TX want AZ immigation bill

[Sarge]

http://www.kvue.com/news/Berman-aide-State-Rep-plans-immigration-bill-similar-to-Arizonas-92213914.html

[Golding]

Not sure of the point of having a new thread for each state that wants a similar law, but torchbearer pretty much hit the nail on the head with his reply to the Ohio variant. Name a state that wants less police power, and it would be a more surprising bit of news.

[Stary Hickory]

Not sure of the point of having a new thread for each state that wants a similar law, but torchbearer pretty much hit the nail on the head with his reply to the Ohio variant. Name a state that wants less police power, and it would be a more surprising bit of news.

I already relplied to that nonsense. What nail and what head? It's abusrd to say the state is seeking to enhance it's power. That reeks of conspriacy-lite extremisim.

And totally ignores the crux of the question, if you support immigration laws how can you enforce them without giving people the authority to enforce them? It's almost silly to see people not even addressing the full isssue but coming in with conspiracy theories on the "motives" of legislators rather than looking at the issue and seeking a response.

I cannot respect anyone who says they are against illegal immigration but are also against enforcing the laws against it. I mean either you are delusional or a liar. If you support open borders then come forward and say so. Not one opponent of the AZ law or a law like this has come forward with an alternative.

Nobody wants to see racial profiling...and the bill itself makes that illegal. People are screaming racism as a way to detract from the real subject of the bill. In order to enforce immigration it means we must be willing to forcibly remove violators. If we are unwilling, then we will have defacto open borders.

[John Taylor]

Not sure of the point of having a new thread for each state that wants a similar law, but torchbearer pretty much hit the nail on the head with his reply to the Ohio variant. Name a state that wants less police power, and it would be a more surprising bit of news.

Non sequitor.

The states already hold the entire POLICE POWER. Try reading the constitution.

[Sarge]

I did the three threads due to the 400 threads bashing AZ. I will not do any more on the subject.

[dannno]

I already relplied to that nonsense. What nail and what head? It's abusrd to say the state is seeking to enhance it's power. That reeks of conspriacy-lite extremisim.

And totally ignores the crux of the question, if you support immigration laws how can you enforce them without giving people the authority to enforce them? It's almost silly to see people not even addressing the full isssue but coming in with conspiracy theories on the "motives" of legislators rather than looking at the issue and seeking a response.

I cannot respect anyone who says they are against illegal immigration but are also against enforcing the laws against it. I mean either you are delusional or a liar. If you support open borders then come forward and say so. Not one opponent of the AZ law or a law like this has come forward with an alternative.

Nobody wants to see racial profiling...and the bill itself makes that illegal. People are screaming racism as a way to detract from the real subject of the bill. In order to enforce immigration it means we must be willing to forcibly remove violators. If we are unwilling, then we will have defacto open borders.


There are ways to enforce immigration laws without barfing on the fourth amendment.

[John Taylor]

There are ways to enforce immigration laws without barfing on the fourth amendment.

This law does not violate the 4th Amendment.

[dannno]

This law does not violate the 4th Amendment.

Liar, I've explained it to you 33 times. You don't understand the fourth amendment. There will be American citizens whose fourth amendment rights will be violated. Period.

You have not been able to use any sort of logical reasoning to prove I am wrong, all you do is parrot the same bullshit lines.

[dannno]

I did the three threads due to the 400 threads bashing AZ. I will not do any more on the subject.

Ahh man, don't tell me you hate the Constitution too...

[John Taylor]

Liar, I've explained it to you 33 times. You don't understand the fourth amendment. There will be American citizens whose fourth amendment rights will be violated. Period.

You have not been able to use any sort of logical reasoning to prove I am wrong, all you do is parrot the same bullshit lines.

Nonsense. I do understand the 4th Amendment, and it only forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. This law doesn't allow for a unreasonable searches and seizures. Period.

This law merely extends to immigration offenses a half-century-old tool called "stop and question," created by the U.S. Supreme Court. To prevent racial profiling, the law states that in constructing "reasonable suspicion," police officers "may not solely consider race, color or national origin" when determining whether they have reasonable suspicion.

This law does not residents to carry identification papers. The law creates a presumption of legal presence, if a person voluntarily presents specified forms of government-issued identification held by all citizens and all legal migrants. Failing to present identification papers is not grounds for arrest.

[dannno]

There are people here who actually think an officer can come up to you and ask you for your papers because they suspect you of being an illegal even though you are engaging in completely legal activity. Some people here don't think that can be abused by the police to harass every day citizens on issues that are completely unrelated to immigration.

Think about it. This is not a "papers please" country, but John Taylor wants it to be.

Judge Napolitano has spoken, AZ is implementing Nazi Germany style tactics, and all you people can do is continue to trash the Constitution and ignore it.

[dannno]

Nonsense. I do understand the 4th Amendment, and it only forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. This law doesn't allow for a unreasonable searches and seizures. Period.

Yes it DOES. People engaging in perfectly lawful activity can be suspected of being illegal when they are in fact legal citizens engaging in lawful. activity. That is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. This is ripe for abuse relating to issues that have NOTHING to do with illegal immigration.

Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano don't agree with you, and you have not articulated your position. Nobody here has been able to articulate your position.

That is the 34th time I've explained it to you.

[Chester Copperpot]

This law does not violate the 4th Amendment.

We're talking the 4th amendment of the US Constitution..

If Im standing on a street corner minding my own business and a cop locks me up for not producing papers because of this law.. then it violates the 4th amendment.

[John Taylor]

There are people here who actually think an officer can come up to you and ask you for your papers because they suspect you of being an illegal even though you are engaging in completely legal activity. Some people here don't think that can be abused by the police to harass every day citizens on issues that are completely unrelated to immigration.

Think about it. This is not a "papers please" country, but John Taylor wants it to be.

Judge Napolitano has spoken, AZ is implementing Nazi Germany style tactics, and all you people can do is continue to trash the Constitution and ignore it.

Judge Nap is wrong here.

I want to stop this problem now, before in order to preserve the country we are forced by circumstances spineless politicians and open borders folks have pushed us into for 60 years to implement even more radical measures for defending life, liberty and property in this country.

[Chester Copperpot]

Yes it DOES. People engaging in perfectly lawful activity can be suspected of being illegal when they are in fact legal citizens engaging in lawful. activity. That is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. This is ripe for abuse relating to issues that have NOTHING to do with illegal immigration.

Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano don't agree with you, and you have not articulated your position. Nobody here has been able to articulate your position.

That is the 34th time I've explained it to you.

You need to explain to him that for it NOT to be unreasonable the cops need a warrant.

[John Taylor]

We're talking the 4th amendment of the US Constitution..

If Im standing on a street corner minding my own business and a cop locks me up for not producing papers because of this law.. then it violates the 4th amendment.

This law does not allow this. You're safe in your hypo.

[John Taylor]

You need to explain to him that for it NOT to be unreasonable the cops need a warrant.

This is ENTIRELY INCORRECT. Police do not need a warrant, they need probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Read the 4th Amendment.

[Chester Copperpot]

This law does not allow this. You're safe in your hypo.

Well this would make a difference.. Can you link the law for me?

I saw one a guy on video who was a truck driver who got locked up for not producing a birth certificate.. cops told him they were doing it because of the new law..

[Chester Copperpot]

This is ENTIRELY INCORRECT. Police do not need a warrant, they need probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Read the 4th Amendment.

If im not breaking any laws and being peaceable they need a warrant or my consent.

[John Taylor]

Yes it DOES. People engaging in perfectly lawful activity can be suspected of being illegal when they are in fact legal citizens engaging in lawful. activity. That is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. This is ripe for abuse relating to issues that have NOTHING to do with illegal immigration.

Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano don't agree with you, and you have not articulated your position. Nobody here has been able to articulate your position.

That is the 34th time I've explained it to you.

Actually, Ron Paul disagrees with you on this one. Sorry.

Legal citizens will easily be able to demonstrate their status, and illegals will be deported. There is no violation of the 4th Amendment here.

[dannno]

Judge Nap is wrong here.

I want to stop this problem now, before in order to preserve the country we are forced by circumstances spineless politicians and open borders folks have pushed us into for 60 years to implement even more radical measures for defending life, liberty and property in this country.

Thank you for showing everybody in the forum that you are no better than the neocons who wanted to pass The Patriot Act in order to 'fight terrorism'.

Thank you for showing everybody here that you are willing to give up your Constitutional freedoms, because this really helps our side on this forum.

You and your attitude is precisely what nearly everybody here is AGAINST.

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security. That's YOU and anybody here who agrees with you.

[dannno]

This law does not allow this. You're safe in your hypo.

It does allow this, we've proven it directly from text in the bill, Melissa posted that yesterday. There is no lawful bullshit that you pretended there was.

[John Taylor]

Well this would make a difference.. Can you link the law for me?

I saw one a guy on video who was a truck driver who got locked up for not producing a birth certificate.. cops told him they were doing it because of the new law..

WTF, they haven't even implemented this law.

I posted the entire law on here a bunch of times,you can find it here (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf).

[dannno]

Actually, Ron Paul disagrees with you on this one. Sorry.

Legal citizens will easily be able to demonstrate their status, and illegals will be deported. There is no violation of the 4th Amendment here.

You are lying again.



Mods, is it possible to ban somebody for blatantly lying over and over and distributing misinformation on the forums constantly?

[Golding]

Try reading the constitution.Already have, more than a few times. Judging from some of your responses in this thread, you'd do well to follow your own advice.

[John Taylor]

Thank you for showing everybody in the forum that you are no better than the neocons who wanted to pass The Patriot Act in order to 'fight terrorism'.

Thank you for showing everybody here that you are willing to give up your Constitutional freedoms, because this really helps our side on this forum.

You and your attitude is precisely what nearly everybody here is AGAINST.

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security. That's YOU and anybody here who agrees with you.

YOU are the one seeking to give up liberty by advocating the migration of billions of uneducated new pr--redistributionist voters into this country. It is only by checking them now that there can be any hope of overcoming this welfare/warfare state and restoring the constitutional limitations on government.

This law does not violate the 4th Amendment, it does not allow for police to randomly stop people.

[John Taylor]

You are lying again.



Mods, is it possible to ban somebody for blatantly lying over and over and distributing misinformation on the forums constantly?

