Rand Paul supports Local Solutions/10th Amend. to Illegal Immigration

[bobbyw24]

I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws. I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves.

Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/illegal-immigration/

[dannno]

I doubt he supports solutions which give the finger to the fourth amendment.

His father does not support them, after all.

Although to be fair I'm sure they both agree that states have 'the right' to make such bad laws.. just get ready for lawsuits.

[bobbyw24]

I doubt he supports solutions which give the finger to the fourth amendment.

His father does not, after all.

Maybe David Adams will chime in here.

[stu2002]

Go rand go

[stu2002]

I guess in KY, abortion is a more important issue

[John Taylor]

I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws. I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves.

Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/illegal-immigration/

Awesome, I'm glad to see Rand is unwilling to turn the country over to the residstributionists without a fight. Good for him, just like Ron, secure the borders!

[Pennsylvania]

What a hero of liberty. If only we had more like him who were willing to electrocute migrant workers, the world would be a much better and peaceful place.

[Jordan]

I guess in KY, abortion is a more important issue

I don't think it's the geographic area, but the election cycle that makes abortion trump illegal immigration.

Despite being nearly 1600 miles to Arizona, KY has plenty of illegal immigrants. Just ask a local farmer. ;)

[TheTyke]

Pennsylvania - An underground electric fence doesn't electrocute people.

[Pennsylvania]

Pennsylvania - An underground electric fence doesn't electrocute people.

It does if you're trying to stop people from tunneling.

[silverhandorder]

It does if you're trying to stop people from tunneling.

Maybe they shouldn't be tunneling?

[Pennsylvania]

Maybe they shouldn't be tunneling?

Maybe they shouldn't have to.

[MelissaWV]

Thank God. Kentucky is safe.

[TheTyke]

The hyperbole is thick...

The purpose as he's laid it out has always been detection. The idea of someone tunneling into it, (like hitting a waterline while digging) is amusing though...

[Pennsylvania]

The hyperbole is thick...

The purpose as he's laid it out has always been detection. The idea of someone tunneling into it, (like hitting a waterline while digging) is amusing though...

Poor analogy IMO. A waterline isn't deliberately laid out in front of people who would be specifically trying to get through it.

Whatever though...detection, electrocution, f'ing helicopters for crying out loud...

It's all statist bullshit.

[beazy]

If we get rid of all the entitlements I am all for immigration and open borders... there were no entitlements when most of the immigration into this country took place by most of our ancestors. They had to work hard and contribute to society. I am not saying most illegal immigrants dont work hard, but many also abuse the system. An example I know a illegal who was working on one ss# and collecting unemployment on another.

Get rid of the entitlements and the only thing that would draw them here is a natural demand for labor. There would be no deadweight loss or drag on the system.

[TruthisTreason]

Opposing illegal immigration is a good issue to campaign on in a closed GOP primary in Kentucky !

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Maybe they shouldn't have to.

No borders, no countries, no laws or consequences! Whoopie!

Methinks you need to stop listening to John Lennon music. :rolleyes:

[Cardinal Red]

No borders, no countries, no laws or consequences! Whoopie!

Methinks you need to stop listening to John Lennon music. :rolleyes:

+1

Many libertarians just don't get it on immigration, especially illegal immigration. No defensible borders= No state. Even if you want to go all libertarian theory about it you can read Hans Herman-Hoppe, who has laid out a fine libertarian case for border security.

The practical reality in the world we actually live in is that more immigrants (especially low-skill immigrants) means more support for the welfare state. People who oppose the welfare state and support our sovereignty need to support protecting our borders. I'm delighted with Rand's position on this issue.

[lordindra3]

I stand in full support of the AZ immigration law battle! AZ has every right to protect its citizens from crime commiting illegal immigrants! They shouldnt be here, english should be our official language and we should adopt immigration laws that Mexico has.

Look, my wife is from Thailand (1st gen immigrant) and she was stalked (when we were just dating) by an illegal from Mexico and he threatened to kill her and I called the cops and told them he was illegal and they did nothing about it. He then was caught hurting some other girl he was stalking, yet our very own police force could have stopped his future crime by deporting him. We have enough to deal with from crime by citizens and we dont need crime coming from an invasion from the southern border. The constitution says its the job of the federal government to protect our country from invasion and if we are getting millions of foreign nationals every year and costing tax payers $350 billion (more than 1/8th of all our yearly tax income) a year from social benefits, then that my friends is an invasion and our federal government is sooooo damn incomptitent to do anything about it!

I stand with Arizona 100%!!!

[DaisyFL]

people who oppose the welfare state and support our sovereignty need to support protecting our borders. I'm delighted with rand's position on this issue.

+1776

[dannno]

I stand in full support of the AZ immigration law battle! AZ has every right to protect its citizens from crime commiting illegal immigrants! They shouldnt be here, english should be our official language and we should adopt immigration laws that Mexico has.

