and the police ask you to identify yourself, you're already required to do so (Terry v Ohio) and if you can't or won't provide enough information for the police to verify your identity, you can be detained while that's investigated. That's the same across the US. Has been for a long time.
Further still, Federal law (8 USC 1304(e) 264(e)) already requires all non-citizens to have their immigration paperwork with them at all times. The Arizona law doesn't add anything in terms of legal requirements for anyone except police.
You're already required to carry a drivers license in every state in the US while you're driving. Further, in every state in the US, if you're unable or otherwise refuse to identify yourself to police, you can be detained until your identity can be confirmed. Further still, Federal law (8 USC 1304(e) 264(e)) requires all non-citizens to carry their immigration "papers" with them at all times.
Your outrage is based entirely on your ignorance of existing laws. Arizona hasn't done anything extraordinary here. They copied existing Federal law and added in extra protections to keep hassles for citizens to a minimum (Arizona drivers license being considered legal proof of residence for the purposes of this law). They did so because they wanted to do what the Federal government has failed to do: enforce immigration law.
You're here legally?
Then no, you aren't the reason Jan Brewer and company came up with this law.
Citizens are not required to carry "papers" or identification of any kind. However, if police are unable to confirm your identity, you can be detained pending confirmation of that information. Non-citizens are required by Federal law (and have for a long time) to carry their "papers" at all times. 8 USC 1304(e) 264(e).
Your problem is not firstly with Arizona or its new law. Rather, it begins with the origin of said law, which is US Federal immigration law. Arizona merely copied much of what's already in place at the Federal level so they could begin doing what the Federal government has so utterly failed to do thus far: enforce it.
Enforcing every law, aside from somehow knowing them all, would grind the system to a halt. Discretion has been around for a long time. Could you imagine what would happen if every jaywalker got hauled into court? If everyone who went over the speed limit got a ticket?
That's a problem with the laws; not anything else. Selective enforcement of the law is a democratic society's back door to tyranny. Whereas a despot requires no reason to imprison anyone he pleases on a whim, that's not possible in a government of limited power unless you ensure that everyone is guilty of some kind of crime. Once you've achieved that, imprisoning who you please is a simple matter of finding which of the innumerable laws they've violated and using those as an excuse to do what the despot could have done just slightly easier.
Fix the laws or become a prisoner of them, subject to the whims of the ruling class.
For the purpose of Arizona's law, an Arizona drivers license is de facto proof of legal residence. Once it's displayed to Arizona police enforcing this law, any and all questions surrounding immigration status end.
Citizens along with everyone else can be detained until their identity can be confirmed if the police have reasonable suspicion that they're engaged in illegal activity and/or are lying to police about their identity. Further, 8 USC 1304(e) 264(e) requires all aliens to carry their "papers" at all times. If you aren't a US citizen and you don't have your immigration paperwork on you, you're already violating Federal law.
Magically coincidental, isn't it? Sorry, but I'm just a little suspicious of the fact that every story on this mess of manufactured outrage lacks the other side of the story. I don't trust coincidences. So far as I'm concerned, she and her uncle were talking about how much shipping is to Tehran for an iPad when the Farsi-speaking employee overheard them.
If Apple (and by extension, its employees) has reason to believe the device will be sent, illegally, to a country with export restrictions levied against it, Apple (and its employees) has a legal duty to refuse the sale. In any case, I hope ICE is sitting there waiting for this dummy to show up at the UPS store with the iPad in hand and an Iranian address on the box.
Think about it: you're trying to ship a gift to a relative oversees. An employee at the store informs you (if you didn't know already) that it's illegal for you to send that product to that country without the express permission of the US Federal government. You come back with a news crew and explain to them how the mean store employee won't help you violate Federal law. When you're again explained how what you're trying to do is illegal, you then go home and call the company, still trying to accomplish what you've already been twice told is absolutely against Federal law. When you get your hands on the gift that you want to ship oversees in violation of Federal law, you call the news crew back to tell them.
This woman is a moron with no respect for the law and no common sense. Further, she's an instigator of manufactured outrage. I have zero sympathy for her. I hope she gets caught trying to ship the thing, I hope they confiscate it from her, and I hope they prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law.
They're selling to a US citizen. What happens after that is none of Apple's business.
Customer: "I need a gun so my friend can finally kill that bitch ex-wife of his that's been trying to bleed him dry. He can't buy it because he's got a felony conviction or twelve for various assaults against her."
Gun store owner: "So... you aren't going to use the gun for an illegal purpose, you're just going to give it to someone who isn't allowed to have it so they can do something illegal with it?"
Customer: "Yes."
Gun store owner: "Well, I don't think I can sell it to you, because you're just going to give it to your friend, who isn't supposed to have it, so he can do something bad with it."
bhagwad: "You're selling to a US citizen. What happens after that is none of your business." *Kermit arm flailing*
If Apple (and by extension, one of its employees), knowingly participates in the commission of a criminal act by allowing what's tantamount to a straw purchase, they can reasonably assume themselves to be in a very actionable position. Whether the employee would have any legal action taken against him or punitive action by Apple against him is purely theoretical and irrelevant. What matters is that it's reasonable for the employee and for Apple to assume that if they have knowledge that someone will violate the law with their product, they have some liability if they proceed with the sale.
We aren't talking about what someone might do with a computer or a car or whatever; we're talking about what someone said they were going to do with it. The guy in the example above doesn't have to drag his friend and the ex-wife into the gun owner's store to prove he's actually telling the truth. If that gun store owner sells the guy the gun and the ex-wife gets shot with it, he may (and should) be held liable for the sale.