+1776, can someone ban this individual, he's consistently misrepresenting what is in this bill and is fearmongering at a level not seen since GWB and his Patriot Act coup in 2001.

[Stary Hickory]

There are ways to enforce immigration laws without barfing on the fourth amendment.

Expand please....no more one line drive by answers that do not answer anything. How can you enforce immigration policy while NOT discriminating between those with and without citizenship?

This is exactly the response I see a lot here. They are going to do citizenship checks when they check ID's normally. That's fine by me. Nothing at all changes for legal residents of ALL races, colors, sexes, or nationalities.

[John Taylor]

It does allow this, we've proven it directly from text in the bill, Melissa posted that yesterday. There is no lawful bullshit that you pretended there was.

There is a requirement that there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occured. That is a higher standard than what you assert, that anyone can be routinely just pulled off the sidewalk and arrested for not carrying a driver's license to the grocery.

[dannno]

Legal citizens will easily be able to demonstrate their status


After they are arrested for doing NOTHING?? Their 4th amendment right is VIOLATED when the cop asks them for their ID for engaging in LAWFUL activity. THEN they are arrested and things are sorted out.

This is either a purposeful misinformation campaign, or you have a very basic misunderstanding of what the 4th amendment is.. although like Peter Schiff likes to say, the Constitution isn't written in Chinese. It is written in english. No need for interpretation.

[John Taylor]

After they are arrested for doing NOTHING?? Their 4th amendment right is VIOLATED when the cop asks them for their ID for engaging in LAWFUL activity. THEN they are arrested and things are sorted out.

This is either a purposeful misinformation campaign, or you have a very basic misunderstanding of what the 4th amendment is.. although like Peter Schiff likes to say, the Constitution isn't written in Chinese. It is written in english. No need for interpretation.

They are arrested ONLY if there is a reasonable suspicion that they have broken the LAW. The police can ONLY request identification when they have a reasonable supicion that the person is in the country illegally.

You're right, the constitution is written in straightforward English. You should read it!!!!!

[dannno]

Expand please....no more one line drive by answers that do not answer anything. How can you enforce immigration policy while NOT discriminating between those with and without citizenship?


Like Melissa has said, you can discriminate at bottleneck points.. you don't have to discriminate against the entire population. There is no reason to throw the Constitution out the window. I can't think of ANY reason to do that, to be honest.

Citizenship should be required to get welfare and government services. You can still deport criminals back after their sentence (or before, though I wouldn't recommend it since they can just come right back over)

[dannno]

The police can ONLY request identification when they have a reasonable supicion that the person is in the country illegally.



And what would that be? Any lawful activities like standing on the corner in front of a home depot or picking strawberries? If so, that is A VIOLATION of the 4th amendment because citizens engage in those activities as well. This is the 35th time I've explained this to you.

The GOVERNOR of AZ was asked the same question, what an illegal alien looks like and sounded like a blathering IDIOT!!

[John Taylor]

And what would that be? Any lawful activities like standing on the corner in front of a home depot or picking strawberries? If so, that is A VIOLATION of the 4th amendment because citizens engage in those activities as well. This is the 35th time I've explained this to you.

The GOVERNOR of AZ was asked the same question, what an illegal alien looks like and sounded like a blathering IDIOT!!

Perhaps that's because Jan Brewer IS a BLATHERING IDIOT!

No, I don't know all the crimes, but I'm fairly well versed with ARS provisions. I'd say you could pretty much recite the entire criminal code here, and probable cause or reasonable suspicion that someone committed of any specific crime in it would be suffice as grounds to request a suspected illegal present their ID. It's a reasonable measure to combat an extremely destructive force.

[Stary Hickory]

Like Melissa has said, you can discriminate at bottleneck points.. you don't have to discriminate against the entire population. There is no reason to throw the Constitution out the window. I can't think of ANY reason to do that, to be honest.

Citizenship should be required to get welfare and government services. You can still deport criminals back after their sentence (or before, though I wouldn't recommend it since they can just come right back over)

But it still makes no sense to let illegals drive off after traffic violations as well. This is what people here are in essence arguing. I have no problem with them doing bottleneck checkpoints, although they will be avoided and well known in advance to illegals, just like the border.

If you stop a person for traffic violations or for breaking the law and ask for his ID and he cannot produce one, doing a ID check and citizenship check ought to be routine for all people. No one argues fro random stops, but to simply let people go when they have no ID is silly.

They already ask for ID in these cases, to see who you are, to see if you have warrants for your arrest. There is no reason not to check citizenship status as well.

[dannno]

But it still makes no sense to let illegals drive off after traffic violations as well.

Then don't give them a driver's license!! There's another bottleneck for you.

Now go and be Constitutional.

(ps. I'm not a big fan of the traffic stop approach because that is also ripe for abuse, though probably not unconstitutional...)

[ARealConservative]

This law does not violate the 4th Amendment.

it clearly violates the incorporated view of the bill of rights,but the more sensible amongst us don't really like that direction the federal government has taken anyway.

[Chester Copperpot]

WTF, they haven't even implemented this law.

I posted the entire law on here a bunch of times,you can find it here (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf).

well I looked at the law...


B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDER...



heres the 4th amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reasonable Suspicion? WTF is that? This is unconstitutional

[Cinderella]

Do you think American citizens who are hispanic in Arizona have a right to feel upset and maybe even scared? They know they now have to carry ID that NO OTHER American citizen has to carry. They have to now PROVE they are a CITIZEN...have you ever had to do that...with threat of detainment or deportation if you couldn't?

Do you think white American citizens in Arizona have any of the above concerns?

Can you honestly now say that white and hispanic AMERICAN CITIZENS (read: I'm not talking about illegal immigrants) are going to be treated as equals now in Arizona?


example: A hispanic from California that was born in the United States takes a vacation to Arizona to visit other hispanic (American Citizen) friends. This man doesn't drive so has no DL and never got a state ID because it isn't required. He was born in a hospital in New York city...but doesn't have a current copy of his birth certificate. While in Arizona he is in a car that is stopped for speeding...the police officer decides that a car full of hispanics is reasonable enough suspicion to ask them for all their "papers". They all give their Arizona state ids or DL...but this man has no identification. When asked his address he gives an address in California...police man becomes more suspicious...decides to detain him until this man can prove he is here legally...only problem is for him to do that he would have to go to New York to get a copy of his BC. So he is detained for days? weeks? months? Until immigration can work it out.

[Chester Copperpot]

Do you think American citizens who are hispanic in Arizona have a right to feel upset and maybe even scared? They know they now have to carry ID that NO OTHER American citizen has to carry. They have to now PROVE they are a CITIZEN...have you ever had to do that...with threat of detainment or deportation if you couldn't?

Do you think white American citizens in Arizona have any of the above concerns?

Can you honestly now say that white and hispanic AMERICAN CITIZENS (read: I'm not talking about illegal immigrants) are going to be treated as equals now in Arizona?


example: A hispanic from California that was born in the United States takes a vacation to Arizona to visit other hispanic (American Citizen) friends. This man doesn't drive so has no DL and never got a state ID because it isn't required. He was born in a hospital in New York city...but doesn't have a current copy of his birth certificate. While in Arizona he is in a car that is stopped for speeding...the police officer decides that a car full of hispanics is reasonable enough suspicion to ask them for all their "papers". They all give their Arizona state ids or DL...but this man has no identification. When asked his address he gives an address in California...police man becomes more suspicious...decides to detain him until this man can prove he is here legally...only problem is for him to do that he would have to go to New York to get a copy of his BC. So he is detained for days? weeks? months? Until immigration can work it out.

Plus.. while everybody might like the current Governor.. What if some neocon became governor and started using this law to arrest WHITE PEOPLE... the law makes no difference for race... This is bad law.

refuse illegals freebie.. no free welfare, food stamps or schooling..

[tmosley]

They are arrested ONLY if there is a reasonable suspicion that they have broken the LAW. The police can ONLY request identification when they have a reasonable supicion that the person is in the country illegally.

You're right, the constitution is written in straightforward English. You should read it!!!!!

Hey, you look like a Mexican. You're going downtown, buddy!

Next day, after he is released:

Hey, you look like a Mexican. You're going downtown, buddy!

And so on. It is nothing more than a tool which will be used to persecute anyone the police don't like, or who has brown skin, or who looks "suspicious".

If this shit passes in Texas, I am done with this country. I will be headed for the Philippines within a year of the law's passage.

[AuH20]

refuse illegals freebie.. no free welfare, food stamps or schooling..

The pesky Supreme Court made this impossible. You're dreaming the dream. This law sucks but it is an act of last resort.

[Chester Copperpot]

The pesky Supreme Court made this impossible. You're dreaming the dream.

then congress needs to remove the scope of SCOTUS's power from ruling in this area.

[AuH20]

then congress needs to remove the scope of SCOTUS's power from ruling in this area.

You have me there. I'm all in. ;)

[John Taylor]

Hey, you look like a Mexican. You're going downtown, buddy!

Next day, after he is released:

Hey, you look like a Mexican. You're going downtown, buddy!

And so on. It is nothing more than a tool which will be used to persecute anyone the police don't like, or who has brown skin, or who looks "suspicious".

If this shit passes in Texas, I am done with this country. I will be headed for the Philippines within a year of the law's passage.

That's not what the law says, and your misconstruing it again.

All an individual has to do is to comply with the law, and, when engaging in VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, have possession of their driver's license. That way, instead of being detained on a very reasonable suspicion of illegality, they can go straight to the pink underwear in tent city.

Only 59% of illegals are Mexican. This law is designed to stop all illegals, be they Russian or Chinese.

[07041826]

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation."


Thomas Jefferson

I wonder what Jefferson would say on the matter.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I will be headed for the Philippines within a year of the law's passage.

Mind toting along a blue eyed devil when ya go? :D

[Cinderella]

What ID do I have to show that I am an American Citizen??? Let's say I'm out on a walk...I'm not driving so I don't legally need my drivers licenese. I am not legally required to have a state ID (even if I was in Nevada I wouldn't be required under the law to have an ID). I'm not going to carry my SS card or my birth certificate around with me everywhere I go. So what do I show the police officer when he asks me for my papers???

Should I be detained for going on a walk? Should any American citizen?