Look, my wife is from Thailand (1st gen immigrant) and she was stalked (when we were just dating) by an illegal from Mexico and he threatened to kill her and I called the cops and told them he was illegal and they did nothing about it. He then was caught hurting some other girl he was stalking, yet our very own police force could have stopped his future crime by deporting him. We have enough to deal with from crime by citizens and we dont need crime coming from an invasion from the southern border. The constitution says its the job of the federal government to protect our country from invasion and if we are getting millions of foreign nationals every year and costing tax payers $350 billion (more than 1/8th of all our yearly tax income) a year from social benefits, then that my friends is an invasion and our federal government is sooooo damn incomptitent to do anything about it!

I stand with Arizona 100%!!!

Why do you hate the 4th amendment and the US Constitution? This has nothing to do with illegals, it has to do with CITIZENS 4th amendment rights!!

[dannno]

+1776

There is nothing 1776 about the AZ bill.

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.

That doesn't mean they don't have the right to pass it, and there is certainly other legislation that could and should be considered, but this is trampling on civil rights.

[John Taylor]

Why do you hate the 4th amendment and the US Constitution? This has nothing to do with illegals, it has to do with CITIZENS 4th amendment rights!!

No one "hates" the 4th Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. It is precisely because we love these things that we have to get rid of the 12 million illegals in this country who are actively adding to the assault against them.

[dannno]

No one "hates" the 4th Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. It is precisely because we love these things that we have to get rid of the 12 million illegals in this country who are actively adding to the assault against them.

So we have to "protect" our freedoms by getting rid of them temporarily, is what you are saying.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

And don't try and say that police won't be using this to ask for people's papers in other cases where they have no authority to do so.. all the cops have to do is say they suspect you are an illegal alien and they can ask for your papers. You say they can't.. fine, then what reasons WILL they be able to suspect somebody for? If you aren't carrying your papers with you, then you go to jail.. for participating in lawful activity.. why? Because I haven't seen ONE thing that is listed that illegal aliens do that citizens don't do. There is no description for "illegal alien", even if you can spot them 99 times out of 100, the fact that this opens up the floodgates for cops to abuse their privileges against ordinary citizens using this as justification is very bothersome.

[dannno]

On that note, I still support what Rand is saying here.

Let states use the 10th amendment to adopt REAL solutions to illegal immigration. Legalize drugs. Stop giving them welfare. Protect the border. Whatever you want. Just don't take away basic liberties for citizens.

[John Taylor]

So we have to "protect" our freedoms by getting rid of them temporarily, is what you are saying.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

And don't try and say that police won't be using this to ask for people's papers in other cases where they have no authority to do so.. all the cops have to do is say they suspect you are an illegal alien and they can ask for your papers. You say they can't.. fine, then what reasons WILL they be able to suspect somebody for? If you aren't carrying your papers with you, then you go to jail.. for participating in lawful activity.. why? Because I haven't seen ONE thing that is listed that illegal aliens do that citizens don't do. There is no description for "illegal alien", even if you can spot them 99 times out of 100, the fact that this opens up the floodgates for cops to abuse their privileges against ordinary citizens using this as justification is very bothersome.

What happens when we have a large number of foreigners in the country who will in 25 years completely subvert the rule of law, the constitution, and private property rights, transforming AZ and the rest of the country into one hell-hole like California?

Don't we have some recourse, can't we get these people out while we have the strength? Or do we just have to sit and be overrun.

[Agorism]

Although to be fair I'm sure they both agree that states have 'the right' to make such bad laws.. just get ready for lawsuits.

Ya I guess they can make a law for anything, but it might overturned.

If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to do it, that means it's also unconstitutional for the state governments to do it also in most cases due to incorporation.

[lordindra3]

The 4th ammendment??? What are you talking about. The law protects citizens, not illegal aliens. The government is also obligated to protect the citizens from invaders. Also, after having an argument on liberal talk radio, I read the bloody bill and it says that they can only ask for papers if there has been a crime commited. They CANNOT profile (even though I sometimes wish they would). I wish people would read the bill first.

Also, do you complain when a cop asks for your drivers license? Ok, but yet you are a citizen and they ask for your drivers license, so whats the problem? This is for illegals who already commited a crime (which I would make the same law as well). This is not giving up liberty for security because IT DOESNT GIVE ANY AUTHORITY TO HARM LEGAL RESIDENTS!!!! IF YOU ARE LEGALLY HERE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT! If you are illegal THEN THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! We are a sovereign nation and we have borders and we have citizens. Why are we the only country that is demanded to take it in the ass when protecting itself???

Lastly, what about states rights? Every body here screams when there is states rights infringement, yet in this situation, people are angry that a state is protecting its self. Most of the Bill of Rights protects people from a big federal government, but the states can basically do most of what they want, bottom line. Now the state wants to protect its own residents from harmful, budget busting invaders and you are all complaining? This is really sick, you know.

