PDA

View Full Version : Analysis of Arizona Immigration Bill




ssforronpaul
04-27-2010, 10:43 AM
I come to this forum to see more informed debate than falling in line with the mainstream media's spin. Especially after what was done to us in the 2007-2008 presidential primary. I waited to comment on this until I was able to read the law myself, because I have almost zero trust in what the media spews. I feel so sorry for those who did not previously have internet access, as they were limited in their ability to see the truth, instead of the truth through the medias' eyes.

Here is the Arizona bill that was signed into law:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Here is an article discussing portions of the bill including whether a challenge will be successful:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

Some excerpts below:

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."


ssforronpaul

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 10:52 AM
I come to this forum to see more informed debate than falling in line with the mainstream media's spin. Especially after what was done to us in the 2007-2008 presidential primary. I waited to comment on this until I was able to read the law myself, because I have almost zero trust in what the media spews. I feel so sorry for those who did not previously have internet access, as they were limited in their ability to see the truth, instead of the truth through the medias' eyes.

Here is the Arizona bill that was signed into law:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Here is an article discussing portions of the bill including whether a challenge will be successful:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

Some excerpts below:

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."


ssforronpaul

SB1070 states:

A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:

1. Present on any public or private land in this state.

2. In violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

B. In the enforcement of this section, the final determination of an alien's immigration status shall be determined by either:

1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.

2. A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

C. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.

D. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:

1. At least five hundred dollars for a first violation.

2. Twice the amount specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection if the person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.

E. A court shall collect the assessments prescribed in subsection D of this section and remit the assessments to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation. Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

F. This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.

G. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that a violation of this section is:

1. A class 3 felony if the person violates this section while in possession of any of the following:

(a) A dangerous drug as defined in section 13-3401.

(b) Precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of section 13-3404.01.

(c) A deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, as defined in section 13-105.

(d) Property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in section 13-2308.01.

2. A class 4 felony if the person either:

(a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section.

(b) Within sixty months before the violation, has been removed from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229c. END_STATUTE

8 United States Code section 1304(e) states:

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties 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) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

8 United States Code section 1306(a) states:

(a) Willful failure to register
Any alien required to apply for registration and to be
fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses
to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or
legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien
who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the
registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

FrankRep
04-27-2010, 10:54 AM
SENATE BILL 1070
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf


A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:


1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.


I don't see a problem here.

bossman068410
04-27-2010, 10:59 AM
YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc)

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 11:03 AM
YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc)

I see absolutely nothing in this video contradicting the premise that the purpose of this law is to get rid of the illegals here.

dannno
04-27-2010, 11:06 AM
RealID coming soon!

Or else expect to be deported.

FrankRep
04-27-2010, 11:09 AM
RealID coming soon!

Or else expect to be deported.

Here's the law.

Where does it talk about the Real ID?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

lester1/2jr
04-27-2010, 11:10 AM
I wonder if we are going to be able to debate this issue around here or is everyone going to freak out and have heart attacks. could really go either way

angelatc
04-27-2010, 11:14 AM
I wonder if we are going to be able to debate this issue around here or is everyone going to freak out and have heart attacks. could really go either way

Well, I will admit that the open borders crowd does have a point with their slippery-slope arguments. I think we can all cite examples of that. It's also pretty pointless to debate what's going to happen, IMHO.

But somebody had to do something. Even if it isn't perfect, this is a good start.

dannno
04-27-2010, 11:15 AM
Here's the law.

Where does it talk about the Real ID?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Um, in the previous post it says "valid AZ Driver's license" which one day will be RealID compliant if not already ;)

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 11:17 AM
Well, I will admit that the open borders crowd does have a point with their slippery-slope arguments. I think we can all cite examples of that. It's also pretty pointless to debate what's going to happen, IMHO.

But somebody had to do something. Even if it isn't perfect, this is a good start.

The law's been on the books for 50 years.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 11:19 AM
Um, in the previous post it says "valid AZ Driver's license" which one day will be RealID compliant if not already ;)

Mother of God.

Look. we have to secure the borders, and deport the millions of illegals, or we're not going to have a country left... These illegals back candidates who will bring us far more than a "real-ID", they'll bring us Hugo fucking Chavez.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 11:20 AM
The law's been on the books for 50 years.

Yes, but not really enforced. As far as I know, the local police have never had standing orders to verify citizenship or to act on the knowledge that a person was here illegally.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 11:21 AM
Yes, but not really enforced. As far as I know, the local police have never had standing orders to verify citizenship or to act on the knowledge that a person was here illegally.

Some have, like the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Joe. Now, Arizona has just expanded these common-sense solutions to the entire state.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 11:31 AM
Some have, like the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Joe. Now, Arizona has just expanded these common-sense solutions to the entire state.

I've supported the law since I first heard about it. Has there always been a penaltyof fjail time for immigration violations?

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 11:34 AM
I've supported the law since I first heard about it. Has there always been a penaltyof fjail time for immigration violations?

I don't believe so.

I do know that illegals have virtually no respect for the rule of law, for the police, for the courts, or for our society. They are threats to our society, and to the restoration of limited, constitutional government, and they must be deported, the sooner the better.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 12:16 PM
Sec. 6. Section 13-3883, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
40 13-3883. Arrest by officer without warrant
41 A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, MAY arrest a person if he
42 THE OFFICER has probable cause to believe:
43 1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the
44 person to be arrested has committed the felony.
1 2. A misdemeanor has been committed in his THE OFFICER'S presence and
2 probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the
3 offense.
4 3. The person to be arrested has been involved in a traffic accident
5 and violated any criminal section of title 28, and that such violation
6 occurred prior to or immediately following such traffic accident.
7 4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable
8 cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense. A
9 person arrested under this paragraph is eligible for release under section
10 13-3903.
11 5. THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT
12 MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

The phrase "lawful contact" is not found here, and does not appear to be the exclusive circumstance under which one can be stopped. You can still be arrested, without warrant, for having probable cause to believe you have committed a removable offense. The most popular removable offense is simply being here illegally.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:23 PM
The phrase "lawful contact" is not found here, and does not appear to be the exclusive circumstance under which one can be stopped. You can still be arrested, without warrant, for having probable cause to believe you have committed a removable offense. The most popular removable offense is simply being here illegally.

SO what, there's no problem arresting someone if there is legal ground to deport them.

Illegal imigrants are criminals. They may be petty criminals, but they are criminals nevertheless.

You guys sit far away, cheering while watching the crazy open-border's La Raza guys attack police officers, but those of us who are on the ground understand what is happening here. Our society is under a deliberate demographic assault with the intention of diluting and removing as a vital political force, the classical liberal tendencies and predispositions of a large group of Americans. There are coyotes murdering little kids on I17, and local law enforcement can't do anything about it. Van Buren Blvd is flooded with thousands of illegals, and local law enforcement can't do anything about it.

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:25 PM
SO what, there's no problem arresting someone if there is legal ground to deport them.

Illegal imigrants are criminals. They may be petty criminals, but they are criminals nevertheless.

You guys sit far away, cheering while watching the crazy open-border's La Raza guys attack police officers, but those of us who are on the ground understand what is happening here. Our society is under a deliberate demographic assault with the intention of diluting and removing as a vital political force, the classical liberal tendencies and predispositions of a large group of Americans. There are coyotes murdering little kids on I17, and local law enforcement can't do anything about it. Van Buren Blvd is flooded with thousands of illegals, and local law enforcement can't do anything about it.

Ok, this is like the 28th time I've had to explain to you that legal citizens are not in fact criminals and should not have their rights violated and this bill will do that.

I will literally say this 100 times if that is what it takes to show people on this forum how dense you are.

Keep it coming.. tell me ALL about how all these people who are going to have their rights violated are illegal aliens, it just makes you look more ignorant every time you say it.

Who else wants to say that these are illegal aliens who will have their rights violated and continue to ignore the fact that we are talking about legal citizens having their rights violated?? Come on, anybody?

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:28 PM
I DARE you.

fedup100
04-27-2010, 12:28 PM
For those who don't like the Arizona bill, lets replace it with this one!!


Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home
Quote

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home
by J. Michael Waller
05/08/2006


Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;


foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)


Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org.

[link to www.humanevents.com]

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 12:28 PM
SO what, there's no problem arresting someone if there is legal ground to deport them.

Illegal imigrants are criminals. They may be petty criminals, but they are criminals nevertheless.

You guys sit far away, cheering while watching the crazy open-border's La Raza guys attack police officers, but those of us who are on the ground understand what is happening here. Our society is under a deliberate demographic assault with the intention of diluting and removing as a vital political force, the classical liberal tendencies and predispositions of a large group of Americans. There are coyotes murdering little kids on I17, and local law enforcement can't do anything about it. Van Buren Blvd is flooded with thousands of illegals, and local law enforcement can't do anything about it.

I will never get why some of you don't see this as chasing your tails.

The illegals are criminals. There's reason to suspect they're illegals, which means there's reason to ask them to prove they are not illegals. If they are not actually illegals...? I suspect the person is an illegal because...? A person is suspected of being an illegal and must demonstrate their innocence at the drop of a hat because...?

So far I've heard "It's for the greater good," "There's no better way," and now "Because they're criminals!"

They need to be deported because they're criminals because they need to be deported because they're criminals and I suspect that because...? This is very different from something like suspicion of DUI, where someone is weaving around and creating a danger. This smells way more like how people accepted all the glorious checkpoints because it's "for the greater good," too.

I do know what I'm doing next time I travel, though :p I'm putting a little Mexican flag decal on Abe's rear windshield ;)

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:29 PM
For those who don't like the Arizona bill, lets replace it with this one!!


Ironically you seem to be advocating a similar flavor of fascism. Care to justify?

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:30 PM
Ok, this is like the 28th time I've had to explain to you that legal citizens are not in fact criminals and should not have their rights violated and this bill will do that.

I will literally say this 100 times if that is what it takes to show people on this forum how dense you are.

Keep it coming.. tell me ALL about how all these people who are going to have their rights violated are illegal aliens, it just makes you look more ignorant every time you say it.

And for about the hundredth time I've had to explain to you that legal citizen's rights are not threatened or infringed by this enforcement of existing federal law. This law doesn't violate illegal immigrant's rights, it enables law enforcement to detect illegals, and enables them to be separated from the law abiding population.

I'm going to continue to expose you for who you are, a racist open-borders advocate of a police state. That is all that will come as aresult of your proposed policies. I don't mind saying it a hundred thousand times to demonstrate to the readers precisely how treacherous your message is.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 12:30 PM
The law's been on the books for 50 years.

And you can keep posting that everyplace, and I will keep wondering how they knew about e-verify 50 years ago.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:31 PM
I will never get why some of you don't see this as chasing your tails.

The illegals are criminals. There's reason to suspect they're illegals, which means there's reason to ask them to prove they are not illegals. If they are not actually illegals...? I suspect the person is an illegal because...? A person is suspected of being an illegal and must demonstrate their innocence at the drop of a hat because...?

So far I've heard "It's for the greater good," "There's no better way," and now "Because they're criminals!"

They need to be deported because they're criminals because they need to be deported because they're criminals and I suspect that because...? This is very different from something like suspicion of DUI, where someone is weaving around and creating a danger. This smells way more like how people accepted all the glorious checkpoints because it's "for the greater good," too.

I do know what I'm doing next time I travel, though :p I'm putting a little Mexican flag decal on Abe's rear windshield ;)

Fuck you. Go live in Venezuala.

Let's start at the very beginning.

People have a right to their lives. As a result of this right, they have the right to the fruits of their labot, their property. People band together to collectively defend their individual right to self-defense, and they call this defensive organization, government.

Government's duty then, is not to protect people outside of the individuals composing it, but is rather to protect the rights of the members of the defensive organization.

This is why one of the primary duties of government is to secure and defend the borders.

This is why a federal law was passed requiring all immigrants to be able to produce their documentation of legal status upon demand. This law, the one on the books for 50 years, is the one the state of AZ has determined it will enforce.

There is no violation of anyone's rights here, and certainly not the lawbreaking illegals.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:32 PM
And you can keep posting that everyplace, and I will keep wondering how they knew about e-verify 50 years ago.

My comment wasn't refering to EVerify, it was relating to the pre-existing federal law which the AZ law will be enforcing.

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:34 PM
And for about the hundredth time I've had to explain to you that legal citizen's rights are not threatened or infringed by this enforcement of existing federal law.

Completely disagree, heard of the Patriot Act? There is plenty of existing Federal Law that is unconstitutional.