The argument is simple...American citizens have never had to carry proof of citizenship...this law will now require a subset of American citizens in Arizona (hispanics) to now carry proof of citizenship or they may be detained and worst case scenario accidentally deported...all because they share the skin color of illegal immigrants.

I am NOT talking about the illegal immigrants...if a million illegal immigrants get stopped, asked for ID, can't provide it, get deported...all legal. But if ONE American citizen gets detained because of his skin color alone...then it is unconstitutional...plain and simple...cut and dry.

We don't live in a country who's claim is "everyone is free and their rights are protected...unless you share your skin color with a group of people that have broken the law...then your rights will be sacraficed so we can pursue those that have broken the law".

That is not what I want my country to become...and that is the direction this law is leading us.

[Lord Xar]

That's not what the law says, and your misconstruing it again.

All an individual has to do is to comply with the law, and, when engaging in VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, have possession of their driver's license. That way, instead of being detained on a very reasonable suspicion of illegality, they can go straight to the pink underwear in tent city.

Only 59% of illegals are Mexican. This law is designed to stop all illegals, be they Russian or Chinese.

You will find that most of these Libs use the same tactics as the libs to try and validate their arguments. Same smoke screends, same fear mongering..

I have an idea, with as much fervor as all of you Libs are for illegal immigration call up your senators/ congressman and demand an end to welfare and the entitlements. Post on all your boards and do the same there... you won't, you don't. You are armchair activists.

"Hey, you violated the law... can I see your identification"
"uhmmm, sure.. here is my identification.."
"thanks".

Whenever there are new "entitlement or government hand out programs" these Libs raise no concern. You hear not a peep on these boards. But now, oh my gosh!!! nazi germany here we come... all propaganda.

[John Taylor]

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation."


Thomas Jefferson

I wonder what Jefferson would say on the matter.

In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

~Thomas Jefferson

[John Taylor]

Mind toting along a blue eyed devil when ya go? :D

Don't let the door hit ya.

[JeNNiF00F00]

That's not what the law says, and your misconstruing it again.

All an individual has to do is to comply with the law, and, when engaging in VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, have possession of their driver's license. That way, instead of being detained on a very reasonable suspicion of illegality, they can go straight to the pink underwear in tent city.

Only 59% of illegals are Mexican. This law is designed to stop all illegals, be they Russian or Chinese.

"Violations of the law" that you speak of could be as minor as having a tail light out. Sounds great. :rolleyes:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You will find that most of these Libs use the same tactics as the libs to try and validate their arguments. Same smoke screends, same fear mongering..

I have an idea, with as much fervor as all of you Libs are for illegal immigration call up your senators/ congressman and demand an end to welfare and the entitlements. Post on all your boards and do the same there... you won't, you don't. You are armchair activists.

"Hey, you violated the law... can I see your identification"
"uhmmm, sure.. here is my identification.."
"thanks".

Whenever there are new "entitlement or government hand out programs" these Libs raise no concern. You hear not a peep on these boards. But now, oh my gosh!!! nazi germany here we come... all propaganda.


AZ is not securing borders. AZ has no intention of raising a militia to secure it's borders. AZ is now a papers please state. SCOTUS ruled there is no compulsion to respond and failure to respond is not cause to arrest.

AZ is not even proposing to solve the economic or re-entry problems. AZ has not proposed to nullify federal birthright citizenship, welfare, public education, any other public benefits or actually secure it's border. No instead the forum is being polluted with neocons who want to expand the police powers of an already over powered police state.

How is this for propaganda?
http://i41.tinypic.com/24go9pd.png

[JeNNiF00F00]

Don't let the door hit ya.

John, dont be an asshole.

[John Taylor]

"Violations of the law" that you speak of could be as minor as having a tail light out. Sounds great. :rolleyes:

Sure. Comply with the law. The law says that the police can pull people over if they have a tail light out. We should enforce the law, or repeal it. It's not a difficult concept.

[Vessol]

AZ is not securing borders. AZ has no intention of raising a militia to secure it's borders. AZ is now a papers please state. SCOTUS ruled there is no compulsion to respond and failure to respond is not cause to arrest.

AZ is not even proposing to solve the economic or re-entry problems. AZ has not proposed to nullify federal birthright citizenship, welfare, public education, any other public benefits or actually secure it's border. No instead the forum is being polluted with neocons who want to expand the police powers of an already over powered police state.

How is this for propaganda?
http://i41.tinypic.com/24go9pd.png

Getting rid of Mexicans > Liberty

[RedStripe]

Wow, I can't believe there are people on these forums who actually support this bill. Shame on you John Taylor.

[John Taylor]

John, dont be an asshole.

Hell, you're the one threatening to leave the United States if Texas excercises some of her residual police powers and determines that it is ok to ask a suspected illegal immigrant if they happen to have their Id with them that day.

Please.

[Stary Hickory]

You will find that most of these Libs use the same tactics as the libs to try and validate their arguments. Same smoke screends, same fear mongering..

I have an idea, with as much fervor as all of you Libs are for illegal immigration call up your senators/ congressman and demand an end to welfare and the entitlements. Post on all your boards and do the same there... you won't, you don't. You are armchair activists.

"Hey, you violated the law... can I see your identification"
"uhmmm, sure.. here is my identification.."
"thanks".

Whenever there are new "entitlement or government hand out programs" these Libs raise no concern. You hear not a peep on these boards. But now, oh my gosh!!! nazi germany here we come... all propaganda.

I have noticed the same thing, more often than not welfare is met by many on these boards with silence(not all obviously). Even though welfarism is a horrible thing that uses force and violence to take from law abiding people who have harmed nobody.

I am against the wars, I am against the expanisve military, I am against the poor robbing everyone else and I am against the rich robbing everyone else, and I am against the middle class angling how to get in on the game.

If people were half as vocal about the welfare state as they were about open borders maybe immigration would be less of an issue. Until such a time when we end the government institutionalized violence and the redistribution and the political corruption that goes along with it I cannot even discuss open borders. We need to protect ourselves from mob rule before we let mobs in.

[John Taylor]

Wow, I can't believe there are people on these forums who actually support this bill. Shame on you John Taylor.

I support protecting private property rights, the rule of law, the constitution, laissez faire capitalism, and the restoration of all of those things

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Getting rid of Mexicans > Liberty

No shit.

It's the big one! We are suffering an undeclared invasion but we are not going to say by who because that would be discrimination!

[Stary Hickory]

Sure. Comply with the law. The law says that the police can pull people over if they have a tail light out. We should enforce the law, or repeal it. It's not a difficult concept.

I agree with this, if tail lights being out are not a concern repeal that law. But it makes no sense to not allow cops to determine if a person is here legally or not when doing an ID check.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Sure. Comply with the law. The law says that the police can pull people over if they have a tail light out. We should enforce the law, or repeal it. It's not a difficult concept.

You must be a cop.

[ARealConservative]

Wow, I can't believe there are people on these forums who actually support this bill. Shame on you John Taylor.

I don't support the law, but I do support sovereign states for governing the way the people of the state wish.

That is the angle not getting enough play around here.

seems like a ton of people wishing to intervene in a government body that they don't belong to, and that is also bad.

[Lord Xar]

AZ is not securing borders. AZ has no intention of raising a militia to secure it's borders. AZ is now a papers please state. SCOTUS ruled there is no compulsion to respond and failure to respond is not cause to arrest.

AZ is not even proposing to solve the economic or re-entry problems. AZ has not proposed to nullify federal birthright citizenship, welfare, public education, any other public benefits or actually secure it's border. No instead the forum is being polluted with neocons who want to expand the police powers of an already over powered police state.

How is this for propaganda?
http://i41.tinypic.com/24go9pd.png

You bring up great points. I am on board with all of them. But the fact remains none of those points were brought up. So, we can continue down the road we are on and have nothing done or do something, albeit intrusive? Perhaps Texas can wise up and do some of the things you suggest. I am for them.

Also, in the same breadth you say "neo-cons", one can point and label "liberal statist".
I am thinking that what you might want will lead to exactly what the left wants,, tens of millions of new leftist voters, big government, welfare etc... and you see what I want as a lead in to fascism..... so, we both want liberty. We both see different ways of getting there, but ultimately - perhaps both will lead to the same place... regardless.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I agree with this, if tail lights being out are not a concern repeal that law. But it makes no sense to not allow cops to determine if a person is here legally or not when doing an ID check.

Like a National ID/RFID check?

[Vessol]

No shit.

It's the big one! We are suffering an undeclared invasion but we are not going to say by who because that would be discrimination!

Yeah, they're leaching off our welfare system. But instead of stopping them in their tracks that way, we just give more power to the State to stop it.

Do you honestly think the police and soon the DHS will not abuse these new power?

[RedStripe]

I support protecting private property rights, the rule of law, the constitution, laissez faire capitalism, and the restoration of all of those things

blah blah blah

You support racist/xenophobic legislation. "Gotta kick out them illegals er else dey'll be votin for handouts!!11 durrrrr"

and LOL @ "laissez faire capitalism"

[John Taylor]

You must be a cop.

You must be a resident scholar at UC Berkley?

[RedStripe]

I don't support the law, but I do support sovereign states for governing the way the people of the state wish.

That is the angle not getting enough play around here.

seems like a ton of people wishing to intervene in a government body that they don't belong to, and that is also bad.

"Sovereign states" can go screw themselves. It's just an imaginary legal concept that no one should really take seriously in the face of ridiculous legislation.

Who is calling for "intervention?" What does that even mean?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You bring up great points. I am on board with all of them. But the fact remains none of those points were brought up. So, we can continue down the road we are on and have nothing done or do something, albeit intrusive? Perhaps Texas can wise up and do some of the things you suggest. I am for them.

Also, in the same breadth you say "neo-cons", one can point and label "liberal statist".
I am thinking that what you might want will lead to exactly what the left wants,, tens of millions of new leftist voters, big government, welfare etc... and you see what I want as a lead in to fascism..... so, we both want liberty. We both see different ways of getting there, but ultimately - perhaps both will lead to the same place... regardless.

Thanks for the direct acknowledgment. I felt the rubarb tilt with the lib label. Friendly retaliation.

If I recall in an extensive immigration thread semi-recently you posted in, I stated I do not oppose Ron Paul's transition plan which includes deploying the military on the border. But Ron Paul does talk about the welfare state and the role of government is a vital discussion to the transition plan. I talk about the welfare state.