[Thargok]

In the defense of the bill you cannot just be randomly asked to prove citizenship. To my understanding it is mostly used for traffic stops in which you have to prove ID anyways. It is only in cases where you have an international drivers license that you have to prove that you should be in the country.

I don't know how vague the law is written and haven't read it myself, but that seems reasonable to me (assuming that is how the law is written) since you abide to the legitimacy of the state in using public roads and must follow the laws therein.

[lordindra3]

Agorism- Not true... If the feds cant do it, doesnt mean the states cant do it. Thats a misinterpretation of the constitution. The federal government has no right to ban guns, but a state has every right to ban guns. Thats the truth, actually.

[Thargok]

Agorism- Not true... If the feds cant do it, doesnt mean the states cant do it. Thats a misinterpretation of the constitution. The federal government has no right to ban guns, but a state has every right to ban guns. Thats the truth, actually.

Agorism is actually correct, the 14th Amendment forces the State to recognize your citizenship and your rights as citizens there-forth in a federalist form of government. The process of incorporation is the application of common law practices to state contradictions such as the 4th Amendment in Mapp v. Ohio where the States are now required to obtain a warrant.

The 2nd Amendment is not incorporated, but there is a good chance that it will be in McDonald v. Chicago which should come out of the Supreme Court relatively soon.

[dannno]

The 4th ammendment??? What are you talking about. The law protects citizens, not illegal aliens.

No, that is what I am trying to explain to you.. the law does NOTHING to protect citizens from illegal search. This has NOTHING to do with illegal immigrants and everything to do with destroying the rights of US citizens. If you don't understand why, you should read my post on the topic again.

You should checkout the thread with Judge Napolitano, he said that this is basically Nazi Germany tactics... and it can be used against lawful CITIZENS. He is right, and I am right. Ron Paul came out saying that AZ had the right to do it, but he disagrees with what they are doing. Think about WHY we all think that, and try to understand why, rather than arguing.

Don't throw away the Constitution over illegal immigration, please.. there are PLENTY of Constitutional ways to deal with this, in fact following the Constitution would fix the problem.. you want to go further away.

[John Taylor]

No, that is what I am trying to explain to you.. the law does NOTHING to protect citizens from illegal search. This has NOTHING to do with illegal immigrants and everything to do with destroying the rights of US citizens. If you don't understand why, you should read my post on the topic again.

You should checkout the thread with Judge Napolitano, he said that this is basically Nazi Germany tactics... and it can be used against lawful CITIZENS.

Don't throw away the Constitution over illegal immigration, please.. there are PLENTY of Constitutional ways to deal with this, in fact following the Constitution would fix the problem.. you want to go further away.

What do you think is the constitutional way to deport all of the illegals?

[lordindra3]

Well perhaps you have a point, in context. However, Ron Paul's solution is the best. Like real conservatives say to neo con's propaganda- Illegals dont come here because we are free and the soil is fertile. They come here because there is incentive. My best friend (who is 1st generation immigrant) works at DSHS and he says over 60% of his applicants for food, medical and cash are illegals because all they have to do is pop out children and they can get WHATEVER they want, even above citizens. Citizens have to prove the HELL out of their income to qualify, yet illegals just have to say they make 1 dollar a month and they get maximum benefits and can even get the state to pay for a translator due to no official language. Simply because they dont have social security numbers, they dont have to prove income.

My friend says he caught a guy making $8k a month via his own business and he was getting $850 a month in food, THOUSANDS in medical expenses (each kid costs the state roughly 30-40k for child birth) and $1k a month in cash! Can you believe that? After my buddy turned him in, he just got blocked from receiving benefits for 6 months and now changed his fake social and is getting the benefits again! Can you believe this bull s***???

If we take away their school, medical, food, wellfare and bar emloyees from hiring them, I promise to God they wont come. Guess what the blow back of all of this is? CRIME! Why? Because in college we learned a universal law: Wherever there is poverty, there is crime, regardless of culture and race. Guess what happens when a family lives on the govennment's tit? They stay poor and thus take up crime by high percentages. Have you noticed the most ghetto impoverished areas only elect Democrats, yet the communities never improve? Why do you think California is the gang capitol of the northern hemisphere??? Because its the king of the wellfare states!

[lordindra3]

Lastly, illegals from the southern border dont want to become Americans. They dont want to assimilate. This is the reason they all protested with their flags (before they were told it was a stupid way to protest)? Why do they not speak our language and choose their own medias and such? They would rather be in their own countries, but there is complete incentive to be here. Thats why the constitutional way to deport them is to take away their incentive. Can you imagine the protests if we took away anchor baby laws?

Napolitano says that this law will bankrupt the GOP, yet if they took away the unconstitutional anchor baby law, then the GOP will not bankrupt itself. Yet we have this bull crap political correctness we have to deal with which has proven, mathimatically that we will all be minorities in less than 50 years.