This law doesn't violate illegal immigrant's rights,

They have rights? I'm not even considering their rights here, I have no problem pretending that they don't have ANY rights. I am talking about American Citizens who get stopped and law enforcement uses the excuse that they thought they might be illegals in order to perform illegal searches. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration. This has to do with the fourth amendment.




it enables law enforcement to detect illegals, and enables them to be separated from the law abiding population.

I'm going to continue to expose you for who you are, a racist open-borders advocate of a police state. That is all that will come as aresult of your proposed policies. I don't mind saying it a hundred thousand times to demonstrate to the readers precisely how treacherous your message is.

No, YOU are the one advocating a police state and throwing the Constitution out the window. You have zero understanding of the fourth amendment and you sound like a complete fool to most people here who DO understand the fourth amendment.

constituent
04-27-2010, 12:35 PM
Fuck you. Go live in Venezuala.

Guess that means you win. ;)

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:36 PM
Fuck you. Go live in Venezuala.

I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around the reasons for the fourth amendment. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves at what is going on. It is amazing that somebody who is saying to go move to another country is advocating abolishment of the fourth amendment. It's ironic, and very, very sad.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:38 PM
I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around the reasons for the fourth amendment. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves at what is going on. It is amazing that somebody who is saying to go move to another country is advocating abolishment of the fourth amendment. It's ironic, and very, very sad.

The 4th amendment isn't violated when a police officer asks an individual for proof of identification.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:40 PM
Completely disagree, heard of the Patriot Act? There is plenty of existing Federal Law that is unconstitutional.




They have rights? I'm not even considering their rights here, I have no problem pretending that they don't have ANY rights. I am talking about American Citizens who get stopped and law enforcement uses the excuse that they thought they might be illegals in order to perform illegal searches. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration. This has to do with the fourth amendment.




No, YOU are the one advocating a police state and throwing the Constitution out the window. You have zero understanding of the fourth amendment and you sound like a complete fool to most people here who DO understand the fourth amendment.

WRONG. YOU are the one advocating an immigration system which will inevitably lead to the creation of a banana republic here in the United States. You have ZERO understanding of the law, of this proposed law, of the U.S. Constitution and its original construction, and you fail to distinguish a perfectly reasonable questioning of someone stopped for breaking the law with Gestapo tactics.

You fail miserably on all counts.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 12:42 PM
Its sad to see people in our very own movement that do not "Get It". I guess John Taylor is advocating the National ID card like a few others around here?

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:43 PM
I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around the reasons for the fourth amendment. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves at what is going on. It is amazing that somebody who is saying to go move to another country is advocating abolishment of the fourth amendment. It's ironic, and very, very sad.

Who on here has advocating abolishing the 4th Amendment? I haven't seen a solitary soul.

The 4th Amendment only proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures. It is perfectly reasonable to ask people to identify themselves to police officers, especially when there is an epidemic of millions upon millions of foreign criminals roaming within the country, just waiting until they can vote for some politician who shares your viewpoint.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 12:44 PM
The 4th amendment isn't violated when a police officer asks an individual for proof of identification.

Under the 4th amendment a requirement to provide anything other than a name for purposes of identification is a unreasonable.

AuH20
04-27-2010, 12:44 PM
WRONG. YOU are the one advocating an immigration system which will inevitably lead to the creation of a banana republic here in the United States. You have ZERO understanding of the law, of this proposed law, of the U.S. Constitution and its original construction, and you fail to distinguish a perfectly reasonable questioning of someone stopped for breaking the law with Gestapo tactics.

You fail miserably on all counts.

I agree with you, but could you keep the discussion civil. Many of these people you are battling with have loved ones who are affected by this. I personally know a few illegals who are great people, but I'm not going to selectively ignore a sound law because I have an emotional connection with them. Now if this new law violates the 4th amendment, then I'm against it, but I doubt that's the case given the incredible judicial scrutiny that's approaching.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:45 PM
Its sad to see people in our very own movement that do not "Get It". I guess John Taylor is advocating the National ID card like a few others around here?

No!!! You're reading a different thread if that's what you're getting out of this.

This law only enforces the perfectly constitutional preexisting federal immigration law, which requires that migrants carry their documentation with them. AZ is just enforcing the law that the feds, because of folks like you, hasn't enforced in decades.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 12:45 PM
The 4th amendment isn't violated when a police officer asks an individual for proof of identification.

Bullshit. Like I said last night, you have NO clue in how police officers abuse laws to get what they want. Technically they can pull you over for a broken tail light then ask to search your car, and if you turned them down they can ask for your papers and search your car anyways. How fucking hard is this to understand? :rolleyes:

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:45 PM
Under the 4th amendment a requirement to provide anything other than a name for purposes of identification is a unreasonable.

Not true.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 12:46 PM
Not true.

Citation?

AuH20
04-27-2010, 12:46 PM
Under the 4th amendment a requirement to provide anything other than a name for purposes of identification is a unreasonable.

So library card registration is unconstitutional?

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:47 PM
Bullshit. Like I said last night, you have NO clue in how police officers abuse laws to get what they want. Technically they can pull you over for a broken tail light then ask to search your car, and if you turned them down they can ask for your papers and search your car anyways. How fucking hard is this to understand? :rolleyes:

I do have a clue. You have no idea about what the constitution actually requires. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Police cannot search your car unless there is probable cause or you give them permission. "Papers"? You must be an illegal immigrant, because with the exception of a few loons who drive around with cardboard license platesproclaiming their sovereignty, everyone else has a driver's license.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 12:48 PM
No!!! You're reading a different thread if that's what you're getting out of this.

This law only enforces the perfectly constitutional preexisting federal immigration law, which requires that migrants carry their documentation with them. AZ is just enforcing the law that the feds, because of folks like you, hasn't enforced in decades.

"folks like me?" You don't KNOW me at all so stop throwing accusations. As Danno has previously stated many times over, we are not trying to ignore the status of illegals in the country. We are just saying that the way they are going about this is very wrong, and will be another blow towards liberty. The Patriot Act, and FISA bills are a PRIME example of this and how the govt. takes advantage of a law and uses it to their advantage.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:48 PM
Citation?

You made the assertion, defend it.

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:49 PM
So library card registration is unconstitutional?

Wow, no, that's voluntary.. you people really are uneducated about this crap.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:49 PM
"folks like me?" You don't KNOW me at all so stop throwing accusations. As Danno has previously stated many times over, we are not trying to ignore the status of illegals in the country. We are just saying that the way they are going about this is very wrong, and will be another blow towards liberty. The Patriot Act, and FISA bills are a PRIME example of this and how the govt. takes advantage of a law and uses it to their advantage.

This bill is nothing like FISA or the "Patriot Act", it is simply a mechanism for allowing the enforcement of constitutional, federal law controlling immigration.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:50 PM
Wow, no, that's voluntary.. you people really are uneducated about this crap.

Immigrants who chose to come here live under immigration law. They are obligated by law to carry their nauturalization and/or legal documents with them.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 12:52 PM
I do have a clue. You have no idea about what the constitution actually requires. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Police cannot search your car unless there is probable cause or you give them permission. "Papers"? You must be an illegal immigrant, because with the exception of a few loons who drive around with cardboard license platesproclaiming their sovereignty, everyone else has a driver's license.

Excuse me? I have worked with law before unlike the crap you have picked up at Fox News Groupthink sessions so don't even get me started about the constitution. I know my rights. I know how the system works. You obviously can't pull your head out your ass far enough to figure out that the govt is fucking you from behind at the same time. As for being an illegal, thats pretty funny. As far as Im concerned you are on MY land bro. I am the one that is of native american ancestry so you need to totally back down on that one you statist fuck.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 12:52 PM
My comment wasn't refering to EVerify, it was relating to the pre-existing federal law which the AZ law will be enforcing.

You said the law's been on the books for 50 years. The law includes e-verify. E-verify has not been around for 50 years.

Your logic does not hold, or else you expressed yourself incorrectly, which would be understandable.

* * *

Why would I want to live in Venezuela? I've already posted precisely what I think should happen, and actually it would be more likely to catch forgeries (which this really doesn't do, and in fact complicates matters, because if someone using your identity and you are a citizen, and they are illegal, the difference is not going to be readily apparent). I don't believe driver's licenses are adequate as a form of identification, and in fact I don't think any identification one can have on their person should be accepted as enough to demonstrate legality.

In situations where you KNOW you need to bring identifying documents, however, you will know ahead of time to have them secure and on your person, at which point they may be copied and spot-checked for authenticity via the agency that issued them, NOT via a third party database that introduces another layer of potential error (I actually have documents in three different names because systems are introduced that don't allow hyphens, that don't allow accents, that don't allow Cyrillic characters, that don't allow the ever-popular ñ, and that otherwise exclude common letters that could easily show up as erroneous. Adding another layer means adding another version with more "difficult" names, and the Government seldom cares enough to fix any of that.

To complicate matters, you CAN present a whole lot of FORGED documentation to get a REAL license, or you can have a valid driver's license from another state without proof of documentation.


After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the federal government implemented heightened security measures when obtaining state-issued identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a social security number. As such, new federal laws were introduced that made it a requirement to show proof of legal residency status and identity in order to obtain a state driver’s license or any other state-issued id. Legislation was also passed that stated as of May 2008, driver's licenses issued by states that do not meet the federal requirements will not be accepted as legal identification to gain entry into a federal building or to board an airplane in the U.S. However, the government recently granted an extension until 2012, in order to allow ample time for states to comply with the new measures.

I admit, that one is a stretch, because hopefully officers would know which states are which on the issue if they are to accept...


4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

...as evidence.

The only real, verifiable proof one has of being a citizen is either one's birth certificate (which is why you don't see Birthers going "show us your state-issued ID!"), or one's immigration papers, which you are already required to carry. Both of these pieces of paper are readily verified by the agencies that issued them, especially if they are local. The company will certainly have an interest in spot-checking to make sure the paperwork they receive is not invalid, and that they don't shove any "Mexican-sounding" names under the table. Of course, if they're paying under the table anyhow, how would any of this catch them, other than to just nab them off the street? Catch 22. If they are making under-the-table wages, chances are they're also milking welfare (very popular). Once again, welfare can collect copies of birth certificates and, if applicable, immigration papers. Once again, these are easily verified.

Look! no one's been stopped at random on the street! The I-9 is done away with, because let's face it --- it's worthless! No e-verify layer is added to introduce even more potential for citizens to be caught up by a clerical mistake!

I am quite sure one can forge birth certificates and immigration papers, but then we are back to the beginning. The point should be to minimize the number of papers that are acceptable, minimize the layers between the issuing agency and the inquiring agency, and to catch illegals where they are actually hurting citizens: when they've already done something that you can rightfully suspect them of (not just "hey he looks illegal!"), when they are applying for welfare (which should be the standard, but so many forgeries and very little checking of documents go on), and when they are applying for jobs (which, again, should be the standard and replace the worthless I-9 form.

But keep saying I'm for amnesty, and keep pushing e-verify, and keep saying it's the same thing that's been on the books for 50 years.

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:52 PM
WRONG. YOU are the one advocating an immigration system which will inevitably lead to the creation of a banana republic here in the United States. You have ZERO understanding of the law, of this proposed law, of the U.S. Constitution and its original construction, and you fail to distinguish a perfectly reasonable questioning of someone stopped for breaking the law with Gestapo tactics.

You fail miserably on all counts.

Ok, this is like the 29th time I've had to explain that i oppose open borders with our current welfare state.

As I said, I will explain this stuff 100 times if that is what it takes to show people how dense you are.

You can't see how this violates the fourth amendment, because all you can think about are illegal aliens. You don't consider American Citizens being in this equation, because your brain is hyper-focused on 'them'. That is why I said you have a psychological problem. It's not a race thing, it's a group thing. That's great you date latino women, but you have an irrational fear of illegal aliens. Not pulling the racist card, pulling the fear card. And it's true. Because your brain doesn't think about American citizens rights, it is unable to. Your brain is cutoff from thinking rationally, and this is the only explanation of why.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 12:56 PM
Ok, this is like the 29th time I've had to explain that i oppose open borders with our current welfare state.

As I said, I will explain this stuff 100 times if that is what it takes to show people how dense you are.

You can't see how this violates the fourth amendment, because all you can think about are illegal aliens. You don't consider American Citizens being in this equation, because your brain is hyper-focused on 'them'. That is why I said you have a psychological problem. It's not a race thing, it's a group thing. That's great you date latino women, but you have an irrational fear of illegal aliens. Not pulling the racist card, pulling the fear card. And it's true. Because your brain doesn't think about American citizens rights, it is unable to. Your brain is cutoff from thinking rationally, and this is the only explanation of why.

He's a statist that belongs over at stormfront. He just doesn't know it, and is not a defender of Liberty. What a god damn tyrant.

AuH20
04-27-2010, 12:58 PM
Wow, no, that's voluntary.. you people really are uneducated about this crap.

So I'm violating my own fourth amendment rights when I show a LEO my driver's license after being stopped for an infraction? :D I never knew that.

dannno
04-27-2010, 12:59 PM
So I'm violating my own fourth amendment rights when I show a LEO my driver's license after being stopped for an infraction? :D I never knew that.

No, you can't violate your own rights...that would also be a voluntary action..or you were doing something illegal and they can demand it. They can't say "I think you crossed the border.. I mean... I think you were speeding back there but I didn't see.. but I have reasonable suspicion to believe you were speeding because you have a fast car.."


sigh..

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 12:59 PM
Excuse me? I have worked with law before unlike the crap you have picked up at Fox News Groupthink sessions so don't even get me started about the constitution. I know my rights. I know how the system works. You obviously can't pull your head out your ass far enough to figure out that the govt is fucking you from behind at the same time. As for being an illegal, thats pretty funny. As far as Im concerned you are on MY land bro. I am the one that is of native american ancestry so you need to totally back down on that one you statist fuck.

I have worked with the law as well, and am intimately familiar with federal and state law concerning the 4th amendment, unlike you, who has watched some "sovereignty" expert preach on how to write legal briefs and evade jailtime for driving with a card-board license plate.

Your land? Most "native American" tribes were nothing but bands of wandering vagrants excercising none of the bundle of private property rights prior to the settlement of this continent. In any event, I also have "native American" blood in my veins, so shut the fuck up.

These millions of pro-marxist migrants are in fact here illegally, they are in fact criminals, and they are in fact deserving of deportation.

This law merely allows for AZ law enforcement to ask for proof of status from people who are stopped. Nothing in this law is unconstitutional whatsoever.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:02 PM
He's a statist that belongs over at stormfront. He just doesn't know it, and is not a defender of Liberty. What a god damn tyrant.

Go live in some banana republic, and leave those of us dedicated to a revival of classical liberalism, laissez faire, non-interventionism, and constitutitonal governance to attempt to salvage this republic. God damned La Raza fuck.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:05 PM
Ok, this is like the 29th time I've had to explain that i oppose open borders with our current welfare state.

As I said, I will explain this stuff 100 times if that is what it takes to show people how dense you are.

You can't see how this violates the fourth amendment, because all you can think about are illegal aliens. You don't consider American Citizens being in this equation, because your brain is hyper-focused on 'them'. That is why I said you have a psychological problem. It's not a race thing, it's a group thing. That's great you date latino women, but you have an irrational fear of illegal aliens. Not pulling the racist card, pulling the fear card. And it's true. Because your brain doesn't think about American citizens rights, it is unable to. Your brain is cutoff from thinking rationally, and this is the only explanation of why.

Bullshit, I am extremely concerned with protecting the 4th Amendment's guarantees to all Americans their inherent right to be secure in their homes, persons, letters, and effects. I have never, and will never support the violation of any of those rights.

It is no constitutional violation to require people to present identification.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:09 PM
I have worked with the law as well, and am intimately familiar with federal and state law concerning the 4th amendment, unlike you, who has watched some "sovereignty" expert preach on how to write legal briefs and evade jailtime for driving with a card-board license plate.

Your land? Most "native American" tribes were nothing but bands of wandering vagrants excercising none of the bundle of private property rights prior to the settlement of this continent. In any event, I also have "native American" blood in my veins, so shut the fuck up.

These millions of pro-marxist migrants are in fact here illegally, they are in fact criminals, and they are in fact deserving of deportation.

This law merely allows for AZ law enforcement to ask for proof of status from people who are stopped. Nothing in this law is unconstitutional whatsoever.

I bet you have! Don't tell me to shut the fuck up either you god damn statist piece of shit. A native american jackboot hahahaha I bet you have wet dreams about controlling the world. Keep spewing your lies. You have done nothing but troll since you've been here. Look how long you have been here and you have more posts than people that have been here from the beginning. Pathetic.

Paulitey
04-27-2010, 01:11 PM
Grover Norquist (I think that is how you spell it) is against the bill, which is (or was) Ron Paul's advisor on tax reform.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 01:11 PM
When do I have to show police my ID?
This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required if you’re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.

http://flexyourrights.org/faq


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.

As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. 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.

But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You could do this by saying "Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.

If you're detained, you'll have to decide whether withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you're on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state's laws can help you make the best choice.

Keep in mind that the officer's decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion is a vague evidentiary standard, which lends itself to mistakes on the officer's part. If you're searched or arrested following an officer's ID request, always contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.

So we are back, once again, to reasonable suspicion... which seems, again, to be where you are hanging out or who you are hanging around with. You think that's reasonable, I think that's ridiculous.

dannno
04-27-2010, 01:12 PM
It is no constitutional violation to require people to present identification.

Actually it is, that is an illegal search. That is the definition of the fourth amendment. It is the most basic premise of the amendment. It's not that you don't understand it just a little bit, you don't understand it AT ALL.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 01:12 PM
This conversation has become incredibly classy.

AuH20
04-27-2010, 01:13 PM
He's a statist that belongs over at stormfront. He just doesn't know it, and is not a defender of Liberty. What a god damn tyrant.

Defending Liberty? You're defending kidnappers, drug cartels and other deviants. The scum that accompanies the migrant waves all need to go. It's a privilege to work here, if you don't have the most basic identification. If you cannot abide by the lax rules, sayonora. Americans are a very patient people, but when you have a backlog of several hundred thousand from around the globe, who are patiently waiting for an opportunity to become U.S. citizens, and 30 million Latin American illegals who walk around like they own the place, something has to change. It's crazy that we're even debating this. If this country was truly racist, the 30 million would have never gained entry to begin with!!!!

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:15 PM
Actually it is, that is an illegal search. That is the definition of the fourth amendment. It is the most basic premise of the amendment. It's not that you don't understand it just a little bit, you don't understand it AT ALL.

Actually, you're mistaken. In order for a search to be illegal, it must be unreasonable.

Perhaps you should actually read the amendment, and follow it up by reading John Taylor of Caroline's book, Constructions Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated.

You might learn something from somewhere other than Alex Jones.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:15 PM
Bullshit, I am extremely concerned with protecting the 4th Amendment's guarantees to all Americans their inherent right to be secure in their homes, persons, letters, and effects. I have never, and will never support the violation of any of those rights.

It is no constitutional violation to require people to present identification.

Exactly, so when you don't have your "papers" even if you are a LEGAL CITIZEN, the officer can TECHNICALLY arrest you and search the premises as well. Does that make sense? It doesn't matter if you are illegal or not. If they want to search you and have no cause, they can use this as an excuse to do so. They can legally pull you over for a broken tail light. This is how most officers perform searches for things like drugs or anything illegal. However if a person is aware of their rights, they would say 'No' whether they had anything or not. A police can then ask for your "papers" and if you do not have this, they will be able to arrest you. You can have blonde hair and blue eyes and they can still arrest you, and then search the premises. Even though you don't think they will. Believe me they will do this.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:17 PM
Exactly, so when you don't have your "papers" even if you are a LEGAL CITIZEN, the officer can TECHNICALLY arrest you and search the premises as well. Does that make sense? It doesn't matter if you are illegal or not. If they want to search you and have no cause, they can use this as an excuse to do so. They can legally pull you over for a broken tail light. This is how most officers perform searches for things like drugs or anything illegal. However if a person is aware of their rights, they would say 'No' whether they had anything or not. A police can then ask for your "papers" and if you do not have this, they will be able to arrest you. You can have blonde hair and blue eyes and they can still arrest you, and then search the premises. Even though you don't think they will. Believe me they will do this.

Search your premises as well?????? Where do you get that from the TEXT of this law? I've read it a dozen times, and I don't see it.

Sure, if you can't prove your status, you can be detained, but if you're legal or a citizen, you'll get right out.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:20 PM
Defending Liberty? You're defending kidnappers, drug cartels and other deviants. The scum that accompanies the migrant waves all need to go. It's a privilege to work here, if you don't have the most basic identification. If you cannot abide by the lax rules, sayonora. Americans are a very patient people, but when you have a backlog of several hundred thousand from around the globe, who are patiently waiting for an opportunity to become U.S. citizens, and 30 million Latin American illegals who walk around like they own the place, something has to change. It's crazy that we're even debating this. If this country was truly racist, the 30 million would have never gained entry to begin with!!!!

The Drug Cartels are funding the govt. The kidnappers are a result of govt. Yet you want....MORE GOVT. Why are there any drug cartels at all? Hmm? Could it be supply and demand? Could it be that the govt WANTS them coming into the country so they can be funded? Prohibition is a topic that has already been heavily discussed. I can't believe you have already forgotten.

Prohibition of ANY KIND will create VIOLENCE as long as there is a market for what is being prohibited.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:22 PM
Search your premises as well?????? Where do you get that from the TEXT of this law? I've read it a dozen times, and I don't see it.

Sure, if you can't prove your status, you can be detained, but if you're legal or a citizen, you'll get right out.

Thats because you are a Naive Statist that hasn't ever "had anything to hide". Are you going to carry around papers proving your 'status'? Do you support the National ID card? Why don't we just vote to chip everyone like cattle so our masters can keep track of everywhere we go.

ronpaulhawaii
04-27-2010, 01:22 PM
Hey John Taylor, are you intentionally trying to increase tension or just clueless about civilized debate?

:mad:

Given I ain't as up on current going ons around here, and don't know about any other threads that might have incited you to act like a classless buffoon, but knock off the Fuck Yous and other hot headed crap.

:mad:

Thanks

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:25 PM
Hey John Taylor, are you intentionally trying to increase tension or just clueless about civilized debate?

:mad:

Given I ain't as up on current going ons around here, and don't know about any other threads that might have incited you to act like a classless buffoon, but knock off the Fuck Yous and other hot headed crap.

:mad:

Thanks

My apologies for my language.

I think it's about high time you slap some people down for defaming me and using identical language. If you're going to hold me to a standard, you had better hold everyone to it.

Thanks.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 01:30 PM
My apologies for my language.

I think it's about high time you slap some people down for defaming me and using identical language. If you're going to hold me to a standard, you had better hold everyone to it.

Thanks.

I thought about emailing RPH and sticking up for you, but at times, I've been far more vitriolic than you, so I'm not sure what that would get you. :)

dannno
04-27-2010, 01:31 PM
Actually, you're mistaken. In order for a search to be illegal, it must be unreasonable.



I'm not mistaken, you did not specify that there was reasonable suspicion or what that suspicion was. There has to be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

If I as a citizen am suspected of being an illegal alien by a cop because I am hanging out on the corner of Home Depot, a completely lawful activity, I don't have to show them my ID. IN fact, as a citizen, I am not required to carry my ID. But in your fascist world, I would be arrested and detained for hanging out on the corner and not having an ID. That is not reasonable suspicion. I didn't commit a crime. Yet look what happened, my rights were violated.

That's the 30th time I've explained this concept to you in the last 2 days.

That's just that many more people here who can plainly see how dense you are. Very basic concepts here. Nothing complicated.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:31 PM
Go live in some banana republic, and leave those of us dedicated to a revival of classical liberalism, laissez faire, non-interventionism, and constitutitonal governance to attempt to salvage this republic. God damned La Raza fuck.

Wow your racism and ignorance really shows in this post. Laissez Faire capitalism would require open boarders. :rolleyes: What we have now is NOT laissez faire, and IS a banana republic. Corporatism is nothing but socialized state MANIPULATED capitalism, which is not Laissez Faire. Get a clue dood.

ronpaulhawaii
04-27-2010, 01:32 PM
My apologies for my language.

I think it's about high time you slap some people down for defaming me and using identical language. If you're going to hold me to a standard, you had better hold everyone to it.

Thanks.

I think it is high time everyone realized the incendiary nature of some debates and make an extra effort in such cases to remain civil.

I've reviewed this thread and you are out of line.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:33 PM
I'm not mistaken, you did not specify that there was reasonable suspicion or what that suspicion was. There has to be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

If I as a citizen am suspected of being an illegal alien by a cop because I am hanging out on the corner of Home Depot, a completely lawful activity, I don't have to show them my ID. IN fact, as a citizen, I am not required to carry my ID. But in your fascist world, I would be arrested and detained for hanging out on the corner and not having an ID. That is not reasonable suspicion. I didn't commit a crime. Yet look what happened, my rights were violated.

That's the 30th time I've explained this concept to you in the last 2 days.

That's just that many more people here who can plainly see how dense you are. Very basic concepts here. Nothing complicated.