I am not on-board with increasing the size of the police state because that has been the solution to everything for quite a good many years and it is a total failure.

I have also stated the following:
Do I support Arizona: No
Do I support the people of Arizona's natural right to self government: Yes

I have even been more radical than most people and advocate the elimination of anti-discrimination law. The whole original intent of policing allegiance lies with the people and their ability to discriminate in their private and ordinary affairs. I think it's bullshit to support government ethnic discrimination with isolationist quotas and not private discrimination. If a business owner can't openly specify a preference to hire citizens how can a free people respond to fluctuations in an immigrant labor market?

[John Taylor]

blah blah blah

You support racist/xenophobic legislation. "Gotta kick out them illegals er else dey'll be votin for handouts!!11 durrrrr"

and LOL @ "laissez faire capitalism"

I do not support racist legislation, I support deporting all illegals of all colors, creeds, and sizes...

Nice job playing the race card though friend!!!

Statistics don't like, and immigrant voters and their children DO VOTE FOR REDISTRIBUTION. That is a fact.

As for my comment adding capitalism to laissez faire... I am well aware of your belief that such a label is a redundency, and I indeed agreed with you until I saw a few posts from your open borders brethren here, who don't seem to comprehend it's meaning. Hence the repetition.

[Vessol]

I do not support racist legislation, I support deporting all illegals of all colors, creeds, and sizes...

Nice job playing the race card though friend!!!

Statistics don't like, and immigrant voters and their children DO VOTE FOR REDISTRIBUTION. That is a fact.

As for my comment adding capitalism to laissez faire... I am well aware of your belief that such a label is a redundency, and I indeed agreed with you until I saw a few posts from your open borders brethren here, who don't seem to comprehend it's meaning. Hence the repetition.

Let's hire hundreds of thousands more police officers and DHS officers.

Everyone knows the Government can solve any problem.

[ARealConservative]

"Sovereign states" can go screw themselves. It's just an imaginary legal concept that no one should really take seriously in the face of ridiculous legislation.

You can go screw yourself too. Consent of the governed is not an imaginary legal concept.


Who is calling for "intervention?" What does that even mean?

Everybody hiding behind the U.S. Constitution – and specifically the 4th amendment, are intervening.

[Vessol]

The States have to follow the Constitution as well, FYI. Read the 10th Amendment again.

[John Taylor]

Let's hire hundreds of thousands more police officers and DHS officers.

Everyone knows the Government can solve any problem.

Why? We don't need more police, we just need to empower them to ask the simple question, when they ahve already stopped someone with a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime: "you happen to have your ID with you", and "are you a legal resident of the United States"?

Hundreds of thousands? Why, we have plenty of "homeland security" guys right now... the U.S. Military, bring them home and deploy them to stop this invasion of the southwest.

[John Taylor]

The States have to follow the Constitution as well, FYI. Read the 10th Amendment again.

I thik you're thinking of the Supremacy Clause.

[RedStripe]

I do not support racist legislation, I support deporting all illegals of all colors, creeds, and sizes...

Nice job playing the race card though friend!!!

Statistics don't like, and immigrant voters and their children DO VOTE FOR REDISTRIBUTION. That is a fact.

As for my comment adding capitalism to laissez faire... I am well aware of your belief that such a label is a redundency, and I indeed agreed with you until I saw a few posts from your open borders brethren here, who don't seem to comprehend it's meaning. Hence the repetition.

So you support the enforcement of laws, in large measure, due to the voting preferences of those who are likely to break them?

Ahahhahahahhahahaha

A true "friend of liberty" you are. lmao

[Vessol]

Why? We don't need more police, we just need to empower them to ask the simple question, when they ahve already stopped someone with a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime: "you happen to have your ID with you", and "are you a legal resident of the United States"?

Hundreds of thousands? Why, we have plenty of "homeland security" guys right now... the U.S. Military, bring them home and deploy them to stop this invasion of the southwest.

Getting rid of Mexicans > Liberty

Fuck Liberty. Fuck Freedom. Government, plx keep me safe.

[John Taylor]

So you support the enforcement of laws, in large measure, due to the voting preferences of those who are likely to break them?

Ahahhahahahhahahaha

A true "friend of liberty" you are. lmao

Of ALL laws? No, of immigration laws? Yeah, I do. I don't want a billion communists or a hundred million new "social-democrats" moving into the country and seizing private property through the use of government bayonets.

Some friend of liberty you are. Disgusting.

[RedStripe]

You can go screw yourself too. Consent of the governed is not an imaginary legal concept.

Bwuahahahahahaha

Ok then, show me where it has ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever been the case. Seriously let's see some links.

Do 2 year olds consent to their government? Hahaha


Everybody hiding behind the U.S. Constitution – and specifically the 4th amendment, are intervening.

How so?

You don't think the states are bound by the constitution?

As if state-based tyranny is any different from federal tyranny.

[John Taylor]

Getting rid of Mexicans > Liberty

Fuck Liberty. Fuck Freedom. Government, plx keep me safe.

Mexicans? What do you have against Mexicans, individual liberty and freedom?

The illegals are stastically PROVEN to support increased redistribution in this country. That is a FACT. I don't care if martians come move to the U.S., so long as they don't favor expanding the warfare/welfare state.

[RedStripe]

"Let's enforce laws specifically so that we can use the government's police agencies to crack down on our political opponents" - John Taylor, 2010


Hey, what's that smell?


Fascism.

[Vessol]

"Let's enforce laws specifically so that we can use the government's police agencies to crack down on our political opponents" - John Taylor, 2010


Hey, what's that smell?


Fascism.

You'll find a lot of Fascist sympathizers here. Anything to defeat the Communists. Who in the end, both are exactly the same.

[ARealConservative]

Bwuahahahahahaha

Ok then, show me where it has ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever been the case. Seriously let's see some links.

Do 2 year olds consent to their government? Hahaha



How so?

You don't think the states are bound by the constitution?

As if state-based tyranny is any different from federal tyranny.



I am so sick of the retards in the movement.

Look, this forum was setup around the concept of fighting to restore a social construct – namely constitutional law, and not the bastardized version spawned from the new deal and later that incorporates everything under the sub creating a gigantic federal construct.

[John Taylor]

"Let's enforce laws specifically so that we can use the government's police agencies to crack down on our political opponents" - John Taylor, 2010


Hey, what's that smell?


Fascism.

Where was this said???

I have repeatedly stated that we cannot use the powers of government to restrict the right of citizens to participate in the political process, but that instead we must restrict migration here to those likely to support private property rights, constitutional government, and laissez faire.

You're being most disingenious.

[RedStripe]

Where was this said???

I have repeatedly stated that we cannot use the powers of government to restrict the right of citizens to participate in the political process, but that instead we must restrict migration here to those likely to support private property rights, constitutional government, and laissez faire.

You're being most disingenious.

Where did you say that? Ummm look all over the forum you say it in every thread.

One of your biggest reasons for enforcing this law is that it will be enforced largely against people who disagree with you.

And that's pathetic. Stands to reason that you would be in favor of tougher anti-drug laws too, since a majority of drug users probably disagree with you. On top of that, "state police powers mean that states can outlaw drugs comon guys, geez, it's STATES RIGHTS!!!11 duuurrrrr"

[tpreitzel]

Where was this said???

I have repeatedly stated that we cannot use the powers of government to restrict the right of citizens to participate in the political process, but that instead we must restrict migration here to those likely to support private property rights, constitutional government, and laissez faire.

You're being most disingenious.

I, too, would like to see the original statement if true. Hopefully, RedStripe can produce the link. At this point, I don't know, but the facts are needed.

[tpreitzel]

Where did you say that? Ummm look all over the forum you say it in every thread.



Not good enough. Where did JohnTaylor actually make your quoted statement?

[RedStripe]

It's not a quote, it's the argument he is making over and over again. Try reading through the 4-5 immigration threads on the front page.

"We're eliminating 12th of the population of the state of AZ...the people who overwelmingly support redistribution here." *cheer*

[RedStripe]

"once these people are admitted, and become citizens, there is NOTHING we can do to prevent them from participating in the political realm by voting themselves other people's money. They must be stopped beforehand. " - John Taylor, 2010

John "aw schucks we can't take their voting rights away after they become citizens" Taylor

[tpreitzel]

It's not a quote, it's the argument he is making over and over again. Try reading through the 4-5 immigration threads on the front page.

"We're eliminating 12th of the population of the state of AZ...the people who overwelmingly support redistribution here." *cheer*

Then, YOU need to stop using quotation marks on statements that YOU invented based on YOUR interpretation of JohnTaylor's posts and consequently FALSELY attributed to JohnTaylor.

[John Taylor]

Where did you say that? Ummm look all over the forum you say it in every thread.

One of your biggest reasons for enforcing this law is that it will be enforced largely against people who disagree with you.

And that's pathetic. Stands to reason that you would be in favor of tougher anti-drug laws too, since a majority of drug users probably disagree with you. On top of that, "state police powers mean that states can outlaw drugs comon guys, geez, it's STATES RIGHTS!!!11 duuurrrrr"

I don't have a problem morally excluding those who are stasticially most likely to be in favor of the forcible redistribution of wealth from migrating here, no. If that admission is your big "coup", then crow away.

Americans have the right to determine who joins their ranks, and I don't think we should cheerlead for those who will be fighting to take away our rights, whatever their color.

[Stary Hickory]

It's not a quote, it's the argument he is making over and over again. Try reading through the 4-5 immigration threads on the front page.

"We're eliminating 12th of the population of the state of AZ...the people who overwelmingly support redistribution here." *cheer*

Don't quote people when it's not their words.....

[RedStripe]

Then, YOU need to stop using quotation marks on statements that YOU invented based on YOUR interpretation of JohnTaylor's posts and consequently FALSELY attributed to JohnTaylor.

actually i can say whatever i want, don't get your panties in a bunch.


the funny part about it is that when i simply rephrase his own argument in a way that doesn't reference "ILLEGALS" and "PRO-DISTRIBUTION" or "SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS!" he suddenly rejects the very argument he's been making all over these forums (that was kinda the point).

[silverhandorder]

actually i can say whatever i want, don't get your panties in a bunch.


the funny part about it is that when i simply rephrase his own argument in a way that doesn't reference "ILLEGALS" and "PRO-DISTRIBUTION" or "SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS!" he suddenly rejects the very argument he's been making all over these forums (that was kinda the point).