Southern Avenger made a point that La Raza makes decisions in the well fare of their own race WELL ABOVE the wellfare of the country. Which is true. Children of Illegals by in large vote on what benefits their own race. So when we become the minority, you can bet the wellfare state will become bankrupt and we will be a 2nd world nation.

[dannno]

What do you think is the constitutional way to deport all of the illegals?

The ONLY WAY to deport all of the illegals would be to round everybody up in huge camps and then go and search every single home and community to make sure that they are all completely vacant and nobody is left. Then verify everybody at the camps. Send the illegals on a train to Mexico, then put a giant security force on the border, because just sending them back won't do jack shit, they will just come back tomorrow!

Seriously. That is the only way to deport all of the illegals. Is it worth it? I mean, it could work.. but then again, when everybody is back from the camps, how many limited govt. activists will be left? Will RPF be empty? Giving the govt. the power to round everybody up into camps isn't very safe.

[dannno]

Ron Paul's solution is the best.

:)

[Cardinal Red]

The ONLY WAY to deport all of the illegals would be to round everybody up in huge camps and then go and search every single home and community to make sure that they are all completely vacant and nobody is left. Then verify everybody at the camps. Send the illegals on a train to Mexico, then put a giant security force on the border, because just sending them back won't do jack shit, they will just come back tomorrow!

Seriously. That is the only way to deport all of the illegals. Is it worth it? I mean, it could work.. but then again, when everybody is back from the camps, how many limited govt. activists will be left? Will RPF be empty? Giving the govt. the power to round everybody up into camps isn't very safe.

Danno, Godwin's law of Nazi analogies is really working against you here. Also You seem to be regurgitating the left's talking points and hysteria about a bill that I have seen repeatedly mischaracterized by the media, very few seem to have read it. Frankly, if you are a defender of civil discourse and the safety and security of American citizens I would think you would be very concerned about the hysterical characterizations namecalling, threats, and even violence that have already been perpetrated by this bill's opponents.

Plus, the Left and the establishment Republicans have been "standing in the schoolhouse door" for decades refusing to enforce our federal immigration laws. Numerous cities and states openly defy these laws. Their bleating on this issue is 100% hypocritical and needs to be called out.

Look, I am happy to have an intelligent discussion on principle about whether the Arizona bill is sufficiently protective of civil liberties. I think there is room for principled disagreement here.

But when you just regurgitate the most extreme talking points of the liberal establishment, and call your opponents (and implicitly Rand Paul) fascists, you hurt your cause.

[dannno]

Danno, Godwin's law of Nazi analogies is really working against you here.

Great, you have another way of rounding up ALL of the illlegals? That was literally all I could think of. What is your solution?




Also You seem to be regurgitating the left's talking points and hysteria about a bill that I have seen repeatedly mischaracterized by the media, very few seem to have read it.

Bullshit, you sound like Hannity complaining about the left saying that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, but it turned out the "left" was RIGHT on that one! Don't listen to the media, they will trick you half the time.

Do you know who Judge Napolitano is? He is one of the most educated people on the Constitution in the liberty movement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242089

I HAVE read the language of the bill and it DOES violate the 4th amendment. Stop listening to the media.

[Cardinal Red]

Great, you have another way of rounding up ALL of the illlegals? That was literally all I could think of. What is your solution?





Bullshit, you sound like Hannity complaining about the left saying that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, but it turned out the "left" was RIGHT on that one! Don't listen to the media, they will trick you half the time.

Do you know who Judge Napolitano is? He is one of the most educated people on the Constitution in the liberty movement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242089

I HAVE read the language of the bill and it DOES violate the 4th amendment. Stop listening to the media.

Like I said, hysteria is not going to get you anywhere. If you want to have an informed and respectful conversation about this stuff, I'm happy to do that. I think there are good points to be made in opposition to the Arizona law, I just don't happen to agree with them. Nor do any of your posts show me that you have done anything other than regurgitate the talking points of one side of the debate without being aware of the substance of the rebuttals made by the other side.

[Imperial]

I am hoping Rand intentionally left out mention of the Arizona bill in the press release.

[dannno]

Like I said, hysteria is not going to get you anywhere. If you want to have an informed and respectful conversation about this stuff, I'm happy to do that. I think there are good points to be made in opposition to the Arizona law, I just don't happen to agree with them. Nor do any of your posts show me that you have done anything other than regurgitate the talking points of one side of the debate without being aware of the substance of the rebuttals made by the other side.

There are talking points on the other side?? Like what? Really, I don't care what they are, unless the talking points include repealing the section of the bill that i read that allows police officers to ask anybody they think is an illegal for their papers. That is Nazi Germany style tactics, period, this has nothing to do with hysteria. It is giving the police state broader powers and I and most people here are very much against that.

[dannno]

I am hoping Rand intentionally left out mention of the Arizona bill in the press release.

Yes, he intentionally left it out. He is very vague with his answers. That way he doesn't need to give a ten minute speech to educate the uneducated every time he wants to give the entire answer. He can get them on his side based on principle.

In fact, I completely agree with what he said and I am adamantly opposed to the AZ bill.

[Thargok]

The law only allows people to be questioned who are in violation of traffic laws, it only applies to vehicles when you are pulled over for something else and you have to provide documentation. In fact the only thing that has changed is that instead of writing you a ticket for not having a license, they check your legal status.

There are stricter restrictions on driving without a proper license (probably to detain such people) however it applies to all citizens.

The Bill is surprisingly easy to read, and it isn't the crazy clusterfuck that people make it out to be.

[dannno]

The law only allows people to be questioned who are in violation of traffic laws, it only applies to vehicles when you are pulled over for something else and you have to provide documentation. In fact the only thing that has changed is that instead of writing you a ticket for not having a license, they check your legal status.

There are stricter restrictions on driving without a proper license (probably to detain such people) however it applies to all citizens.

The Bill is surprisingly easy to read, and it isn't the crazy clusterfuck that people make it out to be.

No, you are wrong, I have read the bill. We have hashed all of this out on the forum already.

They can SUSPECT you of being an illegal alien, and that can be considered the excuse for the "lawful contact" that people who are proponents of what you are saying are using as an excuse to say that they CANNOT when the bill clearly says that they CAN.

Therefore they can use this to violate all of the citizen's 4th amendment rights because all they have to do is suspect them of being an illegal alien.. there is no criteria so they can use whatever criteria they want to ask for your papers. They can't use race according to the bill.. So what do they use? Working in a strawberry field? Hanging out on a certain corner? Maybe you can enlighten us as to what an illegal alien looks like or does so that cops can use that to identify them and be sure they aren't searching citizens engaging in completely lawful activity.. otherwise it is unconstitutional.

[TruthisTreason]

Maybe you can enlighten us as to what an illegal alien looks like

In Kentucky, it's easy to spot an illegal alien. He is generally non white or non black and doesn't speak English. This isn't the melting pot of America or anything.

[Danke]

In Kentucky, it's easy to spot an illegal alien. He is generally non white or non black and doesn't speak English. This isn't the melting pot of America or anything.

So you follow up on your spotting with asking them to provide documentation?

[Thargok]

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

And then lines 20-26


B.FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Now let me explain qualifiers. For example in the sentance "For any lawful contact...where reasonable suspicion exists...a reasonable attempt shall be made." The attempt cannot be made without reasonable suspicion to exist after lawful contact. Since anything volunteered before Miranda warnings are given are void, even if a cop came up and asked you if you were an illegal alien, even if you said yes he couldn't do anything.

If you want to find out what lawful contact is by definition, read the opinion on Arizona v. Johnson which deals with the legality of search of vehicle of a suspicious person in lawful contact.

[TruthisTreason]

So you follow up on your spotting with asking them to provide documentation?

If I were Sheriff, I'd do a lot more than ask for documentation.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2398/2487436631_5605a735f7.jpg?v=0

No Amnesty was the first issue that attracted me to Ron Paul. I still support No Amnesty.

It's different here in Kentucky than California. I can understand the problems with sorting out who is legal and who is illegal there. It isn't a problem here! It's easy....

[lordindra3]

Do you know who I agree with more than Andrew Napolitano? Jack Hunter, the Southern Avenger! I have NEVER disagreed with him. He has either changed my mind or took my thoughts and turned them into extremely coherent logical rhetoric.

Here is the other side here you go!

http://www.youtube.com/user/southernavenger#p/a/u/1/OaJOIJ6qmtI

[dannno]

In Kentucky, it's easy to spot an illegal alien. He is generally non white or non black and doesn't speak English. This isn't the melting pot of America or anything.


So what you're saying is that every person with brown skin speaking spanish is illegal :confused: What if they are legal immigrants :confused:

I grew up less than a mile from the biggest illegal encampment in so cal.. I know how to spot an illegal, when I see one.. but I can't put it down on paper and I can't ask people for their ID if they are engaging in lawful activity, lest it be unconstitutional.

The problem is that the AZ law doesn't allow police to discriminate based on race.

This is just an excuse to broaden police powers and ask people for ID whenever they feel like it.

[Liberty Stud]

Good for Rand. The law is the law, period.

[dannno]

And then lines 20-26



Now let me explain qualifiers. For example in the sentance "For any lawful contact...where reasonable suspicion exists...a reasonable attempt shall be made." The attempt cannot be made without reasonable suspicion to exist after lawful contact. Since anything volunteered before Miranda warnings are given are void, even if a cop came up and asked you if you were an illegal alien, even if you said yes he couldn't do anything.

If you want to find out what lawful contact is by definition, read the opinion on Arizona v. Johnson which deals with the legality of search of vehicle of a suspicious person in lawful contact.