The issuing bank, the processor, Visa/Mastercard, and the merchant service company all make money at the merchant end. If he's paying off the card during the grace period, he's doing nothing wrong. In fact, everyone involved has a reliable stream of income with zero hassles. Everything he's doing is automated and costs them nothing. Any card issuer will take 100 of him before they take 1 customer who's on the phone to customer service three times a month and is paying a bit of interest.
What's a card issuer's dream? Someone who pays the minimum due the day after the due date every month, who's paying 30% interest, who's carrying an enormously high balance, and whose account gets automatic fees racked up every single month in addition to the slew that were already there. That customer is an idiot, but God love him because he's subsidizing my cash back.
The insulting part is I have friends who are irresponsible and have been through foreclosures and vehicle repossessions who obtained financing through a particular lender - and they turned me down. I then mentioned friends by name who obtained financing through them after defaulting on loans through them, and their response? "But so-and-so has a credit history. You don't." I asked "So, the bottom line is that you're telling me is that no credit is worse than really bad credit?" His answer amounted to a reluctant yes.
Of course that's the case. Their business model is based on assessing and pricing risk. They have absolutely no data on you. Someone with a 550 credit score (bad) can find lenders who'll take them on for outrageous fees and interest. Why? Because they know that x% of borrowers with that score will default. They price the loan such that after that x% defaults, they're still making money based on the fees and interest paid by that x% plus the fees and interest still being paid by the 100-x% that didn't. When you come to them without any history at all, they have no method of pricing you and they don't even know if you're who you claim to be. Someone with a long history of bad credit may be unreliable, but they're reliably unreliable from a statistical model's point of view. A blank slate is a total wild card. You could be pulling a scam or you could be someone who'd have a perfect score if they used credit. There's no way to know when you've got a blank slate. Blank slates aren't part of their business model.
The credit system is total BS because their preferred customer is those willing to be enslaved by credit.
I then opened a small VISA but the fees, shitty customer service and their holding payments for 7-20 days was driving me nuts
That isn't true at all. The preferred customer of a particular institution is different based on the model that institution has chosen to follow. Some lend to high-risk borrowers and structure their fees and interest to compensate (as above). Some only cater to those with outstanding credit scores and base their model on providing incredible services for equally incredible fees. Most fall in the middle and serve those with ok to great credit scores, pricing rates, fees, and rewards to match the type of customer coming to them. You can't come in at the very bottom rung of the ladder and say the whole system sucks because it's bad for people with no credit or bad credit. I make free money off my credit cards. My car loan? I'll pay them less interest over the life of the loan than what I make in a year from my cash-back credit card. A mortgage? Can get them as cheap as 2.75% with 2 minutes checking. I bought a computer last year and didn't pay a dime for weeks. When I did, it was in 12 monthly installments at 0% interest. I didn't pay a dime more than the guy who paid in cash, yet he had to front the money and I had someone float it for me for free.
If you think debt sucks, if you think credit's BS or a scam, then you don't understand either one, nor how to use them. Educating yourself is the first step to taking control and making it work for you. Don't be like the computer user that sits down at a Linux terminal, can't figure out how to check email in 30 seconds, and decides that Linux sucks. Start with the man pages at myfico.com and go from there.
Cars and credit cards are just fine. Cars you can buy at 0 - 1% interest if you maintain good credit. Credit cards? You never have to pay a dime of interest if you're careful and with a rewards card, they'll pay YOU to use the thing. It's literally getting free money handed to you.
Last year I bought a new computer through NewEgg with the Preferred card. They floated $1700 (I needed monitors and some extra drives) for a year and I didn't pay a dime of interest. Bad debt? Not a chance. I had the computer the entire time and I didn't spend a penny until a few weeks after I had it all set up and running (when the first payment came due).
Anyone looking at debt as a bad thing doesn't understand debt or how to use it.
Where do you live that you save money by renting? I want to live there.
I've lived all up and down the East coast and I can tell you first-hand that if you're saving anything remotely significant by renting, you're living in the ghetto and likely dealing with mice, roaches, and all sorts of other fun things. If renting were that much cheaper, no one would buy.
Also, it doesn't matter whether you stay in one house for 30 years. In 10, you'll have equity that you can put toward the new place. How much equity do you have after renting a place for the same period?
I feel bad you've had such a bad experience with that bank. They sound like a bunch of assholes, honestly.
To add a different story to this, a friend of mine in the US had his debit card (bank card) cloned at a shady gas station. They managed to get $1,000 out of the ATM (the max they could) that night. He quickly saw it and reported it. The bank killed the card and he had his money back (they didn't even charge him the $50 you're technically liable for) within about 24 hours.
Just mentioning it so that people understand the importance of shopping around for their bank/credit union. You have some places that really care about their customers (even the little guys who aren't pulling a half million a year in business) and you have some places that couldn't give a damn less unless you're rich.
That's not actually true anymore. The model has shifted such that people with fairly good credit (680+ FICO scores) have plenty of cash back cards available to them without an annual fee. I'm not looking for a new credit card right now, but I do still look at what they send. The first thing I look at is if there's an annual fee and those go immediately into the shredder (as they should in nearly every case for nearly every person).
That's guaranteed cash out of your wallet and into their's. They've already got a huge advantage on you (they're rich!), so there's no reason to give up money like that. Anyone with an annual fee on a card needs to pay off that card ASAP and then call up to get the fee taken off. If the fee is high enough (over $50/yr or so) and they have enough other cards of similar of higher age, it may even be worthwhile to cancel the thing.