No the point is that we have two different moral codes. We will just have to disagree here.

[John Taylor]

actually i can say whatever i want, don't get your panties in a bunch.


the funny part about it is that when i simply rephrase his own argument in a way that doesn't reference "ILLEGALS" and "PRO-DISTRIBUTION" or "SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS!" he suddenly rejects the very argument he's been making all over these forums (that was kinda the point).

Well, the entire point is that I oppose ANYONE moving here who will advocate the redistribution of wealth, so when you get rid of those specifics from the hypo, of course I'm much less likely to support it.

You really haven't thought through this well.

[RedStripe]

John Taylor has no respect for private property rights because he wants to make it ILLEGAL for a person with a PRIVATE PLANE to fly and land on PRIVATE PROPERTY and live on PRIVATE PROPERTY voluntarily and with the consent of the owners.


How dare he? Does he not understand the basic principles of private property upon which this nation was founded?

I think we should petition to remove his voting rights, or get him kicked out of the country before he undermines all of our God-given rights to private property and freedom!

[tpreitzel]

actually i can say whatever i want, don't get your panties in a bunch.


OK, sport. We'll let the moderators determine if INTENTIONALLY attributing a FALSE quotation to another member qualifies for a ban.

[silverhandorder]

You sounding more like an anarchist then a libertarian Red Stripe.

[RedStripe]

Well, the entire point is that I oppose ANYONE moving here who will advocate the redistribution of wealth, so when you get rid of those specifics from the hypo, of course I'm much less likely to support it.

You really haven't thought through this well.

You want the government to crack down on a certain law because that will result in the detention of people you disagree with.


But you support "the rule of law."


Ahahahahaha

[RedStripe]

You sounding more like an anarchist then a libertarian Red Stripe.

how so?

[Stary Hickory]

You want the government to crack down on a certain law because that will result in the detention of people you disagree with.


But you support "the rule of law."


Ahahahahaha

Well I imagine he wants to protect his liberty, his labor and his property from violent use and confiscation. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Sadly it's the reason you draw borders anyways. If people would not do these awful things to one another then borders would be a useless concept.

It's not a disagreement of opinion, when one person wants to rob you or take your liberty away using the government you must defend yourself. I see no difference in being invaded by Soviet Russia and being oppressed by them than having foreigners freely enter our country and use the state apparatus to do the exact same thing.

Life, liberty, and protection of property rights is what it is all about. If you would worry half as much about securing those things and making sure all avenues towards violating those principles were removed in this country as you do about allowing people to freely enter this country then immigration would not be a problem.

[silverhandorder]

how so?

You are opposing a nation's ability to control it's borders. Last I checked monarchists were not required to be for open borders.

[Vessol]

Preventive laws by the government don't work.

Prohibition didn't work.

Why should this?

I have no problem with keeping our borders protected.

But, I do have a problem with giving police more power. It is only the start. Like so many laws before, it will just increase the power of the State and give them more power over you and I.

[silverhandorder]

At the very least recognize that it is a foolish thing to make judgment on the state. You don't live there and don't know their situation, they should be free to make their own mistakes.

I am all for keeping power from police, however considering that they can already stop you upon reasonable suspicion it hardly seems like an expansion of power to me.

[specsaregood]

Am I understanding this correct:
The big dispute over this law is whether it allows an abuse of power and unconstitutional searches? Some assume it will, others assume that the majority of cops will not look into immigration status unless somebody is suspected of breaking a seperate law?

It seems most don't have a problem with the state enforcing the laws in regards to removing illegals, but rather in how they go about getting the information?

[Vessol]

At the very least recognize that it is a foolish thing to make judgment on the state. You don't live there and don't know their situation, they should be free to make their own mistakes.

I am all for keeping power from police, however considering that they can already stop you upon reasonable suspicion it hardly seems like an expansion of power to me.

The problem is seen in the very OP of this thread, laws like this will expand. They will gain more popularity. Notice how at the same time this is going on, a Biometric National ID is in the works.


It seems most don't have a problem with the state enforcing the laws in regards to removing illegals, but rather in how they go about getting the information?

If a State wants to waste its tax-payers money in the futile attempt to deport people, that's their choice. However, yes, I'm afraid of the application of this law and the ramifcations it has on the future in justifying more tyrannical laws. It's only one step of many behind it up to a Police State.

[RedStripe]

You are opposing a nation's ability to control it's borders. Last I checked monarchists were not required to be for open borders.

I'm not opposing a nations "ability" to do anything - it has the guns.

I'm opposing the morality of detaining poor people, forcing them to lose their jobs, and sending them to live in a third-world hellhole (which is partly the creation of this nation's policies).

Gee, I don't know it just seems like we should have a bit more compassion for the desperately poor (as in, not doing anything to actively make their lives WORSE than they already are - such as deporting/harassing/detaining them).

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Am I understanding this correct:
The big dispute over this law is whether it allows an abuse of power and unconstitutional searches? Some assume it will, others assume that the majority of cops will not look into immigration status unless somebody is suspected of breaking a seperate law?

It seems most don't have a problem with the state enforcing the laws in regards to removing illegals, but rather in how they go about getting the information?

The debate is over solving economic problems with police powers and a guise of secure borders.

[Vessol]

Morality isn't the governments job however, keeping to their set laws is however.

And this is one of the cases where it isn't keeping to it's own laws. Not to mention government can not fix any issue, especially immigration, so it's just wasted money.

[specsaregood]

The debate is over solving economic problems with police powers and pretending to secure borders that have no intention to be secured.

It doesn't sound like that is the debate that has been raging on. I'm pretty sure 99% of the people here agree that getting rid of the welfare state would go a long ways; but that ain't happening for a long time/ever. What i see is people arguing over the details of enforcement of the law; but not with the result of the state removing illegals.

[AuH20]

Morality isn't the governments job however, keeping to their set laws is however.

And this is one of the cases where it isn't keeping to it's own laws. Not to mention government can not fix any issue, especially immigration, so it's just wasted money.

So you don't object to ranchers shooting illegals if they threaten their lives? I like you if that's the case. Libertarians have to be consistent. You can't straddle the line of self-defense and no law enforcement by the state.

[Vessol]

So you don't object to ranchers shooting illegals if they threaten their lives? I like you if that's the case. Libertarians have to be consistent.

Of course not. I have no issue what-so-ever with sovereignty laws of private property. I'd want the right to shoot somebody if they came on my land and threatened me, everyone should have that right.

I just don't think this law is going to solve the problem it's meant to solve and it will give future excuses to legislators to enact more laws to increase the police state.

Just like the Patriot Act and the Drug War.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It doesn't sound like that is the debate that has been raging on. I'm pretty sure 99% of the people here agree that getting rid of the welfare state would go a long ways; but that ain't happening for a long time/ever. What i see is people arguing over the details of enforcement of the law; but not with the result of the state removing illegals.

Well the fact you (and you are not alone) do not feel the welfare state is going away anytime soon is a problem. My solution to that particular problem is for a couple million libertarians to take direct citizen action, geographically organize, and nullify or abolish. What is your proposal?

Any discussion of statue I have entertained is in the context of statues that criminalize something that ought not be criminalized. SCOTUS has already stated there is no compulsion to answer and failure to answer is not cause for arrest.

[AuH20]

Of course not. I have no issue what-so-ever with sovereignty laws of private property.
I just don't think this law is going to solve the problem it's meant to solve and it will give future excuses to legislators to enact more laws to increase the police state.

Just like the Patriot Act and the Drug War.

Cool. You're okay in my book. :D;) And I agree with you that the law isn't necessarily going to solve the problem because the problem exists in Mexico City and Washington D.C., but at the same time something must be done. These citizens are literally thrust in a catch 22 because it's not politically viable to enforce the border.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So you don't object to ranchers shooting illegals if they threaten their lives? I like you if that's the case. Libertarians have to be consistent. You can't straddle the line of self-defense and no law enforcement by the state.

Is the rancher in question a responsible property owner who provides notice warning against trespass around their entire 22,000 acre perimeter? I don't feel like getting shot by some asshole if I don't know I am trespassing.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

but at the same time something must be done. These citizens are literally thrust in a catch 22 because it's not politically viable to enforce the border.

I reject this argument. It is the same bullshit that continually gets packaged and sold to expand the police state. Bailouts anyone?

[AuH20]

Is the rancher in question a responsible property owner who provides notice warning against trespass around their entire 22,000 acre perimeter? I don't feel like getting shot by some asshole if I don't know I am trespassing.

Yes. Not some big game hunter. A reasonable individual who wants to be left alone.

[specsaregood]

Well the fact you (and you are not alone) do not feel the welfare state is going away anytime soon is a problem. My solution to that particular problem is for a couple million libertarians to take direct citizen action, geographically organize, and nullify or abolish. What is your proposal?

And you would still be outnumbered by a couple hundred million that will want to kill you for taking away their freebies. I'm working locally as much as I can (little right now), but my proposal? Give everybody a billion dollars, legal and illegal alike, let it all finally go belly up and then we can start from scratch.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

And you would still be outnumbered by a couple hundred million that will want to kill you for taking away their freebies. I'm working locally as much as I can (little right now), but my proposal? Give everybody a billion dollars, legal and illegal alike, let it all finally go belly up and then we can start from scratch.

I reject the argument of fear. If it isn't going away and people who subscribe to liberty pursue the same tactics failure is inevitable. In my opinion it is time to take a stand for the cause of freedom. We are either going to take direct citizen action pursuing tactics that achieve goals or continue on the long road of educating people and hope for the best in the political arena.

[specsaregood]

I reject the argument of fear. If it isn't going away and people who subscribe to liberty pursue the same tactics failure is inevitable. In my opinion it is time to take a stand for the cause of freedom. We are either going to take direct citizen action pursuing tactics that achieve goals or continue on the long road of educating people and hope for the best in the political arena.

Fair enough, of course it is a different topic.

As I understand it, this AZ law is no different than existing federal laws. The state is just assuming some of the obligations of the federal govt and federal law enforcement. Am I understanding that correct? Do you know? If so, then I don't understand why people are all upset about it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Fair enough, of course it is a different topic.