Yes, but if you'd read my post, you'd know that they can use suspicion of being an illegal alien as an excuse for lawful contact.. it says so right in the bill. That is where the problem is.

[dannno]

The law is the law, period.

Sieg Heil!!

Jews were killed under the law. In fact, a lot of people have been lawfully murdered. Laws are BULLSHIT if they are not grounded in principles based on non-coercion.

Just let me say "fuck you" as I go smoke a bowl now. You can't tell me what I can and can't do if I'm not infringing on somebody else's rights.

[Danke]

Good for Rand. The law is the law, period.

Even laws restricting anabolic steroids?

[TruthisTreason]

So what you're saying is that every person with brown skin speaking spanish :confused:


Once again, in Kentucky the percentage of latinos is much smaller than Cali. So.....

What I'm saying is there are people who have lived in my county for many years (for me 30 plus) and we know who is new to our area. It just so happens these new people to our area don't speak english, are generally short, have brown skin and tend to travel and live in packs.

If a group of refugees from Kenya sat up camp in Kentucky, I would have the same concerns about them too. Especially, if they couldn't speak English. Then, they would be generally skinny, have black skin, etc...

The same could apply to white Eastern European. But, most of the Europeans I've meet learn English! Probably, because it's much harder for them to get into our country!

It's not about profiling, it's about common sense! You know like not searching grandma at the airport.

We are a nation of laws! Why should one be ticketed for speeding if immigrants don't have to follow our laws to enter our country?


From my understanding....
In Kentucky, if a cop pulls over a illegal immigrant for drunk driving he isn't allowed to ask if he is in our county, state or country legally! That's bullshit!

[dannno]

It's not about profiling, it's about common sense! You know like not searching grandma at the airport.

Ya but the problem is that THIS law is still giving the police broad powers to harass law abiding citizens when they wouldn't be able to otherwise. White, brown, doesn't matter..

Again, I completely agree with Rand's statement, but I am ademently opposed to the AZ law.. Though they recognize the right of the state to make the law, Ron Paul is opposed.. Judge Nap is opposed.. There is a reason for that.




From my understanding....
In Kentucky, if a cop pulls over a illegal immigrant for drunk driving he isn't allowed to ask if he is in our county, state or country legally! That's bullshit!

Yes, that's bullshit, if they are breaking the law they should be able to find out their legal status and deport them after they have served their punishment (or before if we had any real border security)

[Winston Smith]

I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws. I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves.

Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/illegal-immigration/

John Dennis (http://www.johndennis2010.com/) has similar sentiments!!

[Thargok]

Yes, but if you'd read my post, you'd know that they can use suspicion of being an illegal alien as an excuse for lawful contact.. it says so right in the bill. That is where the problem is.

No they can't, in fact if you look at the bill like I quoted that is the only thing that discusses lawful contact. What one could argue is that they could use suspicion in an attempt to nitpick something that could possibly be used to initiate lawful contact.

Then again I was a college kid driving down a road on a Saturday night so they nitpicked about how my running lights and not my headlights were on, assuming I was drunk they gave me 5 breathalyzers and wrote me up on some ticky-tacky bullshit charge.

The way the law is written being an illegal immigrant is not a qualifier for search and seizure, so you can't just walk up to somebody randomly and ask them to prove their citizenship.

[lordindra3]

Danno- I litterally thought you got rediculous when you said Illegals are not "hurting anyone" as compared with smoking a bowl.

Smoking weed hurts noone, but illegal immigration hurts all of us, badly... illegals dont pay taxes, they DRAIN our tax revenue (over an entire 1/8th of entire tax revenue every year, as a matter of fact... 10% of all babies born in the US are from illegals and over 90% are paid by tax payers... God that statistic irks me!), they send the remaining money they make over seas... I havnt even began to talk about the crime. So, I agree with your first part, but comparing illegals to smoking pot is a HORRIBLE comparison.

[Dreamofunity]

Smoking weed hurts noone, but illegal immigration hurts all of us, badly... illegals dont pay taxes, they DRAIN our tax revenue (over an entire 1/8th of entire tax revenue every year, as a matter of fact... 10% of all babies born in the US are from illegals and over 90% are paid by tax payers... God that statistic irks me!), they send the remaining money they make over seas... I havnt even began to talk about the crime. So, I agree with your first part, but comparing illegals to smoking pot is a HORRIBLE comparison.

The same case could be made for poor people in general, probably with even higher statistics. Lets deport all the poor people who don't pay as much taxes as they receive and only have a country of wealthy Americans - after all, they're nothing but leeches.

The problem is the welfare state, not the ones that receive it's temptation, legal or otherwise.

[TruthisTreason]

Personally, I'm not against unlimited legal immigration. But, it should be a process much like the people in the early 1900's had to go through to get into our country, not just walk across the border and pick up a legal driver's license at the local courthouse. :rolleyes:


And if we need cheap labor for peak months in farming and construction, the proper legal steps should be taken.

[lordindra3]

Dream of Unity- As a matter of fact, you are partially right! Poverty is a huge problem! I learned in a school that whenever there is poverty, there is crime. Its universal! So why do we want to increase the poverty percentage with benefit draining illegals and new citizens when we can control it??? I dont know how to say this without sounding like a Taoist or like a jerk, but we need BALANCE. If only citizens took care of other citizens, we could easily afford the wellfare recipients that are dependent. When you have massive droves of poor people coming here and a single family costs my entire family's tax revenue, I get pissed off! Litterally, a family costs more than I give in all the taxes I make and I hate paying taxes. I would rather my tax dollars go to our brave soldiers THAN SOMEONE WHO WE NEVER INVITED HERE!!! You could say that about all poor people??? Yes, except the part about sending the only money they do make accross the border to feed another economy. But still, these benefits are for OUR fellow country men, poor or not, white, black, purple, who cares. The point is that YES we DO need to fix the wellfare state, but in the mean time, I dont want all my hard earned tax dollars go to a guy lying about his income so he gets my money and sends his own money accross the border and then creates a citizen child who grows up in a very violent gang and steals my car (not racial, again, its a universal fact that when there is poverty there is crime)!

Lastly, we need to fix the legal immigration problem too. We actually have to have an economic balance of who comes here. We cant afford to take care of every poor, sick, elderly, wealthy, educated person in the world. We have to have a limited amount of people here based on GDP and economic sustainability, LIKE MEXICO DOES.

[dannno]

Personally, I'm not against unlimited legal immigration. But, it should be a process much like the people in the early 1900's had to go through to get into our country, not just walk across the border and pick up a legal driver's license at the local courthouse. :rolleyes:


You bring up a great point, actually. Judge Napolitano was interviewing with AJ yesterday, I finally caught the clip last night.. highly recommended.. He was saying that before FDR, immigration was pretty much open, FDR is the one who clamped down. Maybe if you like FDR you might like really strict immigration rules.

[TruthisTreason]

You bring up a great point, actually. Judge Napolitano was interviewing with AJ yesterday, I finally caught the clip last night.. highly recommended.. He was saying that before FDR, immigration was pretty much open, FDR is the one who clamped down. Maybe if you like FDR you might like really strict immigration rules.

I disagree with the Judge on this issue (in fact I don't think he read the bill) and on his take on GITMO.

If FDR is the one responsible for making people who want to come to this country learn English, not enter with deadly diseases, learn some basics of America, etc.... Then, yes, I like FDR for that.

[bobbyw24]

Yes, he intentionally left it out. He is very vague with his answers. That way he doesn't need to give a ten minute speech to educate the uneducated every time he wants to give the entire answer. He can get them on his side based on principle.

In fact, I completely agree with what he said and I am adamantly opposed to the AZ bill.

Rand is doing the right thing here

[lordindra3]

Well, thats because the Judge is more purely Libertarian than say "Constitutional Conservative". The difference between pure Libertarians is Libertarian Conservatives is that Conservatives (like Ron Paul and Rand Paul) are not open borders and we are pretty conservative on many social issues. My answer to Libertarians about open borders is "National Sovereignty"! You guys dont like the UN and NATO do you??? Ok, so we should respect that we are a Sovereign nation, guys!

Lastly, before FDR, the times were different back then and there was no wellfare state, so you have to understand the TIMES! Its like the rediculous argument that "we are a nation of immigrants". So, well then you could say that Japan is a nation of immigrants because a thousand years ago Japan was colonized by ancient Chinese and Ainu were the real Japanese. Ok, then Russia is a nation of Immigrants because Russia was mostly native Tar Tars and Ukrainian vikings took over Russia hundreds of years ago.... Common, this is a rediculous argument.

Ron Paul even explained that Anchor baby laws were created during the Civil War days, back when the west was unsettled and we needed people to inhabitate the Country to strengthen our nation. Back then there was no WELLFARE and no Social Benefits and people who came here WANTED TO BE AMERICANS. There is a complete difference than now!

[dannno]

I disagree with the Judge on this issue (in fact I don't think he read the bill)


Ugh. So you've fallen for the lawful contact BS too??

The thing is, the Judge HAS read the bill and so have I and we are both correct.

If you read the bill there are 10 lines where it clearly says that an officer can ask for ID once they have lawful contact with the individual.. however in the SAME 10 LINES it also says that suspicion of being illegal can be used to initiate lawful contact!! So they don't need to be breaking any laws for police to ask them for ID.. and there is no possible way to have reasonable suspicion that somebody is illegal without looking at their ID.. so any time this part of the bill is utilized by law enforcement they are inherently breaking the fourth amendment because there is no such thing as probably cause for being an illegal if said illegal is engaging in lawful activity.

Therefore citizens rights can be violated under this law.

[Thargok]

If you read the bill there are 10 lines where it clearly says that an officer can ask for ID once they have lawful contact with the individual.. however in the SAME 10 LINES it also says that suspicion of being illegal can be used to initiate lawful contact!!

Where?! Here are a lot more then ten lines. And I swear if you try to make a prerequisite into a post-requisite again I'm going to bang my head into a wall.



A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

[lordindra3]

Danno- I know we are going on in circles here, but what about when a police officer asks you for a drivers license? Are you going to protest, throw rocks at mexican officials and threaten to take your weeding and landscaping tools to break Mexican infrastructure??? (like the protestors have... Im watching right now)

Look, there is a law that is 70 years old that says that all aliens, legal or non legal are legally required to carry immigration papers/visas... So, the federal government isnt doing its job, so the state is mimicking the federal law. Big deal. If you are a citizen, what the hell would you be worried about??? If you are here illegally, I dont really want you to be comfortable. Sorry, thats just how I feel and most Arizonans (who are the only ones who can talk from experience) feel the same way!

[dannno]

Where?! Here are a lot more then ten lines. And I swear if you try to make a prerequisite into a post-requisite again I'm going to bang my head into a wall.


E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.


Come on man. It's in fucking english.

[dannno]

Danno- I know we are going on in circles here, but what about when a police officer asks you for a drivers license?

Why are they asking? Did I break a law? Is there reasonable suspicion to believe so?




Are you going to protest, throw rocks at mexican officials and threaten to take your weeding and landscaping tools to break Mexican infrastructure??? (like the protestors have... Im watching right now)

What? Am I in Mexico now?




Look, there is a law that is 70 years old that says that all aliens, legal or non legal are legally required to carry immigration papers/visas... So, the federal government isnt doing its job, so the state is mimicking the federal law. Big deal. If you are a citizen, what the hell would you be worried about??? If you are here illegally, I dont really want you to be comfortable. Sorry, thats just how I feel and most Arizonans (who are the only ones who can talk from experience) feel the same way!

Natural born citizens do not legally have to carry papers. There are people with brown skin who have lived in the US for centuries if not longer. There is no law that says they need to carry ID.. yet if you read the above passage, you can see that an officer can ask them for ID under this new law and arrest them even though they are a Natural Born Citizen.

The key to this argument, and the reason it keeps going in circles, is because your side is either refusing to read the section of the bill that I cited above, you are ignoring it, or you aren't thinking through how this can be used against law abiding citizens and destroy their fourth amendment rights.

[MelissaWV]

Come on man. It's in fucking english.

...

I at least give people who argue that it "won't be abused" credit for having read it, but at this juncture the fact that you are still having to post this section is sad. The poster even posted it themselves.

[lordindra3]

Ok, so make the language better, reform the law BUT DO NOT KILL IT. How would you change it, Danno?

[dannno]

Ok, so make the language better, reform the law BUT DO NOT KILL IT. How would you change it, Danno?

End welfare for illegals, I would take the Fed. Govt on big time on that one, and other states like TX would join and that would be fantastic.

[TruthisTreason]

Ugh. So you've fallen for the lawful contact BS too??


Almost all law is written is some arbitrary language that only lawyers and judges can battle out the meaning of, and even that is subjective from case to case.

[dannno]

Almost all law is written is some arbitrary language that only lawyers and judges can battle out the meaning of, and even that is subjective from case to case.

It's not subjective, I posted it above. If the police suspect you of being an illegal alien, they can ask for your papers.

How do you suspect somebody of being an illegal alien? It's always one of those "I know it when I see it" type deals, and even then, not always accurate.. but to REALLY be able to suspect somebody of being illegal, unless they are engaged in other unlawful activity, would be to check their ID.. so you can't have reasonable suspicion without looking at their papers.. but this law allows officer judgment to check people's papers even if they are engaged in lawful activity, which is ripe for abuse.

[TruthisTreason]

It's not subjective, I posted it above. If the police suspect you of being an illegal alien, they can ask for your papers.


You totally missed the jest of my post, no big deal.




How do you suspect somebody of being an illegal alien? .

I've already went through this with you.

[Thargok]

Come on man. It's in fucking english.

I love how you highlight any public offense and don't know what it means. A public offense is committing a crime. The law reads in FUCKING ENGLISH. You don't need a warrant to arrest somebody if you suspect they are illegal after they have BROKEN THE LAW. I cannot believe I still have to explain definitions to you.

[dannno]

I love how you highlight any public offense and don't know what it means. A public offense is committing a crime. The law reads in FUCKING ENGLISH. You don't need a warrant to arrest somebody if you suspect they are illegal after they have BROKEN THE LAW. I cannot believe I still have to explain definitions to you.

Exactly, so if police suspect an individual of being an illegal they can search without a warrant and arrest them even if they are a legal citizen engaged in 100% lawful activity. You can't deny that, it says it right there. They only have to SUSPECT that they have broken the law. This is an aggression on citizen's fourth amendment rights. I'm not sure you understand that amendment or it's purpose.