You misunderstand, I was paraphrasing their message.

I myself willing to accept losing an election without shooting people. There's always another election. When elections stop happening that's when shooting is called for.

As one of their ideological opponents I hope you understand why we'd make a big deal about someone suggesting that violence is a reasonable reaction to losing an election. Vote for me now or exchange bullets with me later but I'm going to get my way no matter what.

It scares the hell out of me.

My bad it was second amendment remedies.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

Some of the more extreme members of that faction have suggested that violence is an acceptable option if elections don't turn out their way. Google "second amendment solutions"

Are you suggesting that the Jews were not innocent?

I think therefore I am, maybe.

Or at least I'm glad you made me up.

So then it was game over in 1792 when every able bodied man of a certain age was forced to buy a rifle powder and shot as part of the second militia act.

If Fred is about to serve time for murder there's no rush about checking his papers. Fred's not going anywhere. Once you're to the point of locking someone up, you have time to check with the feds, no need to ask the suspect. The only use for demanding confirmation of legal status on the spot is to arrest people for being undocumented. Not their job.

And the law doesn't say people get removed, it says they get a hearing to decide their fate of which removal is only one option. Did you read Arizona v. United States?

Ahh but you said they couldn't be checked unless they had already been stopped for a crime. So if you already have a reason to hold someone why would you have to check out their papers to see if you have an excuse to hold them?

And the answer is no, the feds don't want the individual in question held. As far as I can tell what they want is everyone involved with SB1070 to go @%$@$% themselves. Didn't think I'd find myself agreeing with the feds but there you have it.

You have yourself a nice day now.

Okay got it, it's like letting the police search you without a warrant because you have nothing to hide and if you have nothing to hide you don't need the 4'th amendment.

For what purpose could the local police possibly need information about immigration status? To obtain counselor services for a foreign national? They certainly don't have the power to deport anyone.

Police function? Where do you live? Where I live they're just another street gang with semi-good press.

Then why could I be held until I provide proof of innocence? Perhaps I'm naive but I prefer a system where I can only be held when there's proof of guilt.

Where to start....

Honest cops, I used to believe they existed. But I've been terry stopped when obviously not up to no good. Unless you count walking home down a well lit street wearing jeans and a tee-shirt as reasonable suspicion for anything. Cops aren't there to prevent crime, they're there to make arrests after a crime so yes they can sit there with their hands in their pockets.

And what is a good reason to believe you're in the country illegally? The same standard for Terry stop? None since they can say anything and there's no way to refute their claim?

There's no law requiring me to carry ID, so why would I want to hand it over to cops? The burden of proof is on them, not me. Why should I be expected to roll over and prove myself to every cop who happens to pass by and decide they have nothing better to do than harass me?

Demands based on suspicion just won't work. There's no practical way to deal with abuse and you know full well that if you have humans, you have abuse. At the very least we need to use a probable cause standard.

SCOTUS did hold that they couldn't mirror the federal laws so that's settled at least for today. The papers please part is what I'm, as you say, flailing Kermit arms about. I'm a US citizen on US soil, the police can go to hell unless they have an arrest warrant or proof I committed a crime. I'm going to speak out against any law or ruling that says otherwise.

As far as I can tell, you don't have a problem with that position. So why are we arguing?

Find me one, we'll find out.

Why yes, yes I do have a problem with Terry v Ohio. Being on the receiving end of a couple of Terry stops does tend make a person... unhappy.