PDA

View Full Version : Judge Napolitano: Ariz. Immigration law will ‘bankrupt the Republican Party’




bobbyw24
04-25-2010, 07:48 AM
After Fox News analysts spent most of Friday defending Arizona's bill to target illegal immigrants, Judge Andrew Napolitano offered a different take on the controversial measure, Crooks and Liars reported.

When asked about Gov. Jan Brewer, Napolitano said her signing of the bill into law will have disastrous consequences:

Napolitano: She's gonna bankrupt the Republican Party and the state of Arizona. Look at what happened to the Republicans in California with the proposition --

Cavuto: What happens?

Napolitano: Ah, Hispanics -- who have a natural home in the Republican Party because they are socially conservative -- will flee in droves. She's also gonna bankrupt her state, because no insurance company will provide coverage for this. And for all the lawsuits that will happen -- for all the people that are wrongfully stopped -- her budget will be paying for it. Her budget will be paying the legal bills of the lawyers who sue on behalf of those that were stopped.

Story continues below...

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0424/judge-napolitano-immigration-law-bankrupt-republican-party/

Matt Collins
04-25-2010, 08:13 AM
We cannot fix the illegal immigration problem by turning the US into a police state.

awake
04-25-2010, 08:26 AM
Property owners should say who can and who can not enter their property, they alone should set the rules. Since the government claims ownership of all property of its citizens and in turn grants limited privileges to the managers of their property, we find ourselves with open poorly managed borders.

Strict property rights are the only solution. Those who own the property say who can and can not be there.

Can any one envision the government managing the borders of each family house hold and stating that anyone can claim to live at your house as long as they go through the proper government procedure? You can see the ridiculousness of it.

What you have now is politicians opening everyone's property up for everyone else to use, which is communal and chaotic in control. This is the cause of the problem - everyone thinks they have a right to control everyone's property.

Public property is inherently conflictual as it is an illusion of the idea that property is owned and controlled by all when in reality it is controlled by a privileged few for their own benefit.

BlackTerrel
04-25-2010, 02:11 PM
And for all the lawsuits that will happen -- for all the people that are wrongfully stopped -- her budget will be paying for it.

Can I really sue for being wrongfully stopped? If that's the case I could have sued at least three times.

Southron
04-25-2010, 03:37 PM
Can I really sue for being wrongfully stopped? If that's the case I could have sued at least three times.

I'd sure like to sue for every time I've been stopped by the DOT for a roadside inspection.

And having to present my "papers": license, Dot medical card, every single detail of the last 14 days including where I slept and stopped for lunch.

fj45lvr
04-25-2010, 03:38 PM
We cannot fix the illegal immigration problem by turning the US into a police state.


You can fix the problem by arresting the employers of these people.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 03:48 PM
You can fix the problem by arresting the employers of these people.

Employers also have a right to the protections of the fourth amendment. The government shouldn't be spying on them.

Matt Collins
04-25-2010, 09:05 PM
You can fix the problem by arresting the employers of these people.
How does an employer know if someone is in the country legally or illegally? :confused:

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 09:46 PM
How does an employer know if someone is in the country legally or illegally? :confused:

Let's force employers to be servants of the Federal Government!

The government already forces Peter Schiff to be an unpaid agent to the IRS. Why not extend this to others?

angelatc
04-25-2010, 09:57 PM
Ah, Hispanics -- who have a natural home in the Republican Party because they are socially conservative -- will flee in droves.

Has he not noticed that they vote Democratic? And getting them to flee in droves is kind of the point....

There's nothing to debate. They are here illegally.

angelatc
04-25-2010, 09:58 PM
How does an employer know if someone is in the country legally or illegally? :confused:

Your employer is supposed to check when you're hired. It was part of Reagan's reform package.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:00 PM
There's nothing to debate. They are here illegally.

You sound really agitated, and there is something to debate. Like the rights of the people who are here legally, including American born citizens.

Matt Collins
04-25-2010, 10:01 PM
Has he not noticed that they vote Democratic? And getting them to flee in droves is kind of the point....But most are Catholic. They by all means should be Republican voters because most Hispanics tend to be fairly conservative and very family oriented.


They are here illegally.I don't disagree with that.

Matt Collins
04-25-2010, 10:01 PM
Your employer is supposed to check when you're hired. It was part of Reagan's reform package.Since when did people have to check with the government to get permission to work :confused: :rolleyes:

dannno
04-25-2010, 10:02 PM
Has he not noticed that they vote Democratic?

Yes, they vote Democrat even though they are socially conservatives because most conservatives are scurrred of Mexicans and want to turn our Constitutional Republic into a fascist police state by implementing this sort of bullshit. Why can't you admit this is unconstitutional? What do you think the lawsuits are going to be about?



And getting them to flee in droves is kind of the point....

He meant they are going to flee the REPUBLICAN PARTY and lose elections!




There's nothing to debate. They are here illegally.

Keep your fingers in your ears and don't stop singing "lalalalalalalalallalala"

This has nothing to do with the ones here illegally, this has to do with having brown skin and the fourth amendment.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:02 PM
2/3 Hispanics are Democrat.
We might get something like 4/5 after this. But that's really irrelevant.

The important point of debate is the fourth amendment.

AuH20
04-25-2010, 10:15 PM
So now the "protected class" is up in arms because natives are finally pushing back after years of non-stop pillaging? If the mexicans were smart, they'd police their own peers, then again they come from one of the most corrupt governments in the world, that our sinister representatives are in cahoots with. This has nothing to do with latinos or the 4th amendment. It's a dereliction of duty by the federal government, with one of the few responsibilities that is clearcut and essential. Even if the law is struck down, eventually citizens are going to take the law into their hands. By all means, strike it down and release the flood. The feds are deliberately provoking a crisis. How many kidnappings, cattle torture, home invasions and random acts of cartel violence are the citizens of Arizona going to tolerate?

JeNNiF00F00
04-25-2010, 10:16 PM
Id like to add that a Latino friend turned me to Ron Paul. Not all Latino's are Democrat. So please do not discredit the Latino community. I'm sure there are quite a few on these boards as well.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:20 PM
Latino raises hand!

JeNNiF00F00
04-25-2010, 10:22 PM
Latino raises hand!

ah hah!

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:24 PM
ah hah!

I think the whole Latino concept is pretty stupid. I am a mixture of people from like 20 different European countries but have both parents that speak spanish. Therefore I'm a "latino".

tpreitzel
04-25-2010, 10:26 PM
Latino raises hand!

