Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Parts of Arizona law overturned
Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:01 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned. But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. "Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision. She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
Quote:Quote: Lancaster city's police chief said a proposal to have Pennsylvania adopt a version of Arizona's controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants is not only a horrible idea, but offensive as well. Chief Keith Sadler said the proposal would subject many citizens to police questioning solely because they have brown skin and speak a language other than English. "Some of the people who come up with these ideas, I almost think I know what they're trying to say," Sadler said in an interview. "It's inexcusable. To me, it's, 'Anybody who's not white might be an illegal immigrant.' That's what I'm getting out of that. "It's offensive. People who never come into contact with any kind of immigrants make a lot of assumptions on archaic stigmas, and it's frustrating."[ Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray called the proposal "politically motivated and not serious law enforcement," and said, if enacted, it would not hold up in court. "How are you going to know who needs the papers?" the former defense attorney said. "When you say there are 'subjective' standards, what you're saying is it's unconstitutional." Gray said a law similar to Arizona's is unnecessary because police already have the ability to check an individual's residency status with the federal government. Mandating such inquiries would lead to poor relations between the police and the Hispanic community, which is made up of a large number of Puerto Rico natives, who are U.S. citizens, he said. Even outside the city, the legislation is raising concerns in the law-enforcement community. West Hempfield Township police Chief Mark Pugliese said Pennsylvania doesn't need the Arizona-type law. "I don't know that the system is broken right now," he said. "There is a process in place through which we can verify a person's status," he said. Instead of enacting a new law, Pugliese said he would work to improve the government's system of verifying immigration status. Ephrata Borough police Chief William L. Harvey questioned whether the proposal would provide officers with additional training on how to identify illegal immigrants. "There's going to have to be an immense amount of training in how to make correct determinations, and in the area of documentation, especially counterfeit," Harvey said. "That's going to be a huge market." And should the bill become law, who's going to pay for that training? "This commonwealth has cut back funding for police training immensely," Harvey said. "Whose dime is this going to be on? If it fell upon me, I need this budget for other things." He said the proposed requirements under the bill would add another layer of responsibility on already strapped and undermanned police forces. "If you would talk to officers on the street, if you look at the traditional roles in 1980 when I walked in the door versus 2010, we have increased the demands on law enforcement at some mathematical quotient that we have not been able to keep up with," Harvey said. "I now have got a litany of topic matters that I have to have officers trained in, and a lot of them are risk management issues to protect my municipality from liability. Now we're raising the bar and raising the workload more.” New Holland Borough Mayor Wilbur Horning, who oversees the police force there, said he had not read the legislation. But he voiced frustration over the federal government's failure to control illegal immigration. "The one thing that I do feel strongly about is that we, as a nation, need to decide what our immigration policy is going to be in this country," he said. "I really feel that it has been neglected and it's time for us to come up with a policy. : http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/253661#ixzz0v6hPlZro Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani, Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”, signing off
Quote: Lancaster city's police chief said a proposal to have Pennsylvania adopt a version of Arizona's controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants is not only a horrible idea, but offensive as well. Chief Keith Sadler said the proposal would subject many citizens to police questioning solely because they have brown skin and speak a language other than English. "Some of the people who come up with these ideas, I almost think I know what they're trying to say," Sadler said in an interview. "It's inexcusable. To me, it's, 'Anybody who's not white might be an illegal immigrant.' That's what I'm getting out of that. "It's offensive. People who never come into contact with any kind of immigrants make a lot of assumptions on archaic stigmas, and it's frustrating."[ Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray called the proposal "politically motivated and not serious law enforcement," and said, if enacted, it would not hold up in court. "How are you going to know who needs the papers?" the former defense attorney said. "When you say there are 'subjective' standards, what you're saying is it's unconstitutional." Gray said a law similar to Arizona's is unnecessary because police already have the ability to check an individual's residency status with the federal government. Mandating such inquiries would lead to poor relations between the police and the Hispanic community, which is made up of a large number of Puerto Rico natives, who are U.S. citizens, he said. Even outside the city, the legislation is raising concerns in the law-enforcement community. West Hempfield Township police Chief Mark Pugliese said Pennsylvania doesn't need the Arizona-type law. "I don't know that the system is broken right now," he said. "There is a process in place through which we can verify a person's status," he said. Instead of enacting a new law, Pugliese said he would work to improve the government's system of verifying immigration status. Ephrata Borough police Chief William L. Harvey questioned whether the proposal would provide officers with additional training on how to identify illegal immigrants. "There's going to have to be an immense amount of training in how to make correct determinations, and in the area of documentation, especially counterfeit," Harvey said. "That's going to be a huge market." And should the bill become law, who's going to pay for that training? "This commonwealth has cut back funding for police training immensely," Harvey said. "Whose dime is this going to be on? If it fell upon me, I need this budget for other things." He said the proposed requirements under the bill would add another layer of responsibility on already strapped and undermanned police forces. "If you would talk to officers on the street, if you look at the traditional roles in 1980 when I walked in the door versus 2010, we have increased the demands on law enforcement at some mathematical quotient that we have not been able to keep up with," Harvey said. "I now have got a litany of topic matters that I have to have officers trained in, and a lot of them are risk management issues to protect my municipality from liability. Now we're raising the bar and raising the workload more.” New Holland Borough Mayor Wilbur Horning, who oversees the police force there, said he had not read the legislation. But he voiced frustration over the federal government's failure to control illegal immigration. "The one thing that I do feel strongly about is that we, as a nation, need to decide what our immigration policy is going to be in this country," he said. "I really feel that it has been neglected and it's time for us to come up with a policy.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:34 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:03 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote: Arizona Will Appeal Ruling on Immigration Law, Governor Says Arizona appealed a judge’s ruling that struck key provisions of a state law requiring police to determine the immigration status of people stopped for questioning, said Governor Jan Brewer. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco would hear arguments over the law in mid-September, according to a request for expedited proceedings submitted by Brewer today. Arizona would have two weeks to file its first brief under the proposed schedule. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix held yesterday that the state can’t mandate that police make a “reasonable attempt” to determine whether a person is legally in the U.S. and then detain him if there is “suspicion” that he isn’t. The schedule should be sped up because the barred provisions “were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government,” Arizona said in a copy of its appeals court filing that it provided. “America is not going to sit back and allow the ongoing federal failures to continue,” Brewer said today in a statement. “We are a nation of laws and we believe they need to be enforced.”
Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:06 PM
WHOZIT
Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:43 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:50 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:56 PM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:58 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:26 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:28 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:30 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:32 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't. Only you would equate segregation to illegal immigration.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:36 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, I have opposed the Arizona law, but freely admit that there is an illegal immigration problem. This problem is best combatted in a myriad of ways that down't involve requiring people to carry proof of citizenship in their day-to-day activities. The border is your first opportunity to stop the illegals, but we have never invested much on border security, preferring to invest our funds for national defense overseas. The second opportunity comes at the workplace, by crippling employers who hire illegals. This measure alone will solve the majority of the problem. (And the latter has been very successful already in Arizona, with many illegals evacuating due to an inability to find employment here.) This problem is an argument between those who favor a scalpel, and those who favor a grenade. I don't want anyone hit by the shrapnel, so a scalpel is my preferred implement. --Anthony Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't. Yeah, but more recently a majority of fans thought Spain would win the World Cup, and they were right! So that proves it. What else ya got? Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:54 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Snark, snark, snark...gawd I'm sick of it. On to the real issue: Yes, Pizmo, he struck down PARTS of it, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts, not the whole thing.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:02 PM
Quote: "Your honor, I'm sorry, I just really wanted the cash in the drawer. I know I didn't earn it but I really wanted it and I didn't want to wait." "It's ok young man, we appreciate your effort, you can have the cash. But let that be a lesson to ya." "Yes your honor, I sure will."
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:07 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:12 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, I have opposed the Arizona law, but freely admit that there is an illegal immigration problem. This problem is best combatted in a myriad of ways that down't involve requiring people to carry proof of citizenship in their day-to-day activities. The border is your first opportunity to stop the illegals, but we have never invested much on border security, preferring to invest our funds for national defense overseas. The second opportunity comes at the workplace, by crippling employers who hire illegals. This measure alone will solve the majority of the problem. (And the latter has been very successful already in Arizona, with many illegals evacuating due to an inability to find employment here.) This problem is an argument between those who favor a scalpel, and those who favor a grenade. I don't want anyone hit by the shrapnel, so a scalpel is my preferred implement.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:16 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: "I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld." Hello, My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.
Quote: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.
Quote: If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:18 PM
Quote:I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:34 PM
Quote: what the judge found was UNCONSTITUTIONAL was AZ overreaching the FED by trying to address border issues themselves
Quote: we're arguing about who you run over in your headlong rush to some sort of final solution.
Quote: It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.
Quote: love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote: "Your honor, I'm sorry, I just really wanted the cash in the drawer. I know I didn't earn it but I really wanted it and I didn't want to wait." "It's ok young man, we appreciate your effort, you can have the cash. But let that be a lesson to ya." "Yes your honor, I sure will." I take it that in this instance, Arizona wanted the "cash"? The "cash" being that they wanted to do what THEY wanted, and didn't really care whether it was legal or constitutional or not. You seem to be basing your whole legal argument here on the idea that you don't like illegals and want to be able to do whatever you want in order to round them up and ship 'em out, and legalities and constitutions be damned.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:47 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: "I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld." Hello, My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere. Somebody should write some sort of Constitutional Amendment to that effect. Something about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers, and no searches or seizures being made without a warrant based on probable cause. Oh. Shit. Somebody already DID all that. How quickly they forget... Quote: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. Of note, it DOESN'T say, "Unless you really think they're illegal aliens" or "unless you really don't like the way they look". Quote: If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder. BIG emphasis on the blunder.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this." You mean you want the people who are here LEGALLY to follow U.S. law, like they already did and do?
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:59 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:01 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this." You mean you want the people who are here LEGALLY to follow U.S. law, like they already did and do? You really just don't want to understand. Just for the record. "I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:13 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: ""I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it." Hello, Not simple enough. "I think people who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." --Anthony
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:56 PM
PIRATENEWS
John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!
Quote:Arizona preparing appeal of immigration ruling Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday, including a section that bars 'Sanctuary Cities' in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100729/D9H8OM480.html
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:58 PM
MAL4PREZ
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: ""I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it." Hello, Not simple enough. "I think people who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law."
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:12 PM
MINCINGBEAST
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:19 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:23 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I think people who want to immigrate to the U.S. should follow U.S. immigration law, too. No matter WHERE they come from. Ireland, Mexico, Germany, Iraq, Cuba, South Africa, wherever.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:37 PM
Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: This whole thing is like bad parenting. The parents are off busy smoking dope or something, so the kids have to come up with their own rules to keep order. Then the parents show up and are shocked at how the older one is beating on the younger. Duh! The federal govt needs to figure their shit out. On one hand, they have this path to legal citizenship that they insist everyone should follow. On the other hand, the cheap labor is nice, so they let the rule-breaking slide. (If it wasn't so, they'd be busting companies for employing illegals, rather than going after the illegals themselves, right? It wouldn't be that hard to go after employers. So why haven't they?) The feds need to work their shit out. Either let people from ALL other nations work here, or go after the employers. Until mommy and daddy lay down the law, the states will continue to come up with these asinine unconstitutional laws and thousands of well-meaning people will get stuck in the middle of the battle. So why don't the Feds do anything? I think it's two-pronged. Part of it is the hand of the corporations - the folks who have the cash to sick lobbyists on congress looooove cheap labor. The other part of it is pure old-fashioned racism. Sorry I don't have the research on hand to post, but I've heard from sources I trust: if you search down the actual hands that write tough immigration laws, the actual fingers who typed it on the keyboard, you'll find some hardcore white supremacists. They set it down in the 50s: their goal was to make whitey afraid of browny, to make browny look like a big scary invader. Why else is the inclusion of "Mexico/Mexican" such an important thing? We don't care about Canadians so much, because they look like us. It's just those brown skinners -- we can't have them polluting our pure Aryan blood.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:45 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:48 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:49 PM
Quote:Originally posted by mincingbeast: There's a difference between a law that would require US citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times, and a law that would require a US citizen under "reasonable suspicion" to provide a law enforcement officer with proof of citizenship when it is requested.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:57 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: The turd of racism still stinks like shit no matter how much pretty frosting they try to hide it with, doesn't it, Mikey ? -Frem I do not serve the Blind God.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Where was I talking about "squads", Piz? I must have missed that, seeing as I never mentioned it. Could it be that you're assigning my position for me so you can pretend you knocked it down? I'm asking why you seem to insist on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration. Shouldn't "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal resident" cover it, NO MATTER WHERE THE PERSON CAME FROM? Your problem seems to be that you want to be very, very specific, and aim laws by name solely at "Mexicans". So I take it you aren't so much against illegal immigration, as you are against illegal MEXICAN immigration. So you stop all the Mexicans. Great. What happens when you find out you now have 6.5 million Guatemalans pouring across your border? Another hastily-written law that applies ONLY to Guatemalans? How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea?
Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: The turd of racism still stinks like shit no matter how much pretty frosting they try to hide it with, doesn't it, Mikey ? -Frem
Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Where was I talking about "squads", Piz? I must have missed that, seeing as I never mentioned it. Could it be that you're assigning my position for me so you can pretend you knocked it down? I'm asking why you seem to insist on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration. Shouldn't "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal resident" cover it, NO MATTER WHERE THE PERSON CAME FROM? Your problem seems to be that you want to be very, very specific, and aim laws by name solely at "Mexicans". So I take it you aren't so much against illegal immigration, as you are against illegal MEXICAN immigration. So you stop all the Mexicans. Great. What happens when you find out you now have 6.5 million Guatemalans pouring across your border? Another hastily-written law that applies ONLY to Guatemalans? How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea? Great, you can't win a straight debate so you make shit up.
Quote: Take your time, scroll up and find where I said anything about insisting "on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration." Take your time, honesty is important.
Quote: I'm asking why you seem to insist on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration. Shouldn't "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal resident" cover it, NO MATTER WHERE THE PERSON CAME FROM?
Quote: fwiw "How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea?" Fine by me, type it up and I'll sign it.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: If you're talking to me then have the guts to talk directly to me.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:57 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: "I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld." Hello, My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere. Somebody should write some sort of Constitutional Amendment to that effect. Something about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers, and no searches or seizures being made without a warrant based on probable cause. Oh. Shit. Somebody already DID all that. How quickly they forget... Quote: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. Of note, it DOESN'T say, "Unless you really think they're illegal aliens" or "unless you really don't like the way they look". Quote: If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder. BIG emphasis on the blunder. Wouldn't that Constitutional Amendment apply to US citizens?
Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:11 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: "I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld." Hello, My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere. Somebody should write some sort of Constitutional Amendment to that effect. Something about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers, and no searches or seizures being made without a warrant based on probable cause. Oh. Shit. Somebody already DID all that. How quickly they forget... Quote: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. Of note, it DOESN'T say, "Unless you really think they're illegal aliens" or "unless you really don't like the way they look". Quote: If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder. BIG emphasis on the blunder. Wouldn't that Constitutional Amendment apply to US citizens? Depends on who you ask, it seems. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about that; it says "the people". Of course, I completely understand if you don't consider non-citizens real people. I don't agree, but I see how you got there. It's how we managed to make torture completely legal in this country, after all, by deciding that only "real" Americans are actual people deserving of human rights, and anyone else can suck on it 'til they drown...
Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: If you're talking to me then have the guts to talk directly to me. If I was, I woulda! Don't be an ass, Piz - there's a whole reek of racism about this mess, and thing is, aside from any moral judgements, it's very damn distracting from coming up with some kinda reasonable solution. So I wasn't droppin a slam on you specifically, or trust me, you woulda known it, I was speaking in general of this whole stupid issue. And bein less than honest about it, that there ARE racist dicks who wanna justify that shit by codifying it into law, well, that kinda