And, no, your driver's license is not proof of citizenship.
No, it's not definitive proof, however the new law states that it is sufficient to provide a presumption of not being here illegally.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B)... 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 TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION. 4. A VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
(d) Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this Act shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d).
If we are not going to enforce the laws, take them off the books.
The problem is that state and local government do not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
I've read the actual bill as passed, and it's a bunch of "enforce the Federal law as written" and "no local or state government may enact a policy to prevent enforcement of said Federal law".
it's like... (a) you can't do that, and (b) this was already illegal.
Not speaking English is a large tip off that they aren't a citizen.
Right. Let's just totally blow off Puerto Rico... and like a quarter of the New Mexican population.
One of the primary reasons that Arizona elected to obtain statehood independent from New Mexico, is because New Mexico was full of wealthy and powerful Spanish speakers.
Although, I'll take it as granted that, New Mexico doesn't have as many Spanish speakers any more, because of things like corporal punishment for speaking Spanish while in schools in the early part of the previous century, and a general cultural view that Spanish is worthless to speak.
Arizona is embarking on a grand experiment, and as a free state it should be allowed to so do.
Not entirely accurate. The US Constitution provides certain things that states cannot do. One argument is that enforcement of immigration laws is just one of those things that the individual states cannot do.
Not at alcohol checkpoints all over my city, thats not how it works, you are stoped and checked to be ok, then let to pass if they cen not find a reason to hold you, or god forbid you give them any lip.
Checkpoints are different from stopping someone. A checkpoint is applied to all individuals driving through it.
As for the analogy with the removal of the Hitler parody videos, I'm sad to see them go, but the law is clear in that satires are not protected in the same way parodies are (wrt of using copyrighted material). None of this should be construed either as an attack to freedom of speech in the form of satire or parody.
Unfortunately, the law is (or seems to be) clear on this. I hope that someday (sooner I hope) the law gets amended so that satires done for non-commercial purposes get the same protection wrt copyrighted materials (at least so that we can all enjoy Hitler going at it for lolcatz sake).
I like the idea of making a Downfall Hitler rant talking about how all his other rants have been disappeared. He would be all pissed about it, and ranting against copyright law protecting parodies, but not satire.
The funny thing is that it then becomes a parody, and thus actually fair use.
I simply have to disagree. While I understand that your interpretation of the law holds that this still fits the legal definition, my interpretation is one that the law simply fails to apply. Although you are most definitely correct, the best place to determine this is in court.
But it would be better for the DA to have enough common sense to look at the charge, look at the facts, and realize that he will be wasting government resources by charging this person for wasting government resources.
Seriously, this person is going to get a slap on the wrist, and any fine will likely be suspended so long as he does not violate another law in X amount of time.
You forgot to tell him to stop his employees from raping children.
I keep telling the Christian god to tell his employees to stop raping kids, but since he keeps refusing to answer, it's almost like he doesn't even exist...
In fact, all he said was that the "huge widening of the frontiers of communication" has benefits (for example - points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum) and drawbacks (for example - increases the "dangers of... intellectual and moral relativism,").
Thunderf00t in that video argues that the internet and transparency bring the details of religion to light, and expose them for what they are... cults.
So, naturally the Pope doesn't want people to sit there and actually discuss and learn about how the Catholic tenants are inaccurate. I'm sure the Pope dislikes that The Skeptic's Bible is so freely available online...
Read that section of the Fourteenth Amendment carefully.
I have, and that section is in direct response to the statements that I made. Earlier, it was held that states did not necessarily have to recognize federal rights.
The way it was held, is that the Constitution states that the States retain all their rights not explicitly forbidden. So, if there is no explicit statement that it applies to the States, then they are not governed by the clause.
The bold part is very, very relevant and I can't see HOW the Supreme Court could or would grant Cert to a case arguing that the States aren't bound by the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, United States v. Cruikshank sets the explicit president that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the national government, and not to state or local governments.
The Court stated that "[t]he Second Amendment... has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...".
And in the most recent ruling District of Columbia v. Heller:
With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
As with everything in the Common Law system, simply reading the law is insufficient to fully understand the law, because of the practice of stare decisis.