You are indeed mistaken. You COULD EASILY AVOID BEING ARRESTED by providing proof of your identification, instead of just refusing to cooperate and being jailed until the police figure out you're just a 4 foot 9 inch kid from Cali.

Under your logic, ANY attempt to determine the legal status of anyone is unconstitutional.

Thanks for clearing that up.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:36 PM
I think it is high time everyone realized the incendiary nature of some debates and make an extra effort in such cases to remain civil.

I've reviewed this thread and you are out of line.

I apologize for feeding the troll. My temper gets away from me sometimes, and wouldn't have started cussing if he wouldn't have used foul language to one of our loyal forum members, first.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:37 PM
Wow your racism and ignorance really shows in this post. Laissez Faire capitalism would require open boarders. :rolleyes: What we have now is NOT laissez faire, and IS a banana republic. Corporatism is nothing but socialized state MANIPULATED capitalism, which is not Laissez Faire. Get a clue dood.

Laissez faire IS capitalism, there's no need to be redundant.

As for open borders, there is nothing inherrent in laissez faire which mandates that a country allow vast millions of uneducated people who are predisposed to seek the destruction of private property rights from moving wholesale into a country. Laissez faire implies that scarce resources will flow to their most highly valued end, including labor resources, but in order for this to exist within the United States, birthright citizenship must FIRST be abolished.

Get a clue indeed.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:37 PM
You are indeed mistaken. You COULD EASILY AVOID BEING ARRESTED by providing proof of your identification, instead of just refusing to cooperate and being jailed until the police figure out you're just a 4 foot 9 inch kid from Cali.

Under your logic, ANY attempt to determine the legal status of anyone is unconstitutional.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What "identification" are you talking about?

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:38 PM
Laissez faire IS capitalism, there's no need to be redundant.

As for open borders, there is nothing inherrent in laissez faire which mandates that a country allow vast millions of uneducated people who are predisposed to seek the destruction of private property rights from moving wholesale into a country. Laissez faire implies that scarce resources will flow to their most highly valued end, including labor resources, but in order for this to exist within the United States, birthright citizenship must FIRST be abolished.

Get a clue indeed.

Do you think we have capitalism here today?

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:40 PM
Do you think we have capitalism here today?

In the United States? I'm not Rip Van Winkle, we have a system of Zwangswirtschaft, the state direction and control of the means of production while allowing the retention of a veneer of private ownership of title to remain.

That's what we have, and it's more akin to the fascism carried over in Germany under the Weimar Republic and Hitlerean Germany than to laissez faire.

What do you think we have?

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 01:41 PM
You are indeed mistaken. You COULD EASILY AVOID BEING ARRESTED by providing proof of your identification, instead of just refusing to cooperate and being jailed until the police figure out you're just a 4 foot 9 inch kid from Cali.

Under your logic, ANY attempt to determine the legal status of anyone is unconstitutional.

Thanks for clearing that up.

dannno is a midget? :D That's adorable!

I didn't really like him until just now.

Trying to determine whether or not someone is here legally solely based on suspicion of the crime of being here illegally would be a dangerous precident, as angela has already pointed out, and as AZ is not likely to do... but "not likely" doesn't mean a whole lot, and no one's cleared up what a "potential illegal" really looks like, except to point out they engage in legal activities like standing and waiting at bus stops and picking produce. That is the objection. You should not have to engage in an implied contract with the police that you are guilty until you prove innocent, if he suspects you of being guilty. Employment, flying on planes, driving a vehicle, getting benefits, and so on are agreements one enters into, and at which time one should provide verifiable proof of eligibility.

The trouble is that you are requiring people prove eligibility to engage in a perfectly legal activity, in this case, unless the store in question calls the police on those people loitering outside (which I strongly encourage, but I doubt they will do).

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:43 PM
dannno is a midget? :D That's adorable!

I didn't really like him until just now.

Trying to determine whether or not someone is here legally solely based on suspicion of the crime of being here illegally would be a dangerous precident, as angela has already pointed out, and as AZ is not likely to do... but "not likely" doesn't mean a whole lot, and no one's cleared up what a "potential illegal" really looks like, except to point out they engage in legal activities like standing and waiting at bus stops and picking produce. That is the objection. You should not have to engage in an implied contract with the police that you are guilty until you prove innocent, if he suspects you of being guilty. Employment, flying on planes, driving a vehicle, getting benefits, and so on are agreements one enters into, and at which time one should provide verifiable proof of eligibility.

The trouble is that you are requiring people prove eligibility to engage in a perfectly legal activity, in this case, unless the store in question calls the police on those people loitering outside (which I strongly encourage, but I doubt they will do).

The AZ law does not enable law enforcement to stop people solely for suspicion of illegality.

What we're talking about is some 12 million people who have already broken the law, and who continue to flagrantly break the law.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:47 PM
In the United States? I'm not Rip Van Winkle, we have a system of Zwangswirtschaft, the state direction and control of the means of production while allowing the retention of a veneer of private ownership of title to remain.

That's what we have, and it's more akin to the fascism carried over in Germany under the Weimar Republic and Hitlerean Germany than to laissez faire.

What do you think we have?

We have Corporatism not capitalism. Which is socialized state run capitalism/fascism. So we do agree on that. However Laissez Faire will never be achievable with closed boarders. Closing the boarders will only prolong the state screwing with the markets, furthering us into debt. Its funny you should bring up Germany also, as they did the same thing as you are supporting with AZ. Its national socialism, pure and simple. Are we going to start gassing brown people next?

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:50 PM
dannno is a midget? :D That's adorable!

I didn't really like him until just now.


Dannno is adorable! Especially with those big eyes and all of his kitties!

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 01:53 PM
The AZ law does not enable law enforcement to stop people solely for suspicion of illegality.

What we're talking about is some 12 million people who have already broken the law, and who continue to flagrantly break the law.

It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a removable offense. Being here illegally is a removable offense. It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

Additionally, the "acceptable" forms of identification are a joke, and what's most likely to happen is that trafficking in Arizona license "re-assignment" theft (someone's real, valid license being recreated with the illegal's information) will go up, and when the license is run, if that illegal has previously been caught and your identity has been flagged as such, you're pretty much screwed.

I'm sure that sounds entirely far-fetched, but the entire bill does not address forgeries other than to mention e-verify, which I suppose should be sufficient to check all forms of identification (even out of state; earlier I posted that some other states do issue licenses to illegals). I don't really trust it, having had really awful experiences with pretty much every agency imaginable screwing up my name.

Arizona was tops in the nation for identity theft last time I checked (though numbers wobble).

angelatc
04-27-2010, 01:55 PM
Its funny you should bring up Germany also, as they did the same thing as you are supporting with AZ. Its national socialism, pure and simple. Are we going to start gassing brown people next?

It's been proven that the jobs the illegal immigrants hold are jobs that the black community would have if illegal immigration was curbed. Why do you hate black people?

angelatc
04-27-2010, 01:57 PM
It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a removable offense. Being here illegally is a removable offense. It allows someone to be questioned if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

Additionally, the "acceptable" forms of identification are a joke, and what's most likely to happen is that trafficking in Arizona license "re-assignment" theft (someone's real, valid license being recreated with the illegal's information) will go up, and when the license is run, if that illegal has previously been caught and your identity has been flagged as such, you're pretty much screwed.

I'm sure that sounds entirely far-fetched, but the entire bill does not address forgeries other than to mention e-verify, which I suppose should be sufficient to check all forms of identification (even out of state; earlier I posted that some other states do issue licenses to illegals). I don't really trust it, having had really awful experiences with pretty much every agency imaginable screwing up my name.

Arizona was tops in the nation for identity theft last time I checked (though numbers wobble).

So, there's really no point in ever having any laws, because certain people will always just break them anyway.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 01:57 PM
It's been proven that the jobs the illegal immigrants hold are jobs that the black community would have if illegal immigration was curbed. Why do you hate black people?

Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard all day. Why do "blacks" have to take the "lower end jobs"? You think black people aren't intelligent or good enough to work the job of a "white man"?? See how that can work?

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:57 PM
We have Corporatism not capitalism. Which is socialized state run capitalism/fascism. So we do agree on that. However Laissez Faire will never be achievable with closed boarders. Closing the boarders will only prolong the state screwing with the markets, furthering us into debt. Its funny you should bring up Germany also, as they did the same thing as you are supporting with AZ. Its national socialism, pure and simple. Are we going to start gassing brown people next?

How many people should be allowed into the United States? I'm sure over a billion people would love to come... but if we didn't have border controls and immigration policy restricting the flow, wouldn't we cease to be "America" anymore? Couldn't we then just become another latin American, or Chinese American banana republic or corporatist dictatorship (respectively)??? If we were rid of the birthright citizenship, this wouldn't be a problem, but until we get rid of birthright citizenship, the loosest immigration policy in the world, we must control our borders and remove the millions of people here breaking the law.

Wishing to preserve that which is best of the American society and culture does not rend one a racist. I couldn't care less if it were twenty million Dutchmen moving here illegally.

If one cannot ask for documentation, how can any police officer know who their suspects are, what they are wanted for in other jurisdictions, or whether they are here illegally?

dannno
04-27-2010, 01:58 PM
The AZ law does not enable law enforcement to stop people solely for suspicion of illegality.


Yes it does, we debunked that earlier.

I was laying off the fourth amendment arguments until melissa posted text straight from the bill that put me back onto those arguments.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 01:59 PM
Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard all day. Why do "blacks" have to take the "lower end jobs"? You think black people aren't intelligent or good enough to work the job of a "white man"?? See how that can work?

It's not racist to note that of unskilled laborers, African Americans make up a dispurportionate percentage.

This doesn't reflect ability or intellectual capacity, but may indicate rather social structure, economic opportunities, educational status, or a myriad of other factors.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 02:00 PM
Yes it does, we debunked that earlier.

I was laying off the fourth amendment arguments until melissa posted text straight from the bill that put me back onto those arguments.

No it doesn't. I posted the AZ law, and the accompanying sections of the US code which debunked your claim.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:01 PM
Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard all day. Why do "blacks" have to take the "lower end jobs"? You think black people aren't intelligent or good enough to work the job of a "white man"?? See how that can work?

I was just trying to point out that stupid is as stupid does. You've decided that enforcing immigration law is akin to gassing the Jews.

Almost everybody in America starts out in the lower end jobs, by the way. Blacks just have a tougher time getting their foot in that door. Illegal immigration has been a huge factor in that for the past 20 years.

AuH20
04-27-2010, 02:02 PM
Yes it does, we debunked that earlier.

I was laying off the fourth amendment arguments until melissa posted text straight from the bill that put me back onto those arguments.

Do you realize the potential mulititude of civil suits if that's the case? I find it hard to believe that the author of the bill could be that shortsighted. Someone repost the PDF of the bill.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 02:04 PM
It's not racist to note that of unskilled laborers, African Americans make up a dispurportionate percentage.

This doesn't reflect ability or intellectual capacity, but may indicate rather social structure, economic opportunities, educational status, or a myriad of other factors.

lol wow. You just said earlier that Uneducated people were flooding the boarders, however these uneducated people are 'stealing' the jobs from our 'educated black people'??? Comeon.

The Patriot
04-27-2010, 02:04 PM
It's been proven that the jobs the illegal immigrants hold are jobs that the black community would have if illegal immigration was curbed. Why do you hate black people?

Why do you hate Latinos? Or better yet, why do you view it through a racial lenses? Does their black skin entitle them to a job? If a person is more productive and works for less money, than it is only logical that the business owner will offer the job to the worker who produces more and consumes less resources.

Black unemployment lies solely on the backs of black people. I will give you an example. My friend's father ran a construction company beginning in the 60s. He hired blacks, not a racist bone in the guy's body. But he recognized the blacks on a whole were far less productive and always complained about not getting a "fair wage". As an American, and a patriot, he felt inclined to hire them as they were his country men. But as Latino immigration into California increased in the 1980s, he was losing money to competitors who hired Latino labor, and had to let the blacks go, and started hiring legal latino immigrants.

ssforronpaul
04-27-2010, 02:05 PM
ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MEMO (legal opinion)

Subsection B allows a law enforcement entity, where reasonable suspicion exists, to presumably detain a suspected illegal alien for the purpose of determining immigration status. This is simply a restatement of the federal law already in place. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); see also Ramirez v. Webb, 719 F.Supp. 610, 616 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (holding that law enforcement authorities "may detain an individual for a brief period of interrogation here the circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in illegal activity. In this case, the relevant illegal activity is that the individual is illegally present in this country."). There is nothing in this subsection that would permit a law enforcement entity to go beyond this allowance and indefinitely detain someone.

Subsection 6 (previously E) provides that a law enforcement officer "may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." Again, as with subsection B, this is simply a restatement of the established constitutional protections and does not go so far as to permit indefinite detention. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (holding that "[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.").

ssforronpaul

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:06 PM
It's not racist to note that of unskilled laborers, African Americans make up a dispurportionate percentage.

This doesn't reflect ability or intellectual capacity, but may indicate rather social structure, economic opportunities, educational status, or a myriad of other factors.

That's exactly what it is. During the last labor shortage, when fast food restaurants were paying $1000 signing bonuses to employees who agreed to stay for 6 months, the UPS hub in Indy started aggressively recruiting workers from the worst neighborhoods in the city. They even set up shuttle buses to get people to and from work. Crime and welfare rates were falling like rocks, and I suspect that if it had been allowed to continue, the black population of the entire country would have seen their per capita incomes rise at record levels.

Instead, our government gave corporate America the gift that keeps on taking - unfettered illegal immigration.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 02:07 PM
I have worked with the law as well, and am intimately familiar with federal and state law concerning the 4th amendment, unlike you, who has watched some "sovereignty" expert preach on how to write legal briefs and evade jailtime for driving with a card-board license plate.

:rolleyes:

I am yet to be impressed with your familiarity and lack of citations whenever you discuss flawed positions. Not to mention the complete lack of knowledge you exhibited regarding the adoption of any standardized jury instructions. And the lack of knowledge you have exhibited regarding state vs. federal jurisdiction. The fact I have to cite this to someone who make claims of intimate knowledge in law is ridiculous

It was clearly established in:



U.S. Supreme Court
TERRY v. OHIO.

Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.



And clearly elaborated in:



U.S. Supreme Court
LARRY D. HIIBEL, PETITIONER v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al.]

Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer. See Brown, 443 U.S., at 53, n. 3. Petitioner draws our attention to statements in prior opinions that, according to him, answer the question in his favor. In Terry, Justice White stated in a concurring opinion that a person detained in an investigative stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.” 392 U.S., at 34. The Court cited this opinion in dicta in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984), a decision holding that a routine traffic stop is not a custodial stop requiring the protections of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In the course of explaining why Terry stops have not been subject to Miranda, the Court suggested reasons why Terry stops have a “nonthreatening character,” among them the fact that a suspect detained during a Terry stop “is not obliged to respond” to questions. See Berkemer, supra, at 439, 440. According to petitioner, these statements establish a right to refuse to answer questions during a Terry stop.

We do not read these statements as controlling. The passages recognize that the Fourth Amendment does not impose obligations on the citizen but instead provides rights against the government. As a result, the Fourth Amendment itself cannot require a suspect to answer questions. This case concerns a different issue, however. Here, the source of the legal obligation arises from Nevada state law, not the Fourth Amendment. Further, the statutory obligation does not go beyond answering an officer’s request to disclose a name. See NRS §171.123(3) (“Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer”). As a result, we cannot view the dicta in Berkemer or Justice White’s concurrence in Terry as answering the question whether a State can compel a suspect to disclose his name during a Terry stop.


That means absent of applicable lawful state statues for the circumstances, Terry applies.

I could back it up with a chain of rulings that are cited in these rulings such as these:



U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.

Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct



U.S. Supreme Court
PAPACHRISTOU v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)

This ordinance is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 ; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 .

Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is that "[all persons] are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 .





U.S. Supreme Court
KOLENDER, CHIEF OF POLICE OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL. v. LAWSON

This appeal presents a facial challenge to a criminal statute that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968).[1] We conclude that the statute as it has been construed is unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated 354 by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification.




U.S. Supreme Court
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ET AL v. DELGADO ET AL.

In the course of enforcing the immigration laws, petitioner Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enters employers' worksites to determine whether any illegal aliens 212 may be present as employees. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the "factory surveys" involved in this case amounted to a seizure of the entire work forces, and further held that the INS could not question individual employees during any of these surveys unless its agents had a reasonable suspicion that the employee to be questioned was an illegal alien. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. Sureck, 681 F. 2d 624 (1982). We conclude that these factory surveys did not result in the seizure of the entire work forces, and that the individual questioning of the respondents in this case by INS agents concerning their citizenship did not amount to a detention or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.


Present your citation of rebuttal to the clearly established precedents presented.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 02:07 PM
lol wow. You just said earlier that Uneducated people were flooding the boarders, however these uneducated people are 'stealing' the jobs from our 'educated black people'??? Comeon.

Jenn, it isn't uneducated workers competing with uneducated rednecks, or blacks, or anyone that I'm worried about. Rather, it is the realization that the welfare state cannot be dismantled with the present electoral composition of the country, and that the millions of soon to be new citizens from south of the border are largely in favor of large-scale redistribution of wealth.

This means in turn, that immigration of those predisposed towards supporting politicians who will violate the rights of the people should be staunched.

Hence, here I stand.

phill4paul
04-27-2010, 02:08 PM
O.k. I haven't really had a chance to get up to date on this.

For clarity:

Arizona has made it law that LE, with probable cause or suspension of an illegal activity, may ask for identification. True/false.

How does this differ from any law that is currently on the books?

Currently, in many states, probable cause is justification for law enforcement to ask for identification.

The problem here seems to be that this law is directed towards a specific group.

Profiling of a specific group and the ability for police to manufacture "probable cause", as is often the case, notwithstanding.

Or is that indeed the point in this discussion.

If after 9/11 New York had passed a law requiring the identification of anyone of Muslim descent based on the same standards as the Arizona law would it have received as much support?

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 02:09 PM
So, there's really no point in ever having any laws, because certain people will always just break them anyway.

No... there are just far better ways of checking for citizenship at the bottlenecks I've already previously mentioned (employment, benefits, criminality). This goes back to theory, though, as we have hashed out. Every "suspicion" requires a "profile" (no, not necessarily THAT kind). Perhaps there was a robbery, and someone over 6' tall was seen leaving the area with a pronounced limp. As a result of that information, a profile is developed. If the police find someone over 6' tall with a pronounced limp who might have been in the area, they certainly have reason to suspect him.

In this case, the crime the person is suspected of is being here illegally. What "profile" is used for this? As you have said, the police have done this for ages. Young men hanging out on stoops with baggy clothing in certain neighborhoods, a bulge in their pocket, unusually flashy jewelry... the police very often will pounce on them, and if you happen to be in the vicinity and fit the "profile" they have established in this case... yeah, you are screwed, and the police had better treat you nicely or they will get sued.

I am still awaiting for the profile of illegal immigrants. Again, I am not talking about "racial profiling" exclusively (though to think that they're going to target Canadians is far-fetched)... but what the criminal profile is that allows the police to justify their reasonable suspicion of a removable offense. None of the reasons I have heard come up with a satisfactory answer.

I have already said that you don't think that kind of arrest will happen... and I don't think it is in Arizona's best interests for that kind of arrest to happen. I honestly don't think that's the purpose of the bill.

There are better, less-easily-defeated means of identification out there, and the kind of identity theft rampant in border states is targeted to this. What ends up happening is they find legal people with a "Hispanic" last name and use that ID. They don't necessarily rob them, they don't necessarily do anything that would show up on a credit report. However, a great number of illegals ARE pulled over, and if the LEO is not convinced that ID is real, they will flag it. You might not know until YOU are pulled over. That's not really the time to start floundering around wondering what's going on, especially as it paints you as a repeat offender, too.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:10 PM
Black unemployment lies solely on the backs of black people. I will give you an example. My friend's father ran a construction company beginning in the 60s. He hired blacks, not a racist bone in the guy's body. But he recognized the blacks on a whole were far less productive and always complained about not getting a "fair wage". As an American, and a patriot, he felt inclined to hire them as they were his country men. But as Latino immigration into California increased in the 1980s, he was losing money to competitors who hired Latino labor, and had to let the blacks go, and started hiring legal latino immigrants.

You just proved my point! If the invasion of immigrants was halted, those blacks would be back in the workforce.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 02:10 PM
I was just trying to point out that stupid is as stupid does. You've decided that enforcing immigration law is akin to gassing the Jews.

Almost everybody in America starts out in the lower end jobs, by the way. Blacks just have a tougher time getting their foot in that door. Illegal immigration has been a huge factor in that for the past 20 years.

Because it is. Even my own mother who hates politics, and shuts herself off from it, heard this on the news and flat out said it sounded like nazi germany. I've been to Eastern Europe and put up with this shit before. Im sure youd love it over there. Everyone is white, and the cops are EVERYWHERE.

I've lived in the deep south for 32 years, and have NEVER seen hatred such as this. Except maybe the time when I saw the burning cross flaming away in my black neighbors yard once.

silentshout
04-27-2010, 02:11 PM
Why not go after the companies who hire (and abuse) undocumented immigrants? No one seems to care about that. But if there's no jobs to be found, they won't come. I'd prefer this to this horrible fascist law. I don't see the welfare state ending anytime soon, so I don't see why people give companies like this a free pass.

People prefer finding a group to scapegoat instead, of course. Foolish.

AuH20
04-27-2010, 02:12 PM
Why ot go after the companies who hire (and abuse) undocumented immigrants? No one seemns to care about that. No jobs, they won't come.

People prefer finding a group to scapegoat instead, of course. Foolish.

Read Pat Buchanan's books. He discusses this extensively.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 02:12 PM
ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MEMO (legal opinion)

Subsection B allows a law enforcement entity, where reasonable suspicion exists, to presumably detain a suspected illegal alien for the purpose of determining immigration status. This is simply a restatement of the federal law already in place. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); see also Ramirez v. Webb, 719 F.Supp. 610, 616 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (holding that law enforcement authorities "may detain an individual for a brief period of interrogation here the circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in illegal activity. In this case, the relevant illegal activity is that the individual is illegally present in this country."). There is nothing in this subsection that would permit a law enforcement entity to go beyond this allowance and indefinitely detain someone.

Subsection 6 (previously E) provides that a law enforcement officer "may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." Again, as with subsection B, this is simply a restatement of the established constitutional protections and does not go so far as to permit indefinite detention. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001) (holding that "[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.").

ssforronpaul

... are you seriously arguing that, since it's not INDEFINITE detention, it's cool to be detained?

silentshout
04-27-2010, 02:12 PM
Because it is. Even my own mother who hates politics, and shuts herself off from it, heard this on the news and flat out said it sounded like nazi germany. I've been to Eastern Europe and put up with this shit before. Im sure youd love it over there. Everyone is white, and the cops are EVERYWHERE.

I've lived in the deep south for 32 years, and have NEVER seen hatred such as this. Except maybe the time when I saw the burning cross flaming away in my black neighbors yard once.

I agree.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 02:13 PM
:rolleyes:

I am yet to be impressed with your familiarity and lack of citations whenever you discuss flawed positions. Not to mention the complete lack of knowledge you exhibited regarding the adoption of any standardized jury instructions. And the lack of knowledge you have exhibited regarding state vs. federal jurisdiction. The fact I have to cite this to someone who make claims of intimate knowledge in law is ridiculous

It was clearly established in:




And clearly elaborated in:



That means absent of applicable state law to the circumstances, Terry applies.

I could back it up with a chain of rulings that are cited in these rulings such as these:










Present your citation of rebuttal to the clearly established precedents presented.

I don't need to, the cases you provided include some of the very cases I would cite in any legal brief I would write arguing in favor of a request for identification. You're citing them when they conflict and disagree with your position.

Terry v. Ohio is a great example of this. Officer safety is paramount, so an officer can frisk a person if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity... this in no way strengthens your argument...

silentshout
04-27-2010, 02:13 PM
Read Pat Buchanan's books. He discusses this extensively.

Can you recommend one in particular?

AuH20
04-27-2010, 02:14 PM
Can you recommend one in particular?

State of Emergency.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312360037/forthecause-20

The Patriot
04-27-2010, 02:14 PM
You just proved my point! If the invasion of immigrants was halted, those blacks would be back in the workforce.
But business would be less productive. There wouldn't be maximum utilization of resources and proper allocation of capital as harsh immigration restrictions would distort labor markets.

AuH20
04-27-2010, 02:15 PM
But business would be less productive. There wouldn't be maximum utilization of resources and proper allocation of capital as harsh immigration restrictions would distort labor markets.

I agree. I hope Angela is not advocating social engineering, because that's what liberals espouse.

JeNNiF00F00
04-27-2010, 02:16 PM
Why not go after the companies who hire (and abuse) undocumented immigrants? No one seems to care about that. But if there's no jobs to be found, they won't come. I'd prefer this to this horrible fascist law. I don't see the welfare state ending anytime soon, so I don't see why people give companies like this a free pass.

People prefer finding a group to scapegoat instead, of course. Foolish.

This this this this this this this.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:21 PM
No... there are just far better ways of checking for citizenship at the bottlenecks I've already previously mentioned (employment, benefits, criminality).

I'm not a big believer in prohibiting something because something bad might happen. This is no exception. If something goes wrong with the law, they can change it. But something has to be done, and I think this is a good place to start.

I've already explained why I think that employment checks will never work, and I certainly don't like the idea of punishing the employer more than the guy who is here illegally. It's easy to imagine the Tyson Chicken plants being fined, but operators like that can afford it, and they lobby to get the maximum fines capped, which absolutely works in their favor.

Its best just to focus on prosecuting the actual criminals.

Cracking down on benefits would be great, but there are relatively few entitlements they are eligible for as it stands. Making the parents prove citizenship when signing the kids up for school might work, but they don't get much in the way of direct aid anyway.

Criminality is where this is at - the officers aren't allowed to initiate a conversation about immigration. They can only ask about it as part of a lawful interaction. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the cops can't randomly ask people for identification, and there's nothing Arizona can do to negate those decisions.

ssforronpaul
04-27-2010, 02:22 PM
... are you seriously arguing that, since it's not INDEFINITE detention, it's cool to be detained?

No, I am showing you what the current law is and how it is interpreted as being compliant with the fourth amendment. If you do not like current law, attempt to change it. I do not like alot of the current laws, but I still comply with them. I am hoping that liberty minded people will eventually have some influence in changing them.

I am attempting to pull this conversation back to debating laws (rational debate)instead of just throwing insults (emotional debate).

I support immigration, but only limited legal immigration. I would support all immigration, but we have a welfare state.


ssforronpaul

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 02:24 PM
I don't need to, the cases you provided include some of the very cases I would cite in any legal brief I would write arguing in favor of a request for identification. You're citing them when they conflict and disagree with your position.

Terry v. Ohio is a great example of this. Officer safety is paramount, so an officer can frisk a person if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity... this in no way strengthens your argument...

You are contradicting the very opinions of SCOTUS. In Terry the justices went above and beyond to explicitly state there is no compulsion to ID. And in Hibel it ruled the standards of Terry did not apply because of an existing state statue applicable to the circumstances.



U.S. Supreme Court
TERRY v. OHIO.

Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.

Don't insult the intelligence of every adult person who can read the above expert and understand it's plain meaning. Make your citation.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 02:25 PM
I'm not a big believer in prohibiting something because something bad might happen. This is no exception. If something goes wrong with the law, they can change it. But something has to be done, and I think this is a good place to start.

I've already explained why I think that employment checks will never work, and I certainly don't like the idea of punishing the employer more than the guy who is here illegally. It's easy to imagine the Tyson Chicken plants being fined, but operators like can afford it, and they lobby to get the maximum fines capped, which absolutely works in their favor.

Its best just to focus on prosecuting the actual criminals.

Cracking down on benefits would be great, but there are relatively few entitlements they are eligible for as it stands. Making the parents prove citizenship when signing the kids up for school might work, but they don't get much in the way of direct aid anyway.

Criminality is where this is at - the officers aren't allowed to initiate a conversation about immigration. They can only ask about it as part of a lawful interaction. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the cops can't randomly ask people for identification, and there's nothing Arizona can do to negate those decisions.

;)

We are essentially in agreement, and have been, the only sticking points being 1. e-verify, and 2. your amount of faith in the police and justice system at large to safeguard the rights, safety, and security of actual citizens.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:29 PM
Why not go after the companies who hire (and abuse) undocumented immigrants? No one seems to care about that. But if there's no jobs to be found, they won't come. I'd prefer this to this horrible fascist law. I don't see the welfare state ending anytime soon, so I don't see why people give companies like this a free pass.

People prefer finding a group to scapegoat instead, of course. Foolish.

Scapegoats? The people are here illegally! They aren't scapegoats - they're criminals.

Again, every time they start fining employers, the big employers lobby for a maximum fine. Say, $10,000 per occurrence, maximum $100,000. So Tyson chooses to risk the $50,000 because they'll save more than than in a month. That means that Jane the Farmer either has to lower her wages and hire a slave, or go out of business.

Tyson doesn't like the competition, so they call and complain about Jane. Her $30,000 fine puts her out of business.

This isn't fiction - this actually happens.

And what those upset about forged drivers licenses do about the small business owners who will inevitably be duped by the lowlifes carrying the fake IDs? Are they supposed to become experts in identifying forgeries, since e-verify is a taboo in that same crowd?

Screw that. You break the law, you pay the price. Hold yourself responsible for your own actions.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:32 PM
;)

We are essentially in agreement, and have been, the only sticking points being 1. e-verify, and 2. your amount of faith in the police and justice system at large to safeguard the rights, safety, and security of actual citizens.

No, I don't trust that at all. But these precedents were set and upheld a long time ago. There's nothing new here.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 02:33 PM
You are contradicting the very opinions of SCOTUS. In Terry the justices went above and beyond to explicitly state there is no compulsion to ID. And in Hibel it ruled the standards of Terry did not apply because of an existing state statue applicable to the circumstances.


Don't insult the intelligence of every adult person who can read the above expert and understand it's plain meaning. Make your citation.

This is utter nonsense, everyone SHOULD read the entire opinion for themselves, and not rely on the word of an advocate for the destruction of freedom of association and private property rights.



Our first task is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. That is, we must decide whether and when Officer McFadden "seized" Terry, and whether and when he conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. [n12] We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure [p17] performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." [n13] It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. [n14]

The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search," is twofold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And, by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. [n15] This Court has held, in [p18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. [p19] United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356-358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586-587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367-368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30-31 (1925).

The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment -- the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.

Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest. When that point has been reached, petitioner would concede the officer's right to conduct a search of the suspect for weapons, fruits or instrumentalities of the crime, or "mere" evidence, incident to the arrest.

There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however. First, it fails to take account of traditional limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons. The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to [p26] arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus, it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.

A second, and related, objection to petitioner's argument is that it assumes that the law of arrest has already worked out the balance between the particular interests involved here -- the neutralization of danger to the policeman in the investigative circumstance and the sanctity of the individual. But this is not so. An arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, and the interests each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. [n22] The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person. It does not follow that, because an officer may lawfully arrest a person only when he is apprised of facts sufficient to warrant a belief that the person has committed or is committing a crime, the officer is equally unjustified, absent that kind of evidence, in making any intrusions short of an arrest. Moreover, a perfectly reasonable apprehension of danger may arise long before the officer is possessed of adequate information to justify taking a person into custody for [p27] the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Petitioner's reliance on cases which have worked out standards of reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting arrests and searches incident thereto is thus misplaced. It assumes that the interests sought to be vindicated and the invasions of personal security may be equated in the two cases, and thereby ignores a vital aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of particular types of conduct under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court, supra.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:37 PM
I've lived in the deep south for 32 years, and have NEVER seen hatred such as this. Except maybe the time when I saw the burning cross flaming away in my black neighbors yard once.

:rolleyes:

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 02:38 PM
Scapegoats? The people are here illegally! They aren't scapegoats - they're criminals.

Again, every time they start fining employers, the big employers lobby for a maximum fine. Say, $10,000 per occurrence, maximum $100,000. So Tyson chooses to risk the $50,000 because they'll save more than than in a month. That means that Jane the Farmer either has to lower her wages and hire a slave, or go out of business.

Tyson doesn't like the competition, so they call and complain about Jane. Her $30,000 fine puts her out of business.

This isn't fiction - this actually happens.

And what those upset about forged drivers licenses do about the small business owners who will inevitably be duped by the lowlifes carrying the fake IDs? Are they supposed to become experts in identifying forgeries, since e-verify is a taboo in that same crowd?

Screw that. You break the law, you pay the price. Hold yourself responsible for your own actions.

IDs aren't a very good means of demonstrating citizenship. Birth certificate, immigration documents, or some sort of verifiable adoption/social services documentation (all three of those could be checked with the issuing agencies). I've already talked about how this is done for professional licensures.

This would even the playing field, it'd be one phonecall away, and it wouldn't require another layer of data entry, confidentiality, error, and expense. If you found out about identity theft (what?!? that's NOT me!) during this process, as a lot of us do when they run a credit check, you have time to do something about it. If you find out at a stop that you're flagged as a criminal, though, I pity you the very long night you're going to have.

And again I agree... break the law, pay the price. Maybe you are correct and Arizona's nowhere near dumb enough to push their luck with this clause. It certainly seems counter-productive.

I don't like e-verify for pretty personal reasons, as I've had problems all my life with getting all my identification to read properly. Hell, what's on my license isn't even my legal name (I gave up). It turns out some agencies don't use hyphens, some don't use Cyrillic characters, some don't carry foreign letters, and so on. Each layer added to the process makes it more of a game of Telephone. I have gotten so many documents with "Mellisa" as my LAST name... I'm not remotely sure how you can even DO that. *grumbletangent*

Anyway, yeah, I personally don't like e-verify, we agree criminals should get punished, and so on and so forth :)

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:39 PM
lol wow. You just said earlier that Uneducated people were flooding the boarders, however these uneducated people are 'stealing' the jobs from our 'educated black people'??? Comeon.

LOL indeed.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 02:42 PM
Why can't we be friends?!?

http://www.webalice.it/edmtromb/blog/mouse.jpg

Update: The rat was deported. (The frog was merely arrested).

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 02:44 PM
Why can't we be friends?!?

http://www.webalice.it/edmtromb/blog/mouse.jpg

Update: The [I]rat[I] was deported. (The frog was merely arrested).

Racist. Why was it the frog? Because it can swim?

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 02:46 PM
Racist. Why was it the frog? Because it can swim?

Yeah I messed up originally. I meant the rat was deported (it's being helped across the body of water) and the frog was arrested for helping.

The thread needed two seconds of levity before it caused heads to explode.

Okay, carry on with the angry-time!

angelatc
04-27-2010, 02:54 PM
I agree. I hope Angela is not advocating social engineering, because that's what liberals espouse.

Social engineering? Getting people off welfare is social engineering?

bruce leeroy
04-27-2010, 02:55 PM
one thing people seem to forget is that mexicans/hispanics DONT LOOK ONE CERTIAN WAY RACIALLY..........you have some white mexicans that are indistinguishable from anglos, some black mexicans, and all kinds of shades in between.............."race" would not be a very effective profiling tool to catch illegal mexicans, much less all illegals

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 02:58 PM
one thing people seem to forget is that mexicans/hispanics DONT LOOK ONE CERTIAN WAY RACIALLY..........you have some white mexicans that are indistinguishable from anglos, some black mexicans, and all kinds of shades in between.............."race" would not be a very effective profiling tool to catch illegal mexicans, much less all illegals

I agree. We gotta be sneaky about it. Like if people are speaking Spanish, or they're standing in a parking lot, or they're at a bus stop, or picking vegetables, or bussing tables. ;)

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 02:59 PM
I agree. We gotta be sneaky about it. Like if people are speaking Spanish, or they're standing in a parking lot, or they're at a bus stop, or picking vegetables, or bussing tables. ;)

Only 59% of illegals are Mexicans in their origins anyway. 41% can't be IDd through the use of unconstitutional profiling anyway...

This law doesn't profile, it removes illegals, whatever their color or creed.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 03:02 PM
First Terry was never about failure to ID and is only relevant because SCOTUS made a statement about ID compulsion. Hibel was only about failure to ID. Hibel referred to the standard in Terry and stated why it was not applicable. SCOTUS stated Nevada law required Hibel to provide a name based on the circumstances.

It amazes me you would even refer to Terry for ID compulsion because the section you cite has no applicability to the issue of ID. That is explicitly contained in the relevant section of the ruling I cited.

Fortunately for me, a third grader can read your citation and my citation and concisely determine where the truth lies.

I would not expect many people rallying to your cause of ID compulsion.


This is utter nonsense, everyone SHOULD read the entire opinion for themselves, and not rely on the word of an advocate for the destruction of freedom of association and private property rights.



Our first task is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. That is, we must decide whether and when Officer McFadden "seized" Terry, and whether and when he conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. [n12] We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure [p17] performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." [n13] It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. [n14]

The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search," is twofold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And, by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. [n15] This Court has held, in [p18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. [p19] United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356-358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586-587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367-368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30-31 (1925).

The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment -- the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.

Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest. When that point has been reached, petitioner would concede the officer's right to conduct a search of the suspect for weapons, fruits or instrumentalities of the crime, or "mere" evidence, incident to the arrest.

There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however. First, it fails to take account of traditional limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons. The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to [p26] arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus, it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.

A second, and related, objection to petitioner's argument is that it assumes that the law of arrest has already worked out the balance between the particular interests involved here -- the neutralization of danger to the policeman in the investigative circumstance and the sanctity of the individual. But this is not so. An arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, and the interests each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. [n22] The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person. It does not follow that, because an officer may lawfully arrest a person only when he is apprised of facts sufficient to warrant a belief that the person has committed or is committing a crime, the officer is equally unjustified, absent that kind of evidence, in making any intrusions short of an arrest. Moreover, a perfectly reasonable apprehension of danger may arise long before the officer is possessed of adequate information to justify taking a person into custody for [p27] the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Petitioner's reliance on cases which have worked out standards of reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting arrests and searches incident thereto is thus misplaced. It assumes that the interests sought to be vindicated and the invasions of personal security may be equated in the two cases, and thereby ignores a vital aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of particular types of conduct under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court, supra.

tropicangela
04-27-2010, 03:02 PM
If something goes wrong with the law, they can change it. But something has to be done, and I think this is a good place to start.



angelatc, I have agreed with just about everything you've posted over the past few years... but this statement quoted above is exactly what I heard people say after they just passed *healthcare reform.* Many on these forums would agree that once a law is passed, it rarely changes, no?

low preference guy
04-27-2010, 03:06 PM
angelatc saying "something has to be done" sounds like the people voting for the bailout. They also said "something has to be done".

angelatc
04-27-2010, 03:06 PM
But business would be less productive. There wouldn't be maximum utilization of resources and proper allocation of capital as harsh immigration restrictions would distort labor markets.

Ok, you actually saying that black people are so unproductive we're better off leaving them on welfare. Not sure I can respond to that, especially in the context in that I thought we all agreed that the welfare state should be abolished.

If what you just said is true, what would you do with all the inefficent black people that apparently nobody will ever hire?

Let them starve?

angelatc
04-27-2010, 03:14 PM
angelatc, I have agreed with just about everything you've posted over the past few years... but this statement quoted above is exactly what I heard people say after they just passed *healthcare reform.* Many on these forums would agree that once a law is passed, it rarely changes, no?

Well, we've seen the effects of not doing anything. It didn't work out like the open borders people claim it would, that's for sure. Wages are down, welfare and crime are up.

There's nothing new in this law - these are the same powers that the Feds have had for years, even if they're not using them.

If we tightened up on immigration, unemployment would fall and wages would rise. Those conditions are absolutely essential if we're to have any hope at all of abolishing the welfare state.

I'd prefer to see all 50 states develop their own illegal-immigration policies, because (as with health care) 50 experiments are better than one.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 03:18 PM
angelatc saying "something has to be done" sounds like the people voting for the bailout. They also said "something has to be done".

No, they said "Something has to be done RIGHT NOW!"

Also, they didn't allow anybody to read the bill before they voted on it. This situation has been developing for 20 years - the "do nothing" approach has had negative implications for the citizens of Arizona.

The bill went through the legislature, and was subject to the standard debate.

When a government's plan isn't working, it is the responsibility of the people to change it. 70% of the people in Arizona support this, whereas about 10% of the people of the USA supported the bailout.

tropicangela
04-27-2010, 03:19 PM
Well, we've seen the effects of not doing anything. It didn't work out like the open borders people claim it would, that's for sure. Wages are down, welfare and crime are up.

There's nothing new in this law - these are the same powers that the Feds have had for years, even if they're not using them.

If we tightened up on immigration, unemployment would fall and wages would rise. Those conditions are absolutely essential if we're to have any hope at all of abolishing the welfare state.

I'd prefer to see all 50 states develop their own illegal-immigration policies, because (as with health care) 50 experiments is better than one.

Doesn't Ron Paul explain that if we End the Fed and get the economy under control with real free markets that the immigrants taking our jobs would be a non-issue?

Are people here arguing that the federal law is unconstitutional as well?

bruce leeroy
04-27-2010, 03:20 PM
I agree. We gotta be sneaky about it. Like if people are speaking Spanish, or they're standing in a parking lot, or they're at a bus stop, or picking vegetables, or bussing tables. ;)

you forgot about working in brick masonary, drinking bud light, driving pickups with their last names stenciled on the back winshield in olde english letters or watching calliente LOL
but seriously, I have reservations about this or any other law that gives law enforcement agencies wider latitude than the already too wide latitude they have today, but lets not get ahead of ourselves, its not like every julio in a low rider or every pedro with a big belt buckle watching a sergio martinez or chris arreola fight in the sports bar is going to get profiled.........Im sure the Law enforcement doesnt want lawsuits so this wont be pursued recklessly

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 03:22 PM
you forgot about working in brick masonary, drinking bud light, driving pickups with their last names stenciled on the back winshield in olde english letters or watching calliente LOL
but seriously, I have reservations about this or any other law that gives law enforcement agencies wider latitude than the already too wide latitude they have today, but lets not get ahead of ourselves, its not like every julio in a low rider or every pedro with a big belt buckle watching a sergio martinez or chris arreola fight in the sports bar is going to get profiled.........Im sure the Law enforcement doesnt want lawsuits so this wont be pursued recklessly

No, that's profiling for heterosexuality...

Calle Ciega / Performing at "Caliente" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3841255843297180173#)

(Watch on mute)

The Patriot
04-27-2010, 03:28 PM
Ok, you actually saying that black people are so unproductive we're better off leaving them on welfare. Not sure I can respond to that, especially in the context in that I thought we all agreed that the welfare state should be abolished.

If what you just said is true, what would you do with all the inefficent black people that apparently nobody will ever hire?

Let them starve?
I am saying the most productive person should get the job, don't see what is wrong with that. So yes, what I am saying is, better workers should get jobs over worse workers, in simple terms. And at the very least it should be up to the discretion of the employer. If a guy wants to go out of business by offering high wages and producing less, he ought to be in the business of running a charity and not running a business cause he will go out of business. I don't think government policy should be focused on inhibiting economic growth, which is what you seem to be advocating by restricting the labor supply. Look, you are going to appeal to my senses by advocating this black power nonsense like some corrupt socialist civil rights pimp. They can work harder, it isn't impossible.

I am saying get rid of welfare and end the burdensome tax and regulatory system which inhibits growth. Will this employ every person? Hell no. I never said full employment should be the goal or is even possible, this is where charities and voluntary contributions come in if individuals or groups so wish to help those in need.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 03:32 PM
No, they said "Something has to be done RIGHT NOW!"

Also, they didn't allow anybody to read the bill before they voted on it. This situation has been developing for 20 years - the "do nothing" approach has had negative implications for the citizens of Arizona.

The bill went through the legislature, and was subject to the standard debate.

When a government's plan isn't working, it is the responsibility of the people to change it. 70% of the people in Arizona support this, whereas about 10% of the people of the USA supported the bailout.

I have seen a recurring criticism of open borders. I don't have a problem with Arizona getting off the chain being totalitarian and facist. Personally I think if 70% of the people support it they ought to empty their prisons and deport all undocumented aliens to D.C. or federal territory, nullify federal legislation, and raise a militia (paid or volunteer) to patrol the constitutional borders of Arizona.

I think the people in Arizona can do whatever the hell they want to do because that is the way the world works... anarchy. And it is pretty evident the system of anarchy is working just fine in Arizona. But if the people want secure borders and expect the people in other states to pay for it that isn't gonna fly.

heavenlyboy34
04-27-2010, 03:36 PM
I have seen a recurring criticism of open borders. I don't have a problem with Arizona getting off the chain being totalitarian and facist. Personally I think if 70% of the people support it they ought to empty their prisons and deport all undocumented aliens to D.C. or federal territory, nullify federal legislation, and raise a militia (paid or volunteer) to patrol the constitutional borders of Arizona.

I think the people in Arizona can do whatever the hell they want to do because that is the way the world works... anarchy. And it is pretty evident the system of anarchy is working just fine in Arizona. But if the people want secure borders and expect the people in other states to pay for it that isn't gonna fly.


Way to redefine anarchy to fit your agenda. :p Hoo-rah for propaganda and disinformation.

tropicangela
04-27-2010, 03:36 PM
I have seen a recurring criticism of open borders. I don't have a problem with Arizona getting off the chain being totalitarian and facist. Personally I think if 70% of the people support it they ought to empty their prisons and deport all undocumented aliens to D.C. or federal territory, nullify federal legislation, and raise a militia (paid or volunteer) to patrol the constitutional borders of Arizona.

I think the people in Arizona can do whatever the hell they want to do because that is the way the world works... anarchy. And it is pretty evident the system of anarchy is working just fine in Arizona. But if the people want secure borders and expect the people in other states to pay for it that isn't gonna fly.

On the point of illegals in the prisons here, why do they hold them and not deport them?

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 03:38 PM
On the point of illegals in the prisons here, why do they hold them and not deport them?

Supposedly because they sneak right back across the border.

Absolutely none of this will be worth beans, other than to disrupt the lives of law-abiding citizens and only slightly inconvenience illegals, unless the border is actually secure.

phill4paul
04-27-2010, 03:39 PM
After reading many posts and watching some you tubes I'll have to come down on the side that oppose this law.

There are many reasons that America is in the state that it is in with regards to jobs,wages, crimes and welfare.

The solution to these problems does not equate with questioning an American citizens birth right. Ever. For any reason. Nor does it equate with profiling a specific group for interrogation as to their citizenship.

The focus should be on government and what it has done to create these problems not an ethnic group nor immigrants legal or illegal.

Individuals or groups of individuals did not create the problems that the government would have us find scapegoats for.

International trade agreements, prohibition laws without weight of Constitutional amendments and out of control vote pandering have created this problem.

Don't lose sight of the brass ring.

bruce leeroy
04-27-2010, 03:40 PM
On the point of illegals in the prisons here, why do they hold them and not deport them?
here is a novel idea, instead of imprisoning kiddy diddlers and such, lets just drop theire asses off at the border, if that happened the federales in coachulia and chihuahua provinces might get proactive on border security

dannno
04-27-2010, 03:40 PM
On the point of illegals in the prisons here, why do they hold them and not deport them?

Ya, what Melissa said.. and actually, I'm pretty sure they get deported after their sentence, not 100% sure.

We need to secure our border before considering deporting criminals.

Kade
04-27-2010, 03:42 PM
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."


ssforronpaul


The concept of Lawful Contact has all but been ignored by an ever increasing number of law enforcement agencies. Hell, I'm sure it was lawful contact when the Maryland police beat the living shit out of that student, and then "misplaced" the video tapes of that segment only.

The relevant section of the law, as you summarized, is:

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.

Lawful contact is really anything they damn well feel like... be it spilling coffee on the wrong side of the street, or giving the finger to a building wall.

I could go into the ethics of this law from the immigration point of view, or I could just simply point out that the abuse of this law has already occurred.

How easy will it be to continue down this path, and turn the tables? The immigration status of the person is Federal jurisdiction, this is in essence a State Law riding Federal laws.

Let's change the words just slightly, and observe how fast you suddenly become offended...



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 has not paid Federal Income Tax, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the Social Security Number of the Person.



GG.

dannno
04-27-2010, 03:44 PM
The concept of Lawful Contact has all but been ignored by an ever increasing number of law enforcement agencies. Hell, I'm sure it was lawful contact when the Maryland police beat the living shit out of that student, and then "misplaced" the video tapes of that segment only.

The relevant section of the law, as you summarized, is:

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.

Lawful contact is really anything they damn well feel like... be it spilling coffee on the wrong side of the street, or giving the finger to a building wall.

I could go into the ethics of this law from the immigration point of view, or I could just simply point out that the abuse of this law has already occurred.

How easy will it be to continue down this path, and turn the tables? The immigration status of the person is Federal jurisdiction, this is in essence a State Law riding Federal laws.

Let's change the words just slightly, and observe how fast you suddenly become offended...



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 has not paid Federal Income Tax, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the Social Security Number of the Person.



GG.

Yes, it really is important to keep in mind the awful situation our police state is already in when we consider broadening their powers. (Also, Kade, that comment on lawful contact has already been debunked using text from the bill.. they don't need lawful contact, just suspicion..)

constituent
04-27-2010, 03:45 PM
On the point of illegals in the prisons here, why do they hold them and not deport them?

Are you kidding me? That's good contract labor. Teach them English, and you have an excellent bilingual customer service and tech support crew.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 03:46 PM
Way to redefine anarchy to fit your agenda. :p Hoo-rah for propaganda and disinformation.

I don't think people doing whatever they want to do despite constitutional prohibitions and safeguards in constitutions of Republics is stretching the definition of anarchy in any way:

Meridian-Webster Definition
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order :

I would not consider a characterization of mob rule out of line either.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 03:46 PM
See, I'm on the total opposite side of that "secure the borders!" thing. I am not thrilled with the idea of being walled in, or being surrounded by troops that will ultimately be used to keep me from leaving.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 03:47 PM
Supposedly because they sneak right back across the border.

Absolutely none of this will be worth beans, other than to disrupt the lives of law-abiding citizens and only slightly inconvenience illegals, unless the border is actually secure.

Hence the passage of this law... to hold the feds feet to the fire.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 03:49 PM
See, I'm on the total opposite side of that "secure the borders!" thing. I am not thrilled with the idea of being walled in, or being surrounded by troops that will ultimately be used to keep me from leaving.

Me too but I do not live in Arizona.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 03:52 PM
Me too but I do not live in Arizona.

I have, and I've seen the 12 time border jumpers on the local tv or in the court-room for killing a 16 year old girl in the La Quinta hotel on I17 and Thunderbird (or Greenway). You have no idea how many illegals there are here, hundreds of thousands. The police and firefighters are expending vast amounts of resources dealing with them, and providing them care, and the taxpayers get saddled with the debt... oh, and the migrants, their kids get citizenship then vote to raise our taxes and increase the size and scope of government.

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 03:53 PM
Hence the passage of this law... to hold the feds feet to the fire.

... I missed the part where any real additional physical measures are being put into place to stop people from re-entering. Will they be jailed, deported, or both? Jailing costs money, deporting (as seen in the past) doesn't work with the WORST criminals that come across (you have mentioned coyotes and the like; they make multiple trips). All of this really is wishful thinking without assurances that those deported won't come right back, but as angela said earlier that really doesn't mean we shouldn't do SOMETHING (I just don't believe this "something" passes the smell test).

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 03:55 PM
I have, and I've seen the 12 time border jumpers on the local tv or in the court-room for killing a 16 year old girl in the La Quinta hotel on I17 and Thunderbird (or Greenway). You have no idea how many illegals there are here, hundreds of thousands. The police and firefighters are expending vast amounts of resources dealing with them, and providing them care, and the taxpayers get saddled with the debt... oh, and the migrants, their kids get citizenship then vote to raise our taxes and increase the size and scope of government.

You have no idea what I may or may not have an idea of.

Nullify welfare in Arizona. The government of Arizona could start accepting gold and silver coin for payment of debts in Arizona to enable competing currencies.

ssforronpaul
04-27-2010, 03:56 PM
Supposedly because they sneak right back across the border.

Absolutely none of this will be worth beans, other than to disrupt the lives of law-abiding citizens and only slightly inconvenience illegals, unless the border is actually secure.

This bill will affect the people in Arizona as there illegal numbers at least as a percentage of all illegals in America will fall, if this law is enforced. The illegals will move to the other states where there is no enforcement. The illegals will go to one of the other states with a preference shown for neighboring states.

An example: It's just like zoning in localities. If you make your laws tighter for a certain housing type (ex: condos), it is easier for the builder to build in a neighboring locality than fight the law in your locality. Thus in your locality you don't see this type of housing, but in the neighboring communities that are more lax or lack zoning completely you see that housing type all over the place.

ssforronpaul

MelissaWV
04-27-2010, 03:57 PM
This bill will affect the people in Arizona as there illegal numbers at least as a percentage of all illegals in America will fall, if this law enforced. The illegals will move to the other states where there is no enforcement. The illegals will go to one of the other states with a preference shown for neighboring states.

An example: It's just like zoning in localities. If you make your laws tighter for a certain housing type (ex: condos), it is easier for the builder to build in a neighboring locality than fight the law in your locality. Thus in your locality you don't see this type of housing, but in the neighboring communities that are more lax or lack zoning completely you see that housing type all over the place.

ssforronpaul

*shrugs* Coyotes will start offering (if they don't already) packages with fake IDs. If their families are in Arizona (illegally) they will want to go there. I wouldn't go to California :p Ew.

angelatc
04-27-2010, 03:58 PM
I am saying the most productive person should get the job, don't see what is wrong with that. So yes, what I am saying is, better workers should get jobs over worse workers, in simple terms. And at the very least it should be up to the discretion of the employer. If a guy wants to go out of business by offering high wages and producing less, he ought to be in the business of running a charity and not running a business cause he will go out of business. I don't think government policy should be focused on inhibiting economic growth, which is what you seem to be advocating by restricting the labor supply. Look, you are going to appeal to my senses by advocating this black power nonsense like some corrupt socialist civil rights pimp. They can work harder, it isn't impossible.

I am saying get rid of welfare and end the burdensome tax and regulatory system which inhibits growth. Will this employ every person? Hell no. I never said full employment should be the goal or is even possible, this is where charities and voluntary contributions come in if individuals or groups so wish to help those in need.

No, you specifically said your friend's Dad fired the black people and replaced them with Latinos because the Latinos were more efficient. Sounds pretty racist to me. Not to mention that it absolutely proves my original point - the illegal immigrants are indeed taking jobs away from black Americans.

Again, what would you do with those people who are too unproductive in that state we're advocating for? You might want to come up with a better plan than "Oh well, nobody said we'd all have jobs." That only flies if we all have a chance at getting jobs, which you think that some people don't really even deserve.

Remember, I've already seen what happens in a country where there's a labor shortage. Wages rise, houses get affordable, welfare rolls fall, employers provide training to improve the skill sets of the workers, and inefficient businesses close.

I've also seen what happens in a country where there's a labor surplus. Wages fall, housing prices rise, welfare rolls rise, and inefficient businesses are rewarded by not having to compete for resources.

Of course, neither is sustainable, and if we didn't have a welfare state, these situations would ebb and tide in the market's self correcting way. But we don't.

If you think that you're going to get people to vote to abolish their only source of income when the economy is in the tank, you're not being realistic. And you're delusional if you can look at Arizona and continue to cheer for unfettered immigration.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 04:00 PM
You have no idea what I may or may not have an idea of.

Nullify welfare in Arizona. The government of Arizona could start accepting gold and silver coin for payment of debts in Arizona to enable competing currencies.

Nullify welfare? You mean federal welfare programs? I would love to. I would love to cut state welfare programs as well, but first we're going to need to solidify the voting population. As it is now, we have a vast number of people who support vastly expanding the role of the state government moving into Arizona, from Mexico, and from a place even worse, California.

I appreciate your concern for Arizona, and I happen to think that while it is a good idea for competing currencies, only CONGRESS constitutionally has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, so we might run into some legal issues there. Anything else I should pass on to our legislature?

angelatc
04-27-2010, 04:08 PM
This bill will affect the people in Arizona as there illegal numbers at least as a percentage of all illegals in America will fall, if this law is enforced. The illegals will move to the other states where there is no enforcement. The illegals will go to one of the other states with a preference shown for neighboring states.

ssforronpaul

Voting with their feet! That is exactly how America is supposed to work. If you don't like a policy in one state, move somewhere where the laws are more favorable to your ends.

Of course, if Arizona has success with this law (and I recognize that is definitely an "if") look for other states to follow suit.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-27-2010, 04:13 PM
I appreciate your concern for Arizona, and I happen to think that while it is a good idea for competing currencies, only CONGRESS constitutionally has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, so we might run into some legal issues there. Anything else I should pass on to our legislature?

I didn't say Arizona should coin money only stated it could accept payments in gold and silver coin under it's constitutional mandate to do so. It would not have to mint the coins or accept coins denominated in dollars. It could accept coins based on intrinsic weight value. Let the market figure out how to mint coins.

John Taylor
04-27-2010, 04:15 PM
I didn't say Arizona should coin money only stated it could accept payments in gold and silver coin under it's constitutional mandate to do so. It would not have to mint the coins or accept coins denominated in dollars. It could accept coins based on intrinsic weight value. Let the market figure out how to mint coins.

I'm fine with that.

Rock Sexton
04-27-2010, 07:41 PM
And for about the hundredth time I've had to explain to you that legal citizen's rights are not threatened or infringed by this enforcement of existing federal law. This law doesn't violate illegal immigrant's rights, it enables law enforcement to detect illegals, and enables them to be separated from the law abiding population.

I'm going to continue to expose you for who you are, a racist open-borders advocate of a police state. That is all that will come as aresult of your proposed policies. I don't mind saying it a hundred thousand times to demonstrate to the readers precisely how treacherous your message is.

John I would personally like to thank you for absolutely SLAYING the nonsensical, overly superlative responses you keep getting from people attacking you on this topic.

phill4paul
04-27-2010, 07:50 PM
John I would personally like to thank you for absolutely SLAYING the nonsensical, overly superlative responses you keep getting from people attacking you on this topic.

For emphasis. Because perhaps you missed it.

Immigrants. Legal or illegal are not the cause of the troubles the media would have you believe are associated with them.

Trade agreements, inflation of currency and destabilization of the economy, vote pandering in exchange for welfare entitlements and unamended prohibitions are the cause.

The federal government is the entity that created this situation. Not illegal immigrants.

Go to the root to solve the problem. The root is the federal government.

Rock Sexton
04-27-2010, 07:58 PM
For emphasis. Because perhaps you missed it.

Immigrants. Legal or illegal are not the cause of the troubles the media would have you believe are associated with them.

Trade agreements, inflation of currency and destabilization of the economy, vote pandering in exchange for welfare entitlements and unamended prohibitions are the cause.

The federal government is the entity that created this situation. Not illegal immigrants.

Go to the root to solve the problem. The root is the federal government.

Don't even get me started on media polarizations .... Racism .... violations of the 4th Amendment .... I swear, I nearly deleted my Facebook because of the parroting on this issue.

As already shown, this law is mirroring federal law which already exists, but wasn't being ENFORCED to the fullest extent. If it were, would that make it racist?

I will not deny that the federal government has helped to subsidize all of this and lord knows the Democrats are foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to soak up millions of new Democratic voters if given amnesty.

The Patriot
04-28-2010, 01:29 PM
No, you specifically said your friend's Dad fired the black people and replaced them with Latinos because the Latinos were more efficient. Sounds pretty racist to me. Not to mention that it absolutely proves my original point - the illegal immigrants are indeed taking jobs away from black Americans.

Again, what would you do with those people who are too unproductive in that state we're advocating for? You might want to come up with a better plan than "Oh well, nobody said we'd all have jobs." That only flies if we all have a chance at getting jobs, which you think that some people don't really even deserve.

Remember, I've already seen what happens in a country where there's a labor shortage. Wages rise, houses get affordable, welfare rolls fall, employers provide training to improve the skill sets of the workers, and inefficient businesses close.

I've also seen what happens in a country where there's a labor surplus. Wages fall, housing prices rise, welfare rolls rise, and inefficient businesses are rewarded by not having to compete for resources.

Of course, neither is sustainable, and if we didn't have a welfare state, these situations would ebb and tide in the market's self correcting way. But we don't.

If you think that you're going to get people to vote to abolish their only source of income when the economy is in the tank, you're not being realistic. And you're delusional if you can look at Arizona and continue to cheer for unfettered immigration.

No, productive people are getting jobs over less productive people. Stop with the racist card, it is an old and tired one. Look, being black doesn't entitle you to a living or to a check. Latinos aren't taking jobs, business men are hiring more efficient workers from a larger and more competitive labor pool.

The so physically underproductive are going to have to get more productive or hope for a helping hand out of voluntary charity.

There shouldn't be welfare to begin with, we need to start slashing programs now. As for labor shortages, They result in higher prices for goods and services. So consumers, particularly the working and middle class, have to pay higher prices. The dollars and cents add up when produce prices go up, costing these people a significant amount of their savings, meaning more overall debt. And smaller businesses close, they aren't inefficient, they just need a large labor pool to compete with the big guys. So labor shortages result in a reduction in competition, and resulting in a semi formal cartel in certain sectors.

Who said I wanted these people to vote? I don't want them to become citizens. I don't support amnesty. I support giving migrants workers permits but I want to end birthright citizenship and end public services for illegal immigrants(like Prop 187). Props like 187 are immensely popular, particularly in border states, and would pass overwhelmingly. I have no problem with this law in Arizona, I think it is reasonable, but I think in the mean time we need to end birthright citizenship, end welfare for illegals, and establish a generous guest worker program(with no welfare).

Stary Hickory
04-28-2010, 02:10 PM
Well, I will admit that the open borders crowd does have a point with their slippery-slope arguments. I think we can all cite examples of that. It's also pretty pointless to debate what's going to happen, IMHO.

But somebody had to do something. Even if it isn't perfect, this is a good start.

Sitting on the fence and saying that you both want to uphold our borders and immigration laws and yet do not want to enforce them is what I have seen a lot on these forums.

Something must be done or we might as well close up shop and forget about borders or national defense. I am glad AZ took a stand.