As I understand it, this AZ law is no different than existing federal laws. The state is just assuming some of the obligations of the federal govt and federal law enforcement. Am I understanding that correct? Do you know? If so, then I don't understand why people are all upset about it.

It would appear AZ will place a burden on an individual to respond and failure to do so could lead to an arrest. In Hibel SCOTUS has also upheld a states right to legislate circumstances that compels an individual to provide a name. From my perspective it would appear AZ is going to expand the scope of compulsory police powers through legislation by creating circumstances instead of legislating a specific criminal act and lawful penalty.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why? We don't need more police, we just need to empower them to ask the simple question, when they ahve already stopped someone with a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime: "you happen to have your ID with you", and "are you a legal resident of the United States"?

Hundreds of thousands? Why, we have plenty of "homeland security" guys right now... the U.S. Military, bring them home and deploy them to stop this invasion of the southwest.


Trust me, you don't want that. If you think the cops are bad now, wait till your idea makes the military fascism of 1930s Germany look tame. :p Not that I'm a believer in the Constitution, but doesn't your little plan also violate the "Posse Comitatus Act"? :p

[specsaregood]

It would appear AZ will place a burden on an individual to respond and failure to do so could lead to an arrest. In Hibel SCOTUS has also upheld a states right to legislate circumstances that compels an individual to provide a name. From my perspective it would appear AZ is going to expand the scope of compulsory police powers through legislation by creating circumstances instead of legislating a specific criminal act and lawful penalty.

I don't see how they are doing that at all. I guess that is what some are all upset about, but I don't see how their police powers were expanded, at least not any more than power federal officers already had. Exactly what additional power were they given?

[dannno]

Trust me, you don't want that. If you think the cops are bad now

I don't think that he does, otherwise he wouldn't be arguing to give them more power over citizens.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't see how they are doing that at all. I guess that is what some are all upset about, but I don't see how their police powers were expanded, at least not any more than power federal officers already had. Exactly what additional power were they given?

The power to coerce an individual for failure to respond to a state authorized agent of the executive branch in a legislated set of circumstances.

[dannno]

I don't see how they are doing that at all. I guess that is what some are all upset about, but I don't see how their police powers were expanded, at least not any more than power federal officers already had. Exactly what additional power were they given?

They can suspect you for being an illegal alien, and therefore can ask you for your papers. There are no GUIDELINES for what an illegal alien looks like or does, so they can use their discretion to ask citizens for their papers because they suspect they are illegal immigrants.

Think back to Bush and enemy combatants. What the hell is an enemy combatant and why does the Fed Govt. have the power to detain them indefinitely? It is this vagueness that allows the police state to expand their power.

In other states, you can't just ask somebody for their ID because you suspect they are an illegal.

It doesn't matter if the police use this on illegal aliens, because it is ripe for abuse to target citizens and destroy their 4th amendment rights.

[specsaregood]

They can suspect you for being an illegal alien, and therefore can ask you for your papers. There are no GUIDELINES for what an illegal alien looks like or does, so they can use their discretion to ask citizens for their papers because they suspect they are illegal immigrants.

I understand the opportunities for abuse.

The cops in most/all states have always/long time had the power to ask for your name/address/identification if they suspected you of committing a crime, right? And they could arrest you for not turning giving them the information, right?

So it is not an increase in powers, just adding another "crime" to the list of laws they are supposed to enforce. But rather an increase in responsibilities of law enforcement officers.

So am I correct that your main objection is in how it will be enforced, not in the law and duty of the officers itself?

Edit: how could the existing law be modified to make it more palatable?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I understand the opportunities for abuse.

The cops in most/all states have always/long time had the power to ask for your name/address/identification if they suspected you of committing a crime, right? And they could arrest you for not turning giving them the information, right?

Not in the opinion of SCOTOS:



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.

[dannno]

I understand the opportunities for abuse.

I don't think you do.. quite yet..



The cops in most/all states have always/long time had the power to ask for your name/address/identification if they suspected you of committing a crime, right? And they could arrest you for not turning giving them the information, right?

But they have to suspect you of committing a crime and have reasonable suspicion.. The big change that happened is that now, they can consider being an illegal alien a crime in progress and that label can be pinned on ANYBODY. You can't suspect some random guy walking down the street of doing anything in particular unless they give an indicatino, but you CAN suspect ANYBODY of being an illegal alien. I see this being used on citizens all over AZ and having their rights violated. Which sucks. It goes against what the liberty movement stands for, and we KNOW there are better solutions. There is no need to support this garbage.



So it is not an increase in powers, just adding another "crime" to the list of laws they are supposed to enforce. But rather an increase in responsibilities of law enforcement officers.

So am I correct that your main objection is in how it will be enforced, not in the law and duty of the officers itself?

No, because selling drugs entails certain suspicious activity whereas being an illegal is going to become the cover-all excuse.

Let's put it this way, are you planning on visiting AZ any time soon? There is NO WAY IN HELL I am going to AZ any time soon. Everybody I know who has experience there says the cops already suck really bad, now they are going to be 10 times worse.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So it is not an increase in powers, just adding another "crime" to the list of laws they are supposed to enforce. But rather an increase in responsibilities of law enforcement officers.

There is a big difference between establishing just penalties for a criminal act and expanding the scope of police powers not expressly delegated in a constitution by legislating circumstances.

Edited to provide this clarification:
An act means something is a crime. Circumstances means a specific act may or may not be a crime based on someones opinion.

[specsaregood]

Not in the opinion of SCOTOS:
Ok, not all states, but lots of states do have "stop and identify" laws, where you can be arrested for not identifying yourself.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ok, not all states, but lots of states do have "stop and identify" laws, where you can be arrested for not identifying yourself.

Stop and identify laws are criminalizing circumstances and are another example of many examples of states expanding the scope of police powers that may or may not be expressly delegated in constitutions.

[specsaregood]

Stop and identify laws are criminalizing circumstances and are another example of many examples of states expanding the scope of police powers that may or may not be expressly delegated in constitutions.

I'm no fan of them, but they are hardly a new or unheard of thing. In fact AZ enacted a stop and identify law in 2005. So this ability to compel identification is by AZ law enforcement is nothing new. So I guess it is as Danno points out that being suspected of being illegal is enough for reasonable suspicion.



13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

[John Taylor]

Stop and identify laws are criminalizing circumstances and are another example of many examples of states expanding the scope of police powers that may or may not be expressly delegated in constitutions.

In terms of constitutional construction, states hold the entire police power unless the state constitution states otherwise. This is the precise opposite of federal constitutional construction.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm no fan of them, but they are hardly a new or unheard of thing. In fact AZ enacted a stop and identify law in 2005. So this ability to compel identification is by AZ law enforcement is nothing new.

How can you say compelling an individual to prove citizenship or quota eligibility is not expanding the scope of police powers?

Isn't there a new circumstance that has been created that may now criminalize lawful activity?

How can you be a constitutional advocate and even entertain the thought that no new police power to compel has been created?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

In terms of constitutional construction, states hold the entire police power unless the state constitution states otherwise. This is the precise opposite of federal constitutional construction.

States only hold that which has been expressly delegated in state constitutions. n/m you acknowledged that in your post. my bad for being ignorant and not catching it.

[specsaregood]

But they have to suspect you of committing a crime and have reasonable suspicion.. The big change that happened is that now, they can consider being an illegal alien a crime in progress and that label can be pinned on ANYBODY.
So tell me, does an officer not have to backup their reasoning for "reasonable suspicion" in court?

If the law was modified to detail strict guidelines and circumstances of where reasonable suspicion of being an illegal is true, would that make this less bad?

[John Taylor]

How can you say compelling an individual to prove citizenship or quota eligibility is not expanding the scope of police powers?

Isn't there a new circumstance that has been created that may now criminalize lawful activity?

How can you be a constitutional advocate and even entertain the thought that no new police power to compel has been created?

There may be an increase in the EXERCISE of a power, but the power has already been delegated from the people of AZ to the state of AZ t secure the lives, liberty, and property of the citizenry, including from the depredations of illegal immigrants who flood this beautiful state.

[John Taylor]

States only hold that which has been expressly delegated in state constitutions.

That may be what one would hope, but the fact is, states are assumed, and have been assumed for 250 years, to hold the general police power. They held it before they ratified the constitution, and they only delegated a few powers to the federal government, so they retained the rest, subject to state constitutional provisions limiting it...

[dannno]

So tell me, does an officer not have to backup their reasoning for "reasonable suspicion" in court?

Ya, and I think that is one of the reasons why the Judge said this law will be such a disaster.

Is it because they had brown skin and dirty clothes? They were picking strawberries and spoke spanish? Or because they were hanging out in a certain area? Now suddenly there is justification for the cops to ask anybody with brown skin and dirty clothes or hanging out in a certain area for their papers?



If the law was modified to detail strict guidelines and circumstances of where reasonable suspicion of being an illegal is true, would that make this less bad?

It would depend if it was actually reasonable... but that's what I've been trying to get John and his cohorts to do, and that is what the Governor of AZ was asked, and she stumbled all over it!! How do you identify an illegal immigrant.. granted it's not that hard to DO, I will admit that, I grew up less than a mile from the biggest illegal encampment in so. cal.. I could go point them out for you, so can John. We agree on that. but what it is hard to do is describe it so that it can be done lawfully without destroying the rights of legal citizens.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There may be an increase in the EXERCISE of a power, but the power has already been delegated from the people of AZ to the state of AZ t secure the lives, liberty, and property of the citizenry, including from the depredations of illegal immigrants who flood this beautiful state.

That is why I used the word lawful not legal with regards to compelling individuals to prove citizenship or quota eligibility in the ordinary course of affairs. This is a newly created power because we are talking about something you have never been compelled to prove before in the history of this country.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That may be what one would hope, but the fact is, states are assumed, and have been assumed for 250 years, to hold the general police power. They held it before they ratified the constitution, and they only delegated a few powers to the federal government, so they retained the rest, subject to state constitutional provisions limiting it...

I will concede your historic point of state constitution construction but that does not make it right which you appear to concede in this post.

[specsaregood]

It would depend if it was actually reasonable... but that's what I've been trying to get John and his cohorts to do, and that is what the Governor of AZ was asked, and she stumbled all over it!! How do you identify an illegal immigrant.. granted it's not that hard to DO, I will admit that, I grew up less than a mile from the biggest illegal encampment in so. cal.. I could go point them out for you, so can John. We agree on that. but what it is hard to do is describe it so that it can be done lawfully without destroying the rights of legal citizens.