No, you're American and it shows! ;)

angelatc
04-25-2010, 10:29 PM
So now the "protected class" is up in arms because natives are finally pushing back after years of non-stop pillaging? If the mexicans were smart, they'd police their own peers, then again they come from one of the most corrupt governments in the world, that our sinister representatives are in cahoots with. This has nothing to do with latinos or the 4th amendment. It's a dereliction of duty by the federal government, with one of the few responsibilities that is clearcut and essential. Even if the law is struck down, eventually citizens are going to take the law into their hands. By all means, strike it down and release the flood. The feds are deliberately provoking a crisis. How many kidnappings, cattle torture, home invasions and random acts of cartel violence are the citizens of Arizona going to tolerate?

The illegal immigrants are having violent protests. Where is the outcry against violence in the media?

Oh that's right - they're too busy chattering speculation that the TEA party might say something offensive.

And Danno, I don't believe it's unconstitutional. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police can ask us for ID in certain situations. This just expands the list of ID they're allowed to ask for.

They are here illegally. There's nothing to debate.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:31 PM
angelatc, which documents do you use to prove you're an American? Birth Certificate, passport?

angelatc
04-25-2010, 10:34 PM
angelatc, which documents do you use to prove you're an American? Birth Certificate, passport?

According to the law, a valid Arizona drivers license is one of the documents that would suffice if I were an Arizona resident.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:36 PM
According to the law, a valid Arizona drivers license is one of the documents that would suffice if I were an Arizona resident.

That makes me wonder how hard is to either

1. Falsify a license
2. Bribe an employee to give you a license

If the country chooses to use this plan, I think the only way to make it work is to have extremely stiff penalties for people who give out licenses to illegals. Like life in jail. Or raise their salary really really high so that any bribe would look small.

angelatc
04-25-2010, 10:38 PM
That makes me wonder how hard is to either

1. Falsify a license
2. Bribe an employee to give you a license

Yes, criminals do these type things.

The less of them we have in the country, the better.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:41 PM
Yes, criminals do these type things.

The less of them we have in the country, the better.

You'll have more criminals, because there are incentives to accept bribes to give fake licenses. The workers here will become corrupt just like the police in Mexico are corrupted by bribes from drugs dealers.

If they're stopped at the border, they can't do these things, even if they wanted to.

angelatc
04-25-2010, 10:45 PM
You'll have more criminals, because there are incentives to accept bribes to give fake licenses. The workers here will become corrupt just like the police in Mexico are corrupted by bribes from drugs dealers.

If they're stopped at the border, they can't do these things, even if they wanted to.

The people who are already here are already criminals, and they are not going to be stopped at the border.

I support the Arizona law.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:46 PM
The people who are already here are already criminals, and they are not going to be stopped at the border.
I'm talking about the people who will get corrupted after taking bribes. They'll be the new criminals.


I support the Arizona law.
Really? I couldn't tell! :p

angelatc
04-25-2010, 10:48 PM
I'm talking about the people who will get corrupted after taking bribes. They'll be the new criminals.



Well, we'll just deport their customers. Problem solved.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:49 PM
they are not going to be stopped at the border.


If they can't be stopped at the border, they not going to be stopped once they are in the country.

The border is a smaller territory and easier to control.

low preference guy
04-25-2010, 10:49 PM
Well, we'll just deport their customers. Problem solved.

How will you deport them if they have authentic ID's obtained through bribes?

JeNNiF00F00
04-25-2010, 10:50 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Soj3U.jpg

AuH20
04-25-2010, 10:52 PM
you invite your friend to stay at your house and you come back to this.

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/SubversionImages/IllegalsTrash2.jpg

Respect is a 2 way street.

Anti Federalist
04-25-2010, 11:03 PM
Something interesting on the history of passports in the US.

The contemporary period of required passports for Americans under United States law began on November 29, 1941

devil21
04-26-2010, 12:14 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Soj3U.jpg

Ask the Natives how their failure to enforce "immigration laws" ended for them. Allow invaders to invade and similar outcomes are repeatedly demonstrated throughout history.

JeNNiF00F00
04-26-2010, 12:24 AM
Ask the Natives how their failure to enforce "immigration laws" ended for them. Allow invaders to invade and similar outcomes are repeatedly demonstrated throughout history.

No one is invading however. They ARE part of the American Indian culture. THEY were the ones occupied. We are occupying their land.

devil21
04-26-2010, 12:34 AM
No one is invading however. They ARE part of the American Indian culture. THEY were the ones occupied. We are occupying their land.

So you're suggesting Americans turn over the western US back to Mexico?

angelatc
04-26-2010, 12:52 AM
How will you deport them if they have authentic ID's obtained through bribes?

Been there, done that. Being from Chicago and all....they caught a Chinese woman at the license bureau doing just that. She went to prison, and the licenses were invalidated. I can live with that.

angelatc
04-26-2010, 12:54 AM
If they can't be stopped at the border, they not going to be stopped once they are in the country.



They won't be stopped at the border because they're already across the border.

JeNNiF00F00
04-26-2010, 12:56 AM
So you're suggesting Americans turn over the western US back to Mexico?

No but I'm not suggesting that we sew a star on the ones that are "legally" here, so that we can tell who the illegals are either. What happens when they're done w/ the Mexicans? This new law is not any better than the patriot act or fisa or any of those other laws that are supposed to be "protecting" us. There has to be another way. This is not liberty.

Eastern Europe is a great place to live though if you are pro carrying papers that prove you are a citizen, and guess what they are primarily white.

KCIndy
04-26-2010, 12:58 AM
I'd sure like to sue for every time I've been stopped by the DOT for a roadside inspection.

And having to present my "papers": license, Dot medical card, every single detail of the last 14 days including where I slept and stopped for lunch.


Ha!

Well, Rifleman, I know what *you* do for a living! :)

Me too.

devil21
04-26-2010, 02:44 AM
No but I'm not suggesting that we sew a star on the ones that are "legally" here, so that we can tell who the illegals are either. What happens when they're done w/ the Mexicans? This new law is not any better than the patriot act or fisa or any of those other laws that are supposed to be "protecting" us. There has to be another way. This is not liberty.

Eastern Europe is a great place to live though if you are pro carrying papers that prove you are a citizen, and guess what they are primarily white.

It's not liberty, it's the enforcement mechanism of laws that have been on the books for a long time. My definition of liberty doesn't include the Feds standing idly by while illegal foreigners invade the country, in violation of their US Constitution mandate to "provide for the common Defence" of the nation, which includes securing our borders. Im always wary of the slippery slope (which every law seems to be these days) but I don't see what you mean by "what happens when they are done w/ the Mexicans" because this is an immigration law. If you're suggesting that these same police will arrest anyone under the guise of this law then I have to disagree. The legislation is quite clear in what the intent is and who the targets are. Your comparison to the Patriot Act and FISA are weak because those laws (aside from being federal, while this is a state law) are so vague as to be open to endless interpretation. This law is not.

Besides, if you're driving without a license (as this law appears to focus mainly on as reasonable suspicion to question legal status) then you're subject to arrest anyway, regardless of your citizenship. Investigating legal status then becomes part of the booking process.

ionlyknowy
04-26-2010, 03:19 AM
Can I really sue for being wrongfully stopped? If that's the case I could have sued at least three times.

I think what he means is the lawyers claiming that their client was stopped because of their race.

Smart lawyers will know better than to file alot of these law suits. The burden of proof is so high that it makes it next to impossible to bring such a suit. You cant even get discovery of statistics of who the police are stopping without demonstrating a threshold requirement of showing that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not stopped and/or prosecuted. IF you can show this, THEN you can get discovery of the stats of the racial profile of people that are stopped by the police.

Then you have to show that you were singled out because of race and that the officer or his dept targeted hispanics. Government officials have to have acted with discriminatory intent.

This is soooo hard to prevail on that there haven't been many successful cases. And you only get attorneys fees if you win. And a smart lawyer will know that he probably wont win and therefore probably wont get paid.

So I disagree with Nap's argument that there will be a ton of lawsuits from people getting stopped. Unless the people filing the lawsuits are rich and want to pay a lawyer by the hour.

angelatc
04-26-2010, 04:59 AM
So I disagree with Nap's argument that there will be a ton of lawsuits from people getting stopped. Unless the people filing the lawsuits are rich and want to pay a lawyer by the hour.

La Raza and the ACLU will fund them.

bobbyw24
04-26-2010, 05:02 AM
La Raza and the ACLU will fund them.

Look at 42 USC Section 1983. These people will have no problem finding a lawyer to take their cases

angelatc
04-26-2010, 05:18 AM
Since when did people have to check with the government to get permission to work :confused: :rolleyes:

As long as work visas have existed, I assume. But when your employer hires you, he is supposed to verify your identity. Most times they copy your driver's license.

Welcome to the real world.

angelatc
04-26-2010, 05:22 AM
Look at 42 USC Section 1983. These people will have no problem finding a lawyer to take their cases

Yes, how sad is that? Government gone insane.

bobbyw24
04-26-2010, 05:23 AM
Since Reagan signed the 1986 Amnesty Act that was supposed to kill illegal immigration. Ha ha.

All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. This includes citizens and noncitizens. On the form, the employer must examine the employment eligibility and identity document(s) an employee presents to determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the individual and record the document information on the Form I-9. The list of acceptable
documents can be found on the last page of the form.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=31b3ab0a43b5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD

bobbyw24
04-26-2010, 05:24 AM
Yes, how sad is that? Government gone insane.

I know. Liberal lawyers gone wild.

angelatc
04-26-2010, 05:26 AM
I know. Liberal lawyers gone wild.

The state has deep pockets to pick.

Pete_00
04-26-2010, 05:28 AM
No one is invading however. They ARE part of the American Indian culture. THEY were the ones occupied. We are occupying their land.

Huh? Most of them are mestizos not "natives". The real pure blooded natives are treated like trash in Mexico and all of South America.

But once again we see the racial double standard at work. "Race doesnt matter! We are all Humans! We all belong to the same race...the Human race! And blah blah blah" but suddenly, the fact that most of them have a portion of "native" blood becomes important...suddenly race matters...why? Because most of the "other side" of this conflict happen to be white :rolleyes:

And i dont see South Americans caring much for all this "poor native" thing, they just dont give a rats arse...but when it comes to the european gringo in the north...let all this illegals go to Brasil for example, let them all do their "its our land" crap in Brasil, its mostly blacks, italians, portuguese, germans, spaniards right? They dont belong there according to all this anti-white crap...so let the illegals do the same in Brasil! But they wont you know why? Because the Brazilians would f**k them up just like they do to their indians when they start messing with the rights of others, they are not brainwashed.

Either we have ethnocentrism for everyone or no one. If ethnocentrism is reserved for non-european people only than european people have the perfect right to become racists. Nature is a very powerful thing, self-preservation is a very powerful thing.

angelatc
04-26-2010, 05:28 AM
Since Reagan signed the 1986 Amnesty Act that was supposed to kill illegal immigration. Ha ha.

l]

There's a Ted Kennedy quote out there somewhere...promising that it was absolutely a one time shot and they would never do it again.

That's probably part of the divide here. Those of us who are older and wiser have seen this all before.

bobbyw24
04-26-2010, 05:32 AM
There's a Ted Kennedy quote out there somewhere...promising that it was absolutely a one time shot and they would never do it again.

Wait, wait--go back to the 1965 Immigration Act. Here is what Teddy said:

In 1965, during the Senate floor debate over the Immigration Act, Ted Kennedy stated that:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually...Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

http://usadeathwatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/npr-asks-ted-kennedy-why-he-was-so.html

angelatc
04-26-2010, 05:35 AM
Wait, wait--go back to the 1965 Immigration Act. Here is what Teddy said:

In 1965, during the Senate floor debate over the Immigration Act, Ted Kennedy stated that:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually...Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

http://usadeathwatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/npr-asks-ted-kennedy-why-he-was-so.html

How funny. If anybody made that "ethinic mix" comment today, they'd be drummed out of town.

bobbyw24
04-26-2010, 05:41 AM
How funny. If anybody made that "ethinic mix" comment today, they'd be drummed out of town.

Rest of the quote by Teddy:

"Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."

It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

Pete_00
04-26-2010, 05:44 AM
Wait, wait--go back to the 1965 Immigration Act. Here is what Teddy said:

In 1965, during the Senate floor debate over the Immigration Act, Ted Kennedy stated that:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually...Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."

http://usadeathwatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/npr-asks-ted-kennedy-why-he-was-so.html

http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/yuri-bezmenov-interview-soviet-subversion-of-the-free-world-press-1984/

Part 5/8, at 2:45, Bezmenov calls him "narrow-minded egocentrical idiot"

bobbyw24
04-26-2010, 05:48 AM
http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/yuri-bezmenov-interview-soviet-subversion-of-the-free-world-press-1984/

Part 5/8, at 2:45, Bezmenov calls him "narrow-minded egocentrical idiot"

Straight up

angelatc
04-26-2010, 05:53 AM
It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

The thing about the Reagan amnesty was that it probably was necessary because Washington is too slow to react to economic conditions.

Bush just wanted to give the corporations the gift of cheap labor. God forbid they get forced into raising wages.

There is no way to justify amnesty with unemployment approaching 25% in parts of the country.

Matt Collins
04-26-2010, 08:59 AM
As long as work visas have existed, I assume. But when your employer hires you, he is supposed to verify your identity. Most times they copy your driver's license. Yes Congress has the authority to create immigration and naturalization laws I realize that. But why should someone have to check with the government every time they enter into a private contract with someone? :confused: It makes the government way too pervasive for a free society.


And I am not defending or advocating illegal immigration, but I am pointing out that turning the country into a police state is NOT the appropriate way to handle the problem.

angelatc
04-26-2010, 09:07 AM
Yes Congress has the authority to create immigration and naturalization laws I realize that. But why should someone have to check with the government every time they enter into a private contract with someone? :confused: It makes the government way too pervasive for a free society.


And I am not defending or advocating illegal immigration, but I am pointing out that turning the country into a police state is NOT the appropriate way to handle the problem.

Yes, and Bobby cited the Reagan era law that required employers to verify identity and citizenship. It failed miserably.

Sorry, but labor is a commodity. And just like any other commodity, if you flood the market with it, the price will fall to zero.

Nobody is advocating that the police should have the ability to stop people walking down the street and ask them for papers. But in the scenarios where we're already required to produce papers, as in - driving cars, registering kids for school, being detained for illegal activity, getting health care....it's ridiculous to maintain that the only thing they shouldn't be allowed to ask is if you're here legally.

This is much less invasive than making employers alone responsible.

NoHero
04-26-2010, 09:13 AM
Heh. People still think Mexicans are the only reason for unemployment. Illegal drivers licenses will be a problem with this bill, but do not sweat that! The nanny state will take care of it! Senators Graham and Shumer have already proposed the shiny, new biometric IDs for all citizens to work! And sure, most illegals will not be caught with this, but this is just the beginning. We will have to get tougher. Warrantless searches of all homes suspected of immigrant activity! I'm sure the majority would support this too. We are only being tough on crime. All states should implement such laws!

Hmmm.. Life would be so much better without illegals... Dey took our jebs.

angelatc
04-26-2010, 09:30 AM
Hmmm.. Life would be so much better without illegals... Dey took our jebs.

Yeah, somebody who can't think any deeper than that ^^ is going to change my mind back.

What are you - 20 years old? You'd do well to quietly defer to those of us that have actually watched the last 4 administrations systemically destroy the American workforce.

You can't seriously deny that adding 40 million workers added an extreme downward pressure on wages, can you? Or that unemployment would not lessen if there were 40 million less workers in the labor pool?

Corporate America thanks you for your support.

Jamsie 567
04-26-2010, 09:52 AM
If their illegal then we should enforce laws it's about time we challenge the Fed and start opening up these topics. I commend AZ in their efforts and I am not racist I am hispanic! I am a first generation LEGAL immigrant who loves America :)

bobbyw24
04-26-2010, 09:53 AM
Yeah, somebody who can't think any deeper than that ^^ is going to change my mind back.

What are you - 20 years old? You'd do well to quietly defer to those of us that have actually watched the last 4 administrations systemically destroy the American workforce.

You can't seriously deny that adding 40 million workers added an extreme downward pressure on wages, can you? Or that unemployment would not lessen if there were 40 million less workers in the labor pool?

Corporate America thanks you for your support.

I do think that real world experience is helpful here. I know many people tout the idea that we have many young people in this movement, but we also need balance and real world solutions not just libertarian platitudes.

Stary Hickory
04-26-2010, 09:55 AM
Exatctly what in the world is wrong is discriminating against ILLEGAL imigrants? The authorities must discriminate between illegal and legal at some point so that border enforcement can be maintained.

Either you support this bill or you support open borders. I will not support open borders until the Federal Government can no longer rob me. It's always easy to attract the very worse types by promising them in return for politcal support you will be able to jointly rob the rest with a powerful political party.

I am tired of the looting and plundering.

NoHero
04-26-2010, 10:00 AM
I guess you missed NAFTA in all your years of wisdom. The problem is more the exporting of jobs by America via free trade agreements. If we still had a viable manufacturing sector in this country then we could handle the influx, not to mention protect us in crisis or war. This is how Jews, Italians, Poles and so on initially made it in America, by working in textiles and meat packing. Not to mention it would benefit the construction industry, which has seen work undercut by illegal labor, by evening out the market. Legalizing drugs needs to be a main priorty because the consumption in this country fuels the corruption in Mexico. You don't think this is just a police state move to make the biometric ID look like a good idea? Do you not think whites will be harrassed as much as hispanics in Arizona? You obviously never paid attention to the growing police state and the veiled seizures of rights growing year by year.

ARealConservative
04-26-2010, 10:07 AM
Sorry, but labor is a commodity. And just like any other commodity, if you flood the market with it, the price will fall to zero.

Do you honestly believe you, or anyone else would work for $0 an hour if the market was flooded with labor?

fj45lvr
04-26-2010, 10:08 AM
I am tired of the looting and plundering.

the illegal stream is most definitely a "looting and plundering" (one that many employers love because they can make more PROFIT).

What does it take to get a bank loan as far as I.D. and verification of who a person is?? The fact that the authorities can't "check" on status of individuals while private sector can is unconscionable.

Stary Hickory
04-26-2010, 10:09 AM
the illegal stream is most definitely a "looting and plundering" (one that many employers love because they can make more PROFIT).

What does it take to get a bank loan as far as I.D. and verification of who a person is?? The fact that the authorities can't "check" on status of individuals while private sector can is unconscionable.

Yes especially when those very same authorities are charged with enforcing the borders.

Matt Collins
04-26-2010, 11:19 AM
Sorry, but labor is a commodity. And just like any other commodity, if you flood the market with it, the price will fall to zero.I don't disagree with that. But from a pure economics standpoint shouldn't the free market decide the worth of value, not the government?


But in the scenarios where we're already required to produce papers, as in - driving cars, registering kids for school, being detained for illegal activity, getting health care....it's ridiculous to maintain that the only thing they shouldn't be allowed to ask is if you're here legally.

This is much less invasive than making employers alone responsible.
Why condone more big-government? :confused:

The reality is that our government failed us by not keeping the borders secured. Sadly the toothpaste is out of the tube and there is no way to put it back unless we turn the US into a police state (more so than it already is). We should of course eliminate government welfare, entitlements, handouts etc to everyone, and that will help deter many from coming across the border illegally, but as far as those here, unless they get arrested I don't see any way in a free society to know who is here legally and who isn't.

The Patriot
04-26-2010, 11:32 AM
Libertarians are, by and large, as fiercely opposed to ethnic nationalism as the global democrats, but for very different reasons. Libertarians are generally what might be called simplistic and "vulgar" individualists. A typical critique would run as follows: "There is no nation; there are only individuals. The nation is a collectivist and therefore pernicious concept. The concept of 'national self-determination' is fallacious, since only the individual has a 'self.' Since the nation and the State are both collective concepts, both are pernicious and should be combated."

The linguistic complaint may be dismissed quickly. Yes, of course, there is no national "self," we are using "self-determination" as a metaphor, and no one really thinks of a nation as an actual living entity with its own "self."

More seriously, we must not fall into a nihilist trap. While only individuals exist, individuals do not exist as isolated and hermetically sealed atoms. Statists traditionally charge libertarians and individualists with being "atomistic individualists," and the charge, one hopes, has always been incorrect and misconceived. Individuals may be the only reality, but they influence each other, past and present, and all individuals grow up in a common culture and language. (This does not imply that they may not, as adults, rebel and challenge and exchange that culture for another.)

While the State is a pernicious and coercive collectivist concept, the "nation" may be and generally is voluntary. The nation properly refers, not to the State, but to the entire web of culture, values, traditions, religion, and language in which the individuals of a society are raised. It is almost embarrassingly banal to emphasize that point, but apparently many libertarians aggressively overlook the obvious. Let us never forget the great libertarian Randolph Bourne's analysis of the crucial distinction between "the nation" (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and "the State" (the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians), and of his important conclusion that one may be a true patriot of one's nation or country while – and even for that very reason – opposing the State that rules over it.

In addition, the libertarian, especially of the anarcho-capitalist wing, asserts that it makes no difference where the boundaries are, since in a perfect world all institutions and land areas would be private and there would be no national boundaries. Fine, but in the meantime, in the real world, in which language should the government courts hold their proceedings? What should be the language of signs on the government streets? Or the language of the government schools? In the real world, then, national self-determination is a vitally important matter in which libertarians should properly take sides.

Finally, nationalism has its disadvantages for liberty, but also has its strengths, and libertarians should try to help tip it in the latter direction. If we were residents of Yugoslavia, for example, we should be agitating in favor of the right to secede from that swollen and misbegotten State of Croatia and Slovenia (that is, favoring their current nationalist movements), while opposing the desire of the Serb demagogue Slobodan Milosevic to cling to Serb domination over the Albanians in Kosovo or over the Hungarians in the Vojvodina (that is, opposing Great Serbian nationalism). There is, in short national liberation (good) versus national "imperialism" over other peoples (bad). Once we get over simplistic individualism, and this distinction should not be difficult to grasp.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html

The same thing goes for welfare and social services. Of course, ideally, these things wouldn't exist, but we have to address and implement policy in a world where they do exist. and simply put, with the plethora of public services we have, we cannot afford illegal immigration. Illegal Immigrants and their anchor babies cost California 8 billion dollars a year alone. We need to work towards abolishing the welfare state, that is for sure. But we must also end birthright citizenship, welfare for illegals, and have a way of tracking illegals and properly deporting them while we abolish the welfare state. IF we don't, border states will go bankrupt. I do think we should establish some kind of guest worker program to meet the labor demand. But citizenship and social services for tens of millions of destitute third worlders is absurd.

And BTW, I am strongly against National ID. But this bill has been blatantly misrepresented by establishment Liberals and Neo Conservatives(who all of a sudden care about civil liberties). This bill doesn't permit a cop to demand citizenship papers from a hispanic walking down the street. The bill clearly states, and I will post it, "B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT"

Lawful contact must be made, and there must be reasonable suspicion that suspected legal infraction committed by the individual relates to activities engaged in by illegal immigrants. So for example, if you see 100 mexicans loitering outside of home depot looking for work, it is a reasonable suspicion that they are illegals as this is what illegals do.

MelissaWV
04-26-2010, 11:37 AM
...

Lawful contact must be made, and there must be reasonable suspicion that suspected legal infraction committed by the individual relates to activities engaged in by illegal immigrants. So for example, if you see 100 mexicans loitering outside of home depot looking for work, it is a reasonable suspicion that they are illegals as this is what illegals do.

Again, being here illegally is a removable offense. This means the officer can "suspect" you are here illegally and "Papers, please" you. I hope no one brown is simply waiting at the bus stop (there are many outside Home Depots), because they'd be snagged. Those who have valid reasons not to speak English, or who don't have IDs, would be detained until they could be "verified."

This is just going to up the traffic in fake IDs anyhow, at which point the Government will save us. They're already forcing me to get another copy of my birth certificate to "prevent fraud," with new "safety features."

The Constitution doesn't say "...to be secure (except in the Home Depot parking lot)..."

The Patriot
04-26-2010, 11:53 AM
Again, being here illegally is a removable offense. This means the officer can "suspect" you are here illegally and "Papers, please" you. I hope no one brown is simply waiting at the bus stop (there are many outside Home Depots), because they'd be snagged. Those who have valid reasons not to speak English, or who don't have IDs, would be detained until they could be "verified."

This is just going to up the traffic in fake IDs anyhow, at which point the Government will save us. They're already forcing me to get another copy of my birth certificate to "prevent fraud," with new "safety features."

The Constitution doesn't say "...to be secure (except in the Home Depot parking lot)..."

Melissa, you are ignoring lawful contact, a legal infraction has to be committed where reasonable suspicion exists. A police officer cannot just come up and pick up random Hispanics off the street as it is not reasonable to assume a Hispanic walking down the street committed a legal infraction. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to be secure persons, houses, papers, and effects against ALL searches and seizures, but rather against unreasonable ones. You aren't seriously suggesting a police officer can only card and detain someone if they see the criminal act itself are you? :rolleyes:

It is totally reasonable to assume a group os Hispanics congregating around a known day labor site for work are illegals as this is what illegals do.

MelissaWV
04-26-2010, 11:58 AM
Melissa, you are ignoring lawful contact, a legal infraction has to be committed where reasonable suspicion exists. A police officer cannot just come up and pick up random Hispanics off the street as it is not reasonable to assume a Hispanic walking down the street committed a legal infraction. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to be secure persons, houses, papers, and effects against ALL searches and seizures, but rather against unreasonable ones. You aren't seriously suggesting a police officer can only card and detain someone if they see the criminal act itself are you? :rolleyes:

It is totally reasonable to assume a group os Hispanics congregating around a known day labor site for work are illegals as this is what illegals do.

The suspected legal infraction is merely "being an illegal." A law enforcement officer could easily make a case that some Hispanic out in front of a day labor site (even if they're just walking home from school) is reasonably suspected of being a day laborer. That seems entirely unreasonable to me, and is within the scope of what is discussed in the bill.

You are arguing that the Hispanics in front of Home Depot are "reasonably suspicious." Would you argue the same if there were a bunch of Asians in front of Home Depot? Africans? What does an illegal look like? That last one is what needs to be defined, and it can be used to the Government's advantage. Frankly, everyone "looks illegal" and can be suspected of such. You will probably find a lot of "ends justify the means" cases out of this bill.

There are already some troubling cases, but it just seems like something set up to be "wrong" so the Federal Government can "fix" it.

The Patriot
04-26-2010, 12:28 PM
The suspected legal infraction is merely "being an illegal." A law enforcement officer could easily make a case that some Hispanic out in front of a day labor site (even if they're just walking home from school) is reasonably suspected of being a day laborer. That seems entirely unreasonable to me, and is within the scope of what is discussed in the bill.

You are arguing that the Hispanics in front of Home Depot are "reasonably suspicious." Would you argue the same if there were a bunch of Asians in front of Home Depot? Africans? What does an illegal look like? That last one is what needs to be defined, and it can be used to the Government's advantage. Frankly, everyone "looks illegal" and can be suspected of such. You will probably find a lot of "ends justify the means" cases out of this bill.

There are already some troubling cases, but it just seems like something set up to be "wrong" so the Federal Government can "fix" it.

Well, you are being unreasonable, and naive. If we had a large percentage of illegal immigrants that were black or Asian, than it would be totally reasonable, but that isn't the case. The illegals overwhelmingly are hispanic, that is a fact. And these hispanic illegal immigrants congregate at day labor sites and loiter. You are dealing with a what if scenario, not the scenario at hand. They are not targeting people because they are hispanic, they are targeting people who engage in illegal activity who overwhelmingly happen to be Hispanic. I just wish liberals would get as butt hurt over National ID for law abiding citizens(who are majority white) who committed no crime as they did over deporting illegal immigrants. I think their motivation is far more race based than it is grounded in the Constitution or in Civil Liberties. The Democrats want to import the third world as a voting block to guarantee them future electoral success.

MelissaWV
04-26-2010, 01:00 PM
Well, you are being unreasonable, and naive. If we had a large percentage of illegal immigrants that were black or Asian, than it would be totally reasonable, but that isn't the case. The illegals overwhelmingly are hispanic, that is a fact. And these hispanic illegal immigrants congregate at day labor sites and loiter. You are dealing with a what if scenario, not the scenario at hand. They are not targeting people because they are hispanic, they are targeting people who engage in illegal activity who overwhelmingly happen to be Hispanic. I just wish liberals would get as butt hurt over National ID for law abiding citizens(who are majority white) who committed no crime as they did over deporting illegal immigrants. I think their motivation is far more race based than it is grounded in the Constitution or in Civil Liberties. The Democrats want to import the third world as a voting block to guarantee them future electoral success.

I am absolutely legal. I would fully expect to be "questioned" in Arizona. The fact of the matter is you are fine with a few innocents being snagged as long as they LOOK like they are doing something illegal. If they are loitering, then the business certainly has a right to get the bums kicked off the property, and since there was an actual crime I have no problem with the identification request.

Crime first, then identification, unless you are applying for employment or welfare or something else where citizenship is a requirement. I don't see that as unreasonable. I see it as fair, and there are certainly a few non-Mexican illegals. Don't you want those picked up, too?

Lord Xar
04-26-2010, 01:06 PM
The Democrats want to import the third world as a voting block to guarantee them future electoral success.

BINGO, which will assure us a more porous border, bigger government, more welfare, more government intrustion/regulation..... all seemingly, what these libertarians here want.

One would think, based on outcome, these libertarians really just want what big government leftists want.

John Taylor
04-26-2010, 01:11 PM
We cannot fix the illegal immigration problem by turning the US into a police state.

No, but the point of this law is to put pressure on the federal government to actually do what they could have done easily in any of the last 50 years... secure the damned border.

John Taylor
04-26-2010, 01:13 PM
I am absolutely legal. I would fully expect to be "questioned" in Arizona. The fact of the matter is you are fine with a few innocents being snagged as long as they LOOK like they are doing something illegal. If they are loitering, then the business certainly has a right to get the bums kicked off the property, and since there was an actual crime I have no problem with the identification request.

Crime first, then identification, unless you are applying for employment or welfare or something else where citizenship is a requirement. I don't see that as unreasonable. I see it as fair, and there are certainly a few non-Mexican illegals. Don't you want those picked up, too?

I want every single, solitary illegal booted out of the country. Put up a triple fence with a road patrol along it and teams of trackers... then all you have to do is let ICE do its job, and deport all the law breakers back to Mexico. Then we have to abolish the birthright citizenship. Once we clear out the 20 million or so here, we can discuss a more easily accessible green card programe for visiting-workers.

The Patriot
04-26-2010, 01:14 PM
I am absolutely legal. I would fully expect to be "questioned" in Arizona. The fact of the matter is you are fine with a few innocents being snagged as long as they LOOK like they are doing something illegal. If they are loitering, then the business certainly has a right to get the bums kicked off the property, and since there was an actual crime I have no problem with the identification request.

Crime first, then identification, unless you are applying for employment or welfare or something else where citizenship is a requirement. I don't see that as unreasonable. I see it as fair, and there are certainly a few non-Mexican illegals. Don't you want those picked up, too?

Well, Melissa, if you are congregating around a day labor site with another 10 or 20 latinos, than too bad. It is totally reasonable, and does not violate your Constitutional Rights. I mean, you outwardly proclaim the document, but you ignore the very precise wording and act as though police have no lawful authority to make searches.

Well, as of right now, we don't live in an An-Cap society, we have borders, government, and a welfare state, and massive third world illegal immigration drastically affects all of these things.

That is absurd, so what you are saying is that a cop literally has to see the crime to ask for identification, or to detain or arrest?

If illegal Asians start congregating around home depots loitering, than sure. Though I don't know of Asians who do so.

John Taylor
04-26-2010, 01:18 PM
Well, Melissa, if you are congregating around a day labor site with another 10 or 20 latinos, than too bad. It is totally reasonable, and does not violate your Constitutional Rights. I mean, you outwardly proclaim the document, but you ignore the very precise wording and act as though police have no lawful authority to make searches.

Well, as of right now, we don't live in an An-Cap society, we have borders, government, and a welfare state, and massive third world illegal immigration drastically affects all of these things.

That is absurd, so what you are saying is that a cop literally has to see the crime to ask for identification, or to detain or arrest?

If illegal Asians start congregating around home depots loitering, than sure. Though I don't know of Asians who do so.

+1776.

We have 20-30,000,000 illegals in this country, and they have a trmendous number of children, furthering the decline of our fiscal stability, and further empowering the left politically and demographically.

AuH20
04-26-2010, 01:20 PM
+1776.

We have 20-30,000,000 illegals in this country, and they have a trmendous number of children, furthering the decline of our fiscal stability, and further empowering the left politically and demographically.

America is dead unless a good portion of those illegals discover the Constitution. The problem is that with their excessive tribalism and unique cultural background, they view the Constitution as nothing more than a Gringo document. They are the perfect slave class for the NWO.

Stary Hickory
04-26-2010, 02:31 PM
America is dead unless a good portion of those illegals discover the Constitution. The problem is that with their excessive tribalism and unique cultural background, they view the Constitution as nothing more than a Gringo document. They are the perfect slave class for the NWO.

This is what the left thinks. It's the reason why we are supposed to have a limited government. So that no matter who is voting rights are protected.

dannno
04-26-2010, 02:51 PM
And Danno, I don't believe it's unconstitutional. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police can ask us for ID in certain situations. This just expands the list of ID they're allowed to ask for.

Ya, if it appears you are doing something illegal they can question you... having a job and brown skin is not illegal. "Expanding the list" is the definition of throwing the Constitution out the window. That should be your avatar. A picture of you throwing the Constitution out of the window.





They are here illegally. There's nothing to debate.

It isn't the rights of illegals we are violating, it is the rights of CITIZENS we are violating by asking citizens to show their ID or BC because they happen to be working!

JeNNiF00F00
04-26-2010, 03:07 PM
+1776.

We have 20-30,000,000 illegals in this country, and they have a trmendous number of children, furthering the decline of our fiscal stability, and further empowering the left politically and demographically.

Yes but fascism is a Left concept. National Socialism is still socialism. Totalitarianism is still Left. Statism is still left. The problem lies within the govt which works with the banks. The banksters want large govt because our govt supports the banksters. They only give you illusions of nationality in order to keep you working hard for them to become more rich and powerful. They have used excuses of 911 and Terrorism for the Patriot Act and FISA bills, they have used illegal Mexicans as an excuse for this new papers thing. Remember Nazi Germany wanted a NWO also.

MelissaWV
04-26-2010, 03:25 PM
So if you are Hispanic you have to have your documents with you at all times, because you are guilty until proven innocent... by association. Hanging out in front of Home Depot is only illegal for people perceived to be of a given race. If they are there by chance, it doesn't matter; it's for the greater good.

If you do not mind handing over your papers based on where you happen to be standing, even if you aren't guilty of a crime, I'm wondering why you're on these forums. The problem was clearly spelled out, and this provision doesn't do anything except paint a certain group of people differently than everyone else merely based on where they're standing and what LE perceives them to be potentially doing.

No, the police officer doesn't have to witness the crime, though "suspicion of illegality" is questionable to me. As you said, this could be based on where people are happening to congregate. They don't have to witness the loitering to cart all the loiterers in, and they could check ID because the business has posted "no loitering" signs and called the cops. Of course, a lot of day laborers hang out around bus stops. How will people discern between the illegals and legals there? People 15 and under are not likely to have their papers on them. I suppose they will need a special ID in case they are swept up by a raid. I'm not the only one who considers that a potential problem, and also the fact that some elderly persons will not have a driver's license. They will also need to go get an ID I guess.

Speaking Spanish does not provide any indication that someone cannot also speak English. That is an utterly ridiculous criteria, and some police officer whose English is probably worse than mine pulling me aside on "suspicion" because I'm bilingual is also pretty ridiculous. Even if one does not speak English, there are means of being born a citizen which do not carry the necessity of learning English.

I have already talked about methods that could be used at various points throughout the employment, welfare/benefits, and criminal process that would catch most of the illegals (regardless of origin).

What do you think about the provisions of the bill that require employers to use e-verify now? I think that's far more of a hidden issue than the potential to be "stopped for being in the wrong place." The stoppage won't survive its first challenges, though at that point it will become necessary to swap to identification and birth certificates with "special security features."

devil21
04-26-2010, 03:37 PM
Does anybody know offhand if AZ is a "show ID upon request" state? Some states do require anyone to show ID when asked by LEOs, illegals included.

dannno
04-26-2010, 03:43 PM
Does anybody know offhand if AZ is a "show ID upon request" state? Some states do require anyone to show ID when asked by LEOs, illegals included.

I'm pretty sure ANY state it would require you to be lawfully detained or breaking the law or reasonable suspicion of breaking a law to ask for ID..

If not it violates the 4th amendment.

fedup100
04-26-2010, 03:45 PM
The Arizona Law is the exact same law as the US immigration law that is not enforced.

devil21
04-26-2010, 03:58 PM
I'm pretty sure ANY state it would require you to be lawfully detained or breaking the law or reasonable suspicion of breaking a law to ask for ID..

If not it violates the 4th amendment.

Well yeah that's kind of the point since we're talking about someone illegally in the country, which is against the law.

http://www.knowmyrights.org/faq/4th-amendment/when-do-i-have-to-show-id.html



From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop and identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI

Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity. Rather than asking the officer if he/she has reasonable suspicion, test it yourself by asking if you're free to go.

Arizona is not on the list. Just wanted to clarify since I think that's an important part of the issue since being in the US illegally could be construed as criminal activity.

MelissaWV
04-26-2010, 03:59 PM
Arizona is not on the list. Just wanted to clarify since I think that's an important part of the issue since being in the US illegally could be construed as criminal activity.

It IS criminal activity, and if you're suspected of it, you can be searched and asked for paperwork. The question is upon what basis is someone allowed to "suspect"? A lot of the answers on the forum are disheartening.

dannno
04-26-2010, 04:21 PM
Well yeah that's kind of the point since we're talking about someone illegally in the country, which is against the law.


We are NOT talking about someone here illegally, we are talking about the rights of everybody.

So HOW do you determine that somebody is an illegal and MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW MANY LEGAL citizens rights are you willing to throw out the window to accomplish this??

Oh, and Bama is not a troll.

John Taylor
04-26-2010, 04:37 PM
We are NOT talking about someone here illegally, we are talking about the rights of everybody.

So HOW do you determine that somebody is an illegal and MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW MANY LEGAL citizens rights are you willing to throw out the window to accomplish this??

Oh, and Bama is not a troll.

We are not talking about taking anyone's rights away: we are talking about deporting people who are breaking the law.

The evidentiary standard remains. Reasonable suspicion remains, just as it did before this state law, a state version, almost verbatum, of an existing federal law, was enacted.

John Taylor
04-26-2010, 04:40 PM
I'm pretty sure ANY state it would require you to be lawfully detained or breaking the law or reasonable suspicion of breaking a law to ask for ID..

If not it violates the 4th amendment.

Your depiction of the 4th Amendmentis erroneous.

John Taylor
04-26-2010, 04:41 PM
I'm pretty sure ANY state it would require you to be lawfully detained or breaking the law or reasonable suspicion of breaking a law to ask for ID..

If not it violates the 4th amendment.

We have 20-30 million people in this country who are criminals, who are breaking the law, who have broken the law... possibly 10% of the population is here illegally. We must do something about it, they must be deported. The very survival of our republic depends on it.

fj45lvr
04-26-2010, 04:49 PM
Is it really that hard to seal our borders?

Just doing that job would do away with all these complaints that "identifying" illegals is "intrusive" to legals.

I don't think it takes that much effort to seal the borders compared to what the gov. spends on illegals.....we'd be money ahead to seal the border.

If the border is sealed the 20 million aprox. illegals currently here would dwindle if they ever wanted to leave to go home for funerals, family, etc.

silus
04-26-2010, 05:35 PM
We have 20-30 million people in this country who are criminals, who are breaking the law, who have broken the law... possibly 10% of the population is here illegally. We must do something about it, they must be deported. The very survival of our republic depends on it.
I can understand how issues are related and all, but your priorities are totally jacked up. Our survival depends on the issues Ron Paul most emphasizes. Thats why i'm here.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-26-2010, 05:46 PM
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-libertarian-problem-cont/

Tend yer biscuits.
04-26-2010, 05:48 PM
Also:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-libertarian-problem/


As much as many would like to believe the growing libertarian movement is based on an outpouring of intellectual curiosity about the Austrian business cycle, it has a lot more to do with buzzwords like "liberty" and an irrational worship of the individual. In this way, it has a lot more in common with the "hope" and "change" movement on the left than it does with anything written by Schmitt or de Maistre or Jünger or Chesterton or Kirk or Evola or Buchanan.

dannno
04-26-2010, 05:53 PM
We are not talking about taking anyone's rights away: we are talking about deporting people who are breaking the law.

The evidentiary standard remains. Reasonable suspicion remains, just as it did before this state law, a state version, almost verbatum, of an existing federal law, was enacted.

Crossing the border is breaking the law, if you want law enforcement to arrest illegal aliens for crossing the border then you arrest them when they cross the border, because that is illegal. Once they are here, there is no way of knowing if they are legal or illegal. You can argue that they aren't protected under our rights, and even if I conceded that point to you how do you know if they are illegal until you violate said rights? You can't say somebody working in a strawberry field is suspicious, that is a legal activity. You are going to end up violating the rights of all the citizens who pick strawberries. You can't say that somebody with brown skin is suspicious, that is a legal activity. You are going to violate all the rights of those with brown skin.

This is such a simple concept, you can't search somebody without probable cause.. the 'probable causes' you are citing are not illegal, they are not probably causes. There is nothing illegal about working in a strawberry field or having brown skin.

dannno
04-26-2010, 05:55 PM
Also:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-libertarian-problem/

What a statist piece of shit. At least that line, it doesn't make any sense.

Austrian Economics is based on individual liberty.

dannno
04-26-2010, 05:59 PM
Your depiction of the 4th Amendmentis erroneous.

Your depiction is dangerous and bordering on fascist.

rp4prez
04-26-2010, 06:06 PM
Not to my surprise I hear nothing in the media about why they come here. Free healthcare, free education, better paying jobs, plenty of jobs that pay below minimum waged, and the list goes on and on. I should have called into the radio station instead of walking into the office to start work.

bruce leeroy
04-26-2010, 06:29 PM
Not to my surprise I hear nothing in the media about why they come here. Free healthcare, free education, better paying jobs, plenty of jobs that pay below minimum waged, and the list goes on and on. I should have called into the radio station instead of walking into the office to start work.


one other related point I would like to bring up is that unlike the immigrants of yesteryear, mexican immigrants in places like here in the lone star state are NOT isolated and are a much larger part of the demographic than other immigrant groups from the irish in hells kitchen to the chinese railroad workers. Most big cities here in Texas are at least 25%-30% mexican, and from san anto, DFW, H-town its less than a day's drive to their homeland, not weeks by ship like it was for the ellis island crowd. This is a big factor in the language thing, and the general assimilation thing.

devil21
04-27-2010, 01:27 PM
We are NOT talking about someone here illegally, we are talking about the rights of everybody.

So HOW do you determine that somebody is an illegal and MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW MANY LEGAL citizens rights are you willing to throw out the window to accomplish this??

Oh, and Bama is not a troll.

I don't know dude. It's a shitty situation with no real solution that will make everyone happy. Someone is going to get pissed off and have their rights violated no matter how the issue is approached. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Im going to take Bama off my troll list btw.

RCA
04-27-2010, 02:53 PM
Let's force employers to be servants of the Federal Government!

The government already forces Peter Schiff to be an unpaid agent to the IRS. Why not extend this to others?

Care to elaborate?

low preference guy
04-27-2010, 03:00 PM
Care to elaborate?

Listen to the part about the Patriot Act

YouTube - Health Care, The "Patriot" Act & the U.S. Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0KTFHNU7Ag)