If people saw the ad and ignored it, then yes, they had plenty of warning.
Did it look factual? Then it was a report. Did it imply that a crime would be committed? Then it was a warning.
It was not made as a warning, therefore not a warning. Crimes nearly universally require mens rea, or an intent to break the law. If he didn't intend this as a warning, this necessary condition fails.
It was not made to look factual, it stated explicitly that it was a joke: (paraphrased) "oh shut up liberals, this is a joke".
Methinks you’re grossly exaggerating the significance of this. You can’t go around saying that you are going to commit a crime; it worries people.
This individual was not saying that he was going to commit a crime. He was jokingly pretending to be committing a crime.
The police are just charging him, because they didn't like his joke... but guess what? That's not a good enough reason to charge someone.
Requiring permits does not alone make something a violation of rights. As long as all reasonable permits are granted, then there is no problem. Namely, if you permit a Neo-Nazi rally of 300 people in a 1,000 person occupancy area, then it's ok. If you deny a Neo-Nazi rally of 1,000 people to be in a 300 person occupancy area, then that's also ok.
It's been well upheld that 2nd amendment rights are not violated by requiring registration and permits, but it is if those permits have unreasonable restrictions that make them essentially unobtainable. (Ok, so far, this only applies to the Federal government, there's another case going to the Supreme Court hearing whether states can do this, as they are not bound by the Bill of Rights... it sounds stupid, but seriously, there are certain rights that have been interpreted as applying only to the Federal government, and not states.)
Screaming "Rapist" or "Paedophile" at innocent people isn't something that should be protected in my opinion.
The USA's policy on this actually works fairly well. First: the injuring party has the absolute right to scream "rapist" or "pedophile" at innocent people, and no one can stop them. Second: they are still responsible for the damages caused to the injured party.
It works well for us, but in some ways, it's frustrating that one cannot get a court order telling someone to shut up.
More accurately, he did not give a "report or warning" of anything.
Yes he did. His ad qualified as a report or warning.
No. He did not.
If I punch at someone, and he falls down, I do not make a "report or warning" that I did such an act. If this were actually staged, and the "punched" individual breaks a blood pack to appear as if he had had his nose broken/bloodied, would it qualify as a "false reporting"? No, it would not.
He neither reported, nor warned any one that he were selling his children... he performed his acts without warning or report.
If someone had actually in reality been attempting to sell their children on craigslist, would we claim that they reported, or provided warning of their criminal action? No. We would not.
If this stands, the chilling effect to our first amendment rights to free speech would be grossly unreasonable.
More accurately, he did not give a "report or warning" of anything.
While I understand your relief in finally being understood, the idiocy of the authorities in this matter is the reason for the confusion. It's difficult for me to believe that they would have made this charge without him being the one to report his own ad.
While I'm certain that the person actually reporting the incident is indemnified from any criminal or civil actions by statute for reporting any child abuse, I'd like to see them at least try since such indemnification typically requires "good faith".
"The fact that I'm being charged for anything is so ridiculous, then the fact that they charged me with falsely reporting an incident. What incident did I report?"
"When he initiates an advertisement that causes an alarm or a public annoyance, that is according to New York State penal against the law," says State Trooper Mark O'Donnell. "Similar to someone yelling out fire in a restaurant where there is no fire."
So, their claim is that attempting to sell your children on craigslist is equivalent to yelling "fire" in a theater, as it would be a violation of more specifically New York Penal Code 240.50(1).
I don't expect the charges to be upheld, any good lawyer worth his salt should be able to point out that the statute does not by matter of semantics fit the actual circumstances.
I recall reading somewhere that clouds actually do a crappy job of reducing sun power. I think even on a cloudy Seattle day, it's only SPF 7 or something like that.
In any case, turning someone in isn’t illegal. Not even turning yourself in, which is what he’d have been doing if he reported his own ad. The ad was illegal; reporting it was not.
Actually, if you are attempting to turn yourself in claiming facts which you know to be false, it is a crime in the State of New York. In fact, it's "Falsely Reporting an Incident in the Third Degree"... exactly what the man is being charged with.
The laws in the state of New York pretty much disqualify this, and affirm your first interpretation. (New York Laws, Penal Code 240.50, if you care to read it yourself.)
240.50 Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.
A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third
degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to
be false or baseless, he:
1. Initiates or circulates a false report or warning of an alleged
occurrence or impending occurrence of a crime, catastrophe or emergency
under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or
inconvenience will result; or
2. Reports, by word or action, to an official or quasi-official agency
or organization having the function of dealing with emergencies
involving danger to life or property, an alleged occurrence or impending
occurrence of a catastrophe or emergency which did not in fact occur or
does not in fact exist; or
3. Gratuitously reports to a law enforcement officer or agency (a) the
alleged occurrence of an offense or incident which did not in fact
occur; or (b) an allegedly impending occurrence of an offense or
incident which in fact is not about to occur; or (c) false information
relating to an actual offense or incident or to the alleged implication
of some person therein; or
4. Reports, by word or action, an alleged occurrence or condition of
child abuse or maltreatment which did not in fact occur or exist to:
(a) the statewide central register of child abuse and maltreatment, as
defined in title six of article six of the social services law, or
(b) any person required to report cases of suspected child abuse or
maltreatment pursuant to subdivision one of section four hundred
thirteen of the social services law, knowing that the person is required
to report such cases, and with the intent that such an alleged
occurrence be reported to the statewide central register.
Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree is a class A
misdemeanor.
He is being charged with making the actual report, not for post claiming a sale of his children.
Slashdot Mirror
And, no, your driver's license is not proof of citizenship.
No, it's not definitive proof, however the new law states that it is sufficient to provide a presumption of not being here illegally.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B) ... 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 TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. A VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Arizona is just enforcing fed law:
(d) Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this Act shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d).
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8289.html
If we are not going to enforce the laws, take them off the books.
The problem is that state and local government do not have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
I've read the actual bill as passed, and it's a bunch of "enforce the Federal law as written" and "no local or state government may enact a policy to prevent enforcement of said Federal law".
it's like... (a) you can't do that, and (b) this was already illegal.
Not speaking English is a large tip off that they aren't a citizen.
Right. Let's just totally blow off Puerto Rico... and like a quarter of the New Mexican population.
One of the primary reasons that Arizona elected to obtain statehood independent from New Mexico, is because New Mexico was full of wealthy and powerful Spanish speakers.
Although, I'll take it as granted that, New Mexico doesn't have as many Spanish speakers any more, because of things like corporal punishment for speaking Spanish while in schools in the early part of the previous century, and a general cultural view that Spanish is worthless to speak.
Arizona is embarking on a grand experiment, and as a free state it should be allowed to so do.
Not entirely accurate. The US Constitution provides certain things that states cannot do. One argument is that enforcement of immigration laws is just one of those things that the individual states cannot do.
Not at alcohol checkpoints all over my city, thats not how it works, you are stoped and checked to be ok, then let to pass if they cen not find a reason to hold you, or god forbid you give them any lip.
Checkpoints are different from stopping someone. A checkpoint is applied to all individuals driving through it.
THAT'S ODD...
The guy is talking about how a LEGAL alien can be here LEGALLY, yet not have any documentation.
You seem to have missed his point?
As for the analogy with the removal of the Hitler parody videos, I'm sad to see them go, but the law is clear in that satires are not protected in the same way parodies are (wrt of using copyrighted material). None of this should be construed either as an attack to freedom of speech in the form of satire or parody.
Unfortunately, the law is (or seems to be) clear on this. I hope that someday (sooner I hope) the law gets amended so that satires done for non-commercial purposes get the same protection wrt copyrighted materials (at least so that we can all enjoy Hitler going at it for lolcatz sake).
I like the idea of making a Downfall Hitler rant talking about how all his other rants have been disappeared. He would be all pissed about it, and ranting against copyright law protecting parodies, but not satire.
The funny thing is that it then becomes a parody, and thus actually fair use.
I simply have to disagree. While I understand that your interpretation of the law holds that this still fits the legal definition, my interpretation is one that the law simply fails to apply. Although you are most definitely correct, the best place to determine this is in court.
But it would be better for the DA to have enough common sense to look at the charge, look at the facts, and realize that he will be wasting government resources by charging this person for wasting government resources.
Seriously, this person is going to get a slap on the wrist, and any fine will likely be suspended so long as he does not violate another law in X amount of time.
When the police get involved and take the matter seriously, it is enough reason to charge someone.
No. It is not. If you believe it is, then you're part of the reason why we're losing rights in the nation.
"I'll give you anything you want: Money! Women! ... Men?" --Stewie Griffin
You forgot to tell him to stop his employees from raping children.
I keep telling the Christian god to tell his employees to stop raping kids, but since he keeps refusing to answer, it's almost like he doesn't even exist...
In fact, all he said was that the "huge widening of the frontiers of communication" has benefits (for example - points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum) and drawbacks (for example - increases the "dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,").
I think he saw this YouTube video by Thunderf00t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug
Thunderf00t in that video argues that the internet and transparency bring the details of religion to light, and expose them for what they are... cults.
So, naturally the Pope doesn't want people to sit there and actually discuss and learn about how the Catholic tenants are inaccurate. I'm sure the Pope dislikes that The Skeptic's Bible is so freely available online...
Read that section of the Fourteenth Amendment carefully.
I have, and that section is in direct response to the statements that I made. Earlier, it was held that states did not necessarily have to recognize federal rights.
The way it was held, is that the Constitution states that the States retain all their rights not explicitly forbidden. So, if there is no explicit statement that it applies to the States, then they are not governed by the clause.
The bold part is very, very relevant and I can't see HOW the Supreme Court could or would grant Cert to a case arguing that the States aren't bound by the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, United States v. Cruikshank sets the explicit president that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the national government, and not to state or local governments.
The Court stated that "[t]he Second Amendment... has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...".
And in the most recent ruling District of Columbia v. Heller:
With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
As with everything in the Common Law system, simply reading the law is insufficient to fully understand the law, because of the practice of stare decisis.
If people saw the ad and ignored it, then yes, they had plenty of warning.
Did it look factual? Then it was a report. Did it imply that a crime would be committed? Then it was a warning.
It was not made as a warning, therefore not a warning. Crimes nearly universally require mens rea, or an intent to break the law. If he didn't intend this as a warning, this necessary condition fails.
It was not made to look factual, it stated explicitly that it was a joke: (paraphrased) "oh shut up liberals, this is a joke".
Methinks you’re grossly exaggerating the significance of this. You can’t go around saying that you are going to commit a crime; it worries people.
This individual was not saying that he was going to commit a crime. He was jokingly pretending to be committing a crime.
The police are just charging him, because they didn't like his joke... but guess what? That's not a good enough reason to charge someone.
Does rhyming make something funny in your culture? I totally don't get the joke.
Guess what?
CHICKEN'S BUTT!!!
Yeah, it happens in our culture, too.
...requiring permits to assemble...
Requiring permits does not alone make something a violation of rights. As long as all reasonable permits are granted, then there is no problem. Namely, if you permit a Neo-Nazi rally of 300 people in a 1,000 person occupancy area, then it's ok. If you deny a Neo-Nazi rally of 1,000 people to be in a 300 person occupancy area, then that's also ok.
It's been well upheld that 2nd amendment rights are not violated by requiring registration and permits, but it is if those permits have unreasonable restrictions that make them essentially unobtainable. (Ok, so far, this only applies to the Federal government, there's another case going to the Supreme Court hearing whether states can do this, as they are not bound by the Bill of Rights... it sounds stupid, but seriously, there are certain rights that have been interpreted as applying only to the Federal government, and not states.)
Screaming "Rapist" or "Paedophile" at innocent people isn't something that should be protected in my opinion.
The USA's policy on this actually works fairly well. First: the injuring party has the absolute right to scream "rapist" or "pedophile" at innocent people, and no one can stop them. Second: they are still responsible for the damages caused to the injured party.
It works well for us, but in some ways, it's frustrating that one cannot get a court order telling someone to shut up.
More accurately, he did not give a "report or warning" of anything.
Yes he did. His ad qualified as a report or warning.
No. He did not.
If I punch at someone, and he falls down, I do not make a "report or warning" that I did such an act. If this were actually staged, and the "punched" individual breaks a blood pack to appear as if he had had his nose broken/bloodied, would it qualify as a "false reporting"? No, it would not.
He neither reported, nor warned any one that he were selling his children... he performed his acts without warning or report.
If someone had actually in reality been attempting to sell their children on craigslist, would we claim that they reported, or provided warning of their criminal action? No. We would not.
If this stands, the chilling effect to our first amendment rights to free speech would be grossly unreasonable.
More accurately, he did not give a "report or warning" of anything.
While I understand your relief in finally being understood, the idiocy of the authorities in this matter is the reason for the confusion. It's difficult for me to believe that they would have made this charge without him being the one to report his own ad.
While I'm certain that the person actually reporting the incident is indemnified from any criminal or civil actions by statute for reporting any child abuse, I'd like to see them at least try since such indemnification typically requires "good faith".
UV (which is what SPF measures the protection against) is not what solar power exclusively relies upon.
keyword: exclusively.
I found a link with real information and accurate details in the matter:
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S1526702.shtml?cat=566
"The fact that I'm being charged for anything is so ridiculous, then the fact that they charged me with falsely reporting an incident. What incident did I report?"
"When he initiates an advertisement that causes an alarm or a public annoyance, that is according to New York State penal against the law," says State Trooper Mark O'Donnell. "Similar to someone yelling out fire in a restaurant where there is no fire."
So, their claim is that attempting to sell your children on craigslist is equivalent to yelling "fire" in a theater, as it would be a violation of more specifically New York Penal Code 240.50(1).
I don't expect the charges to be upheld, any good lawyer worth his salt should be able to point out that the statute does not by matter of semantics fit the actual circumstances.
(probably not so much so in places like Seattle)
I recall reading somewhere that clouds actually do a crappy job of reducing sun power. I think even on a cloudy Seattle day, it's only SPF 7 or something like that.
In any case, turning someone in isn’t illegal. Not even turning yourself in, which is what he’d have been doing if he reported his own ad. The ad was illegal; reporting it was not.
Actually, if you are attempting to turn yourself in claiming facts which you know to be false, it is a crime in the State of New York. In fact, it's "Falsely Reporting an Incident in the Third Degree"... exactly what the man is being charged with.
The laws in the state of New York pretty much disqualify this, and affirm your first interpretation. (New York Laws, Penal Code 240.50, if you care to read it yourself.)
New York Laws: Penal Code 240.50:
240.50 Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.
A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third
degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to
be false or baseless, he:
1. Initiates or circulates a false report or warning of an alleged
occurrence or impending occurrence of a crime, catastrophe or emergency
under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or
inconvenience will result; or
2. Reports, by word or action, to an official or quasi-official agency
or organization having the function of dealing with emergencies
involving danger to life or property, an alleged occurrence or impending
occurrence of a catastrophe or emergency which did not in fact occur or
does not in fact exist; or
3. Gratuitously reports to a law enforcement officer or agency (a) the
alleged occurrence of an offense or incident which did not in fact
occur; or (b) an allegedly impending occurrence of an offense or
incident which in fact is not about to occur; or (c) false information
relating to an actual offense or incident or to the alleged implication
of some person therein; or
4. Reports, by word or action, an alleged occurrence or condition of
child abuse or maltreatment which did not in fact occur or exist to:
(a) the statewide central register of child abuse and maltreatment, as
defined in title six of article six of the social services law, or
(b) any person required to report cases of suspected child abuse or
maltreatment pursuant to subdivision one of section four hundred
thirteen of the social services law, knowing that the person is required
to report such cases, and with the intent that such an alleged
occurrence be reported to the statewide central register.
Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree is a class A
misdemeanor.
He is being charged with making the actual report, not for post claiming a sale of his children.