I'm with you. I'm no xenophobe; but at the same time it does seem silly to not allow your state law enforcement to actively investigate and enforce laws on the books. If you don't like the law, then change it.

I think modifying the law in some way to explicitly detail what is "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal is; would go a long way.

[John Taylor]

I will concede your historic point of state constitution construction but that does not make it right which you appear to concede in this post.

Fair enough. I don't support the exercise of unlimited police power by any government at any level, but I do believe that if we do not deal with these illegals today and deport them, we will soon lack the capacity to deal with them at all.

[dannno]

Not good enough. Where did JohnTaylor actually make your quoted statement?

I've been arguing with him for DAYS and I can say emphatically that one of the reasons JohnTaylor wants to curb illegal immigration is because he believes that they will vote socialist and turn us into a socialist state, and that we need to protect our free country by enacting the AZ legislation to curb immigration for this reason. So yes, he has said that. Many, many times.

Unfortunately he is ignorant and doesn't realize that their vote is pretty split down the middle, there are a LOT of very conservative Mexican families.

[specsaregood]

Unfortunately he is ignorant and doesn't realize that their vote is pretty split down the middle, there are a LOT of very conservative Mexican families.

"Conservative" how? Most of those "conservative mexican families" are of the big government social conservative persuasion are they not? not libertarian conservative types. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.

[dannno]

I think modifying the law in some way to explicitly detail what is "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal is; would go a long way.

But if they come up with a description, say

An illegal alien has the following characteristics:


a.
b.
c.
d.


Then illegal immigrants will simply NOT do whatever a, b, c and d are short of possibly bleaching their skin (although the bill specifically says they can't target based on race!)

I don't think there is an accurate way to describe someone who is certainly not a citizen.. it's one of those "I know it when I see it" kinda deals. You'd need to see their papers, but they might be a citizen, so you can't ask.

If AZ wants to deport all the illegals who get traffic tickets or have some other Constitutional method of doing so, then great.. Chase them back to CA, more cheap labor, and I will hire them in my factory.

[John Taylor]

I've been arguing with him for DAYS and I can say emphatically that one of the reasons JohnTaylor wants to curb illegal immigration is because he believes that they will vote socialist and turn us into a socialist state, and that we need to protect our free country by enacting the AZ legislation to curb immigration for this reason. So yes, he has said that. Many, many times.

Unfortunately he is ignorant and doesn't realize that their vote is pretty split down the middle, there are a LOT of very conservative Mexican families.

How do we target and deport illegals then Danno? We have to catch 12 million of them.

[John Taylor]

But if they come up with a description, say

An illegal alien has the following characteristics:


a.
b.
c.
d.


Then illegal immigrants will simply NOT do whatever a, b, c and d are short of possibly bleaching their skin (although the bill specifically says they can't target based on race!)

I don't think there is an accurate way to describe someone who is certainly not a citizen.. it's one of those "I know it when I see it" kinda deals. You'd need to see their papers, but they might be a citizen, so you can't ask.

If AZ wants to deport all the illegals who get traffic tickets or have some other Constitutional method of doing so, then great.. Chase them back to CA, more cheap labor, and I will hire them in my factory.

You can have them in California. Your state is already electorally ffffed.

[AuH20]

How do we target and deport illegals then Danno? We have to catch 12 million of them.

Why do you keep using that 12 million number? It's easily double.

[Lord Xar]

I've been arguing with him for DAYS and I can say emphatically that one of the reasons JohnTaylor wants to curb illegal immigration is because he believes that they will vote socialist and turn us into a socialist state, and that we need to protect our free country by enacting the AZ legislation to curb immigration for this reason. So yes, he has said that. Many, many times.

Unfortunately he is ignorant and doesn't realize that their vote is pretty split down the middle, there are a LOT of very conservative Mexican families.

Danno, you are blatantly wrong. This solidifies in me that you are a pay-grade above a shill. It has been reported and documented, and actually posted on these forums not too long ago that Immigrant families overwhelmingly vote left . The sentiment among illegal immigrants is also overwhelmingly left.

John's points are very valid. There have also been a few books written that describes the action of 'taking' over a host country by the globalists via unyielding immigration - both legal & illegal.

Also, I have called you out on this before and never have gotten an answer. I am also from Los Angeles and pray tell - what is this "illegal immigrant encampment" you always speak of, as if that gives you some divine right to vouch for open borders. I want to know exactly what this place is called and where it is located.

Illegal immigrant sentiment is half republican (or other than left).. LOL.. really? You buy that crock of sh*t you are selling?

[Sarge]

Dannno,

CA is one of the biggest socialist voting States in the Union. Clean up your act there first before bashing us any more. End of discussion.

[AuH20]

Danno, you are blatantly wrong. This solidifies in me that you are a pay-grade above a shill. It has been reported and documented, and actually posted on these forums not too long ago that Immigrant families overwhelmingly vote left . The sentiment among illegal immigrants is also overwhelmingly left.

John's points are very valid. There have also been a few books written that describes the action of 'taking' over a host country by the globalists via unyielding immigration - both legal & illegal.

Also, I have called you out on this before and never have gotten an answer. I am also from Los Angeles and pray tell - what is this "illegal immigrant encampment" you always speak of, as if that gives you some divine right to vouch for open borders. I want to know exactly what this place is called and where it is located.

Illegal immigrant sentiment is half republican (or other than left).. LOL.. really? You buy that crock of sh*t you are selling?

South of our border:
Che Guevara > Simon Bolivar

it's sad but true.

[dannno]

It has been reported and documented, and actually posted on these forums not too long ago that Immigrant families overwhelmingly vote left . The sentiment among illegal immigrants is also overwhelmingly left.



It has also been documented that the primary reason for that, despite the fact that Mexicans are overwhelmingly socially conservative, is because there are too many Republicans talking shit on Mexicans all the time!!

[AuH20]

It has also been documented that the primary reason for that, despite the fact that Mexicans are overwhelmingly socially conservative, is because there are too many Republicans talking shit on Mexicans all the time!!

I'd like to meet an anti-welfare state Mexican organization. Point me to them.

[Lord Xar]

Dannno,

CA is one of the biggest socialist voting States in the Union. Clean up your act there first before bashing us any more. End of discussion.

Right. This should give the libertarians here food for thought. California loves them some illegal immigrants, anchor babies and whatever else they can draw to their statist magnet. And guess what? California has made an extremely fast turn on voting right to then left.

California/New York are the windows to what is in store for the rest of America, and they - Cali/NY have yet to reach their statist agendas & open border realizations.

[dannno]

Dannno,

CA is one of the biggest socialist voting States in the Union. Clean up your act there first before bashing us any more. End of discussion.

I will bash anybody who is a threat to individual liberty.. and I'm not quite sure what you want me to do in CA, I'm much better off helping people like Schiff and Rand get elected in other states, although it would be cool to get John Dennis into office..

[Lord Xar]

It has also been documented that the primary reason for that, despite the fact that Mexicans are overwhelmingly socially conservative, is because there are too many Republicans talking shit on Mexicans all the time!!

How do you reconcile that statement with the soaring birth-rates among unmarried teens, amongst that group?

What is it?
Socially conservative - fiscally liberal

The truth is.. They are socially and fiscally liberal with a solid background in religion. Religion does not make one a conservative voter.

[dannno]

I'd like to meet an anti-welfare state Mexican organization. Point me to them.

http://www.latinarepublican.com/About_Us.html


I'd like to meet an anti-welfare state Chinese organization. Point me to them.

[dannno]

How do you reconcile that statement with the soaring birth-rates among unmarried teens, amongst that group?


Mexicans are really reallly fertile......it's almost not a fair comparison..

[torchbearer]

Mexicans are really reallly fertile......it's almost not a fair comparison..

it might have something to do with the catholic church considering birth control a major sin, and most mexicans come from a deeply fundementalist/charismatic catholic tradition.

[tmosley]

I don't have a problem morally excluding those who are stasticially most likely to be in favor of the forcible redistribution of wealth from migrating here, no. If that admission is your big "coup", then crow away.

Americans have the right to determine who joins their ranks, and I don't think we should cheerlead for those who will be fighting to take away our rights, whatever their color.

AHA! THE CRUX!

Well, lets strip blacks of the vote, and not allow voting in any city with a population of more than 250,000.

And here's a newsflash for you: illegal aliens can't vote!

That further doesn't matter, because one day, there is going to be an administration that you don't like, and more pertinent, THAT DOESN'T LIKE YOU, that will use this law to harass you and others like you.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm even talking to you. I know that if anyone so much as tries to look at you in the street you would just murder them in order to "defend your property rights" for your home that is six miles away.

[dannno]

it might have something to do with the catholic church considering birth control a major sin, and most mexicans come from a deeply fundementalist/charismatic catholic tradition.

This article claims that Mexican women in the US are more fertile than their counterparts back in Mexico... not sure where the hell they got that from..

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15959332

I've heard they are pretty damn fertile tho.. The only study I could find stated that the infertility rates were about equal, but that's not what I'm looking for.. I wanna know how easy it is for them to get pregnant.. that's all I could find in my 2 minutes of google searching that I dedicated to the topic.

[RedStripe]

In terms of constitutional construction, states hold the entire police power unless the state constitution states otherwise. This is the precise opposite of federal constitutional construction.

If you agree with that constitutional construction of police power, you are NOT a libertarian or conservative, period. It's the EXACT opposite of limited government.

It's absurd that you would complain about the Federal Government overstepping it's narrowly-defined role and yet turn around and SUPPORT a theory of state government power which basically says that a state government can do whatever it wants so long as it is not restricted by the state/federal constitution.

Yeah, you claim you don't support this view of state power - but then you go on to use that theory of state power to SUPPORT the kind of law enforcement activity you happen to like.

[RedStripe]

the power has already been delegated from the people of AZ to the state of AZ .

There has never ever been such a delegation. It is a legal and political farce - a creation myth of the state that only pea-brained ideologues and state-worshipers would ever accept as reality.

States do not represent the people. States DO NOT represent the people. They were NEVER voluntarily established by the people they rule.

Period. The idea that the State is an expression of the will of "the people" or has their "permission" to act on their behalf is a FAIRY TALE of high school civics.

Sorry, Santa isn't real!

[RedStripe]

How do we target and deport illegals then Danno? We have to catch 12 million of them.

Hahaha yes someone please explain this to me.

Tell me about the massive court system we are going to create to deal with 12 MILLION CASES.

Tell me about the prisons, the boxcars on trains, the massive sorting facilities.

Tell me about the deportation officers that we are going to hire and train, at taxpayer expense, by the thousands.

Tell me about how our government is going to physically remove millions of people from the United States.

I need a good laugh.

[RedStripe]

Question for all those who support mass deportation of brow- er, "illegal immigrants".

How many of you have a close friend or family member who would be deported if it actually happened?

[JoshLowry]

Redstripe please don't quote out of context. (Few pages back)

Feel free to carry on with your civil debate!

[John Taylor]

If you agree with that constitutional construction of police power, you are NOT a libertarian or conservative, period. It's the EXACT opposite of limited government.

It's absurd that you would complain about the Federal Government overstepping it's narrowly-defined role and yet turn around and SUPPORT a theory of state government power which basically says that a state government can do whatever it wants so long as it is not restricted by the state/federal constitution.

Yeah, you claim you don't support this view of state power - but then you go on to use that theory of state power to SUPPORT the kind of law enforcement activity you happen to like.

This is absolute nonsense. Merely because I observe that under the constitutional separation of powers the states retain the entire police power not delegated to the federal government does not mean I advocate them exercising that power.

LOGIC FAIL.

The state governments are governments of general jurisdiction, something you would be well aware of if you had a cursory legal education. As such, they can legislate on all matters not specifically proscribed to them by their state constitutional charter. This is precisely the opposite of the composition of the federal constitution.

[John Taylor]

AHA! THE CRUX!

Well, lets strip blacks of the vote, and not allow voting in any city with a population of more than 250,000.

And here's a newsflash for you: illegal aliens can't vote!

That further doesn't matter, because one day, there is going to be an administration that you don't like, and more pertinent, THAT DOESN'T LIKE YOU, that will use this law to harass you and others like you.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm even talking to you. I know that if anyone so much as tries to look at you in the street you would just murder them in order to "defend your property rights" for your home that is six miles away.

I oppose the immigration of ANYONE to the U.S. who favors the redistribution of private property. Period. I don't care if they're yellow, green, pink or white.

You keep bringing up citizens, and trying to race bait. Shame on you.

[John Taylor]

Hahaha yes someone please explain this to me.

Tell me about the massive court system we are going to create to deal with 12 MILLION CASES.

Tell me about the prisons, the boxcars on trains, the massive sorting facilities.

Tell me about the deportation officers that we are going to hire and train, at taxpayer expense, by the thousands.

Tell me about how our government is going to physically remove millions of people from the United States.

I need a good laugh.

1) we have immigration courts in order to begin with which can handle the cases.
2) Prisons? TRANSPORT them to the border, and send them back to their homes in Mexico.
3) Why do we need to hire and train thousands of new government employees? We already have the entire military, and with the physicial securement of the border, the problem would be worked out through regular law enforcement channels.

Enforce the law, that's how we prevent the further redistribution of our property.

[John Taylor]

Dannno,

CA is one of the biggest socialist voting States in the Union. Clean up your act there first before bashing us any more. End of discussion.

Thank you.

[Shredmonster]

Somebody has to enforce the law. The states already have the right to enforce Federal Law if the so choose. That's the bottom line. There is nothing illegal or police state about it.

And the FEDS are hopelessly corrupt. So corrupt they are a laughing stock. They don't respect the laws and do what the hell they feel like doing.

I hope all 50 states do what AZ did.

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT..*

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE AMERICAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET
* A JOB,
* A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* WELFARE,
* FOOD STAMPS,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT


I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM

GRASP ON THE SITUATION…

[AuH20]

Somebody has to enforce the law. The states already have the right to enforce Federal Law if the so choose. That's the bottom line. There is nothing illegal or police state about it.

And the FEDS are hopelessly corrupt. So corrupt they are a laughing stock. They don't respect the laws and do what the hell they feel like doing.

I hope all 50 states do what AZ did.

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT..*

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE AMERICAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET
* A JOB,
* A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* WELFARE,
* FOOD STAMPS,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT


I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM

GRASP ON THE SITUATION…


It's clear to me you just hate brown people. ;):D

[RedStripe]

This is absolute nonsense. Merely because I observe that under the constitutional separation of powers the states retain the entire police power not delegated to the federal government does not mean I advocate them exercising that power.

LOGIC FAIL.

Yea, except that's precisely what you did. You used this (terrible) view of state power to justify Arizona's actions.

So when state police power suits you, it should be used. But otherwise you're gonna claim you oppose it. I would expect nothing less from you.



The state governments are governments of general jurisdiction, something you would be well aware of if you had a cursory legal education. As such, they can legislate on all matters not specifically proscribed to them by their state constitutional charter. This is precisely the opposite of the composition of the federal constitution.

Yea, everyone knows this. Do you teach a community college or something?

[John Taylor]

Yea, except that's precisely what you did. You used this (terrible) view of state power to justify Arizona's actions.

So when state police power suits you, it should be used. But otherwise you're gonna claim you oppose it. I would expect nothing less from you.



Yea, everyone knows this. Do you teach a community college or something?

The states have this power, that is what I was arguing and what you were resisting. I'm happy you've come over to the light, oh brave brave sir Redstripe!

YouTube - sir robin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RgBN0qOELM)

Brave brave sir Redstripe!

[RedStripe]

The states have this power, that is what I was arguing and what you were resisting.

Yes, and you are in favor of this power - a power that runs contrary to core principles of limited government.

Tell me more about your interesting "theory" of what alienation means in the context of property law, and whether or not it's the same theory you teach your students.

[j6p]

John thinks its not ok to protest on public property, but then he says the police should be giving more powers and be more racist, then they already are.

[.Tom]

Question to supporters of the new "papers please" laws:

What if I want to walk around without an ID?

What if I want to walk around speaking spanish without an ID?

What if I want to walk around with brown skin, speaking spanish, without an ID?

Should I be kidnapped and put in a cage because I don't carry my papers with me?

[j6p]

From your posts John you sound like no ron paul supporter

[John Taylor]

Yes, and you are in favor of this power - a power that runs contrary to core principles of limited government.

Tell me more about your interesting "theory" of what alienation means in the context of property law, and whether or not it's the same theory you teach your students.

Brave brave Sir Redstripe,

States must hold this general police power if they are to effectively limit and counter the power projected by the federal government. Governments' power will increase or decrease with the dispositions of the citizenry, which is why I do not favor the introduction into this country of a billion people who will support and perhaps require a draconian state.

Tell me more about what Imminent Domain is? Does that mean a piece of property can pre-emptively strike another piece, or is it just when I am "about" to get a piece of property? Is that "imminent"?

[John Taylor]

Question to supporters of the new "papers please" laws:

What if I want to walk around without an ID?

What if I want to walk around speaking spanish without an ID?

What if I want to walk around with brown skin, speaking spanish, without an ID?

Should I be kidnapped and put in a cage because I don't carry my papers with me?

Nothing in the law allows for police to stop people without a reasonable suspicion of having broken the law.

People are already required to have IDs on them when they drive, or if they are migrants, illegal or legal...

In your third scenario, I'd recommend you to divulge to the border patrol that you're an American citizen, and that they can look you up. That'd clear it right up.

If you don't commit a crime, or aren't reasonably suspected of committing one, the police aren't going to be asking you to prove your immigration status. It's the same standard we've had for centuries regarding stopping and questioning of people by the constables.

[John Taylor]

John thinks its not ok to protest on public property, but then he says the police should be giving more powers and be more racist, then they already are.

j6p doesn't believe in freedom of association, freedom of speech, or the right to gather together among like minded individuals for political gatherings, unless he is there and has his "right" to interrupt and rant unabated "protected".

[RedStripe]

States must hold this general police power if they are to effectively limit and counter the power projected by the federal government.

Really Johnny? Are you going to flip-flop this much? Hahahaha

Do you or do you not support general police power, as it is currently held out as legal doctrine?

Now please explain why we must give states unlimited power to protect us from the federal government - it's sure to be an amusing rambling from you.


Governments' power will increase or decrease with the dispositions of the citizenry, which is why I do not favor the introduction into this country of a billion people who will support and perhaps require a draconian state.

Yea the power of state governments will definitely fluctuate when there are no legal constraints placed upon their "general police powers" (aside from state/federal constitutional constraints) - an approach you are advocating. So you create the problem that you propose to solve by deporting people you disagree with.

It's like a middle-schooler's scheme. Hahahahaha



Tell me more about what Imminent Domain is?

A typo. Wow!

On the other hand, your steadfast refusal to accept the well-established definition of alienation in the context of property law certainly requires quite an explaination (especially from someone who teaches that subject for a living).

In fact, what explanation do you give your students? I bet it's hilarious.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If you don't commit a crime, or aren't reasonably suspected of committing one, the police aren't going to be asking you to prove your immigration status. It's the same standard we've had for centuries regarding stopping and questioning of people by the constables.

I don't think that is a fair characterization. If anyone calls 911 and reports their neighbor for anything even loud music you are going to label that reasonable suspicion. If police respond to the call they can now ask an individual if they are a citizen. The only crime someone might be guilty of is failure to respond. The power to compel an individual to prove you are a citizen or quota eligible has never happened before in the history of this country.

The standard has always been ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Well that makes perfect sense if you are criminalizing acts and the law says don't do this act or don't do that act. It is unreasonable to apply this same standard to legislating undefined circumstances. How can a reasonable person possibly know when an act may or may not be a crime if the circumstances are intentionally vague?

[j6p]

Yeah ok flip flop John. When something is public property, you can protest. If it's on Private, well you know the answer. You sir sound like a democrat.

[j6p]

Jhonny boy also thinks giving police more power will lessen immigration. Papers please.

[ChooseLiberty]

John T. seems to be the only one making an argument here that understands the law.

Jus Sayin.

[dannno]

People are already required to have IDs on them when they drive, or if they are migrants, illegal or legal...

.

But assuming he's a natural born citizen, why would have have to carry his ID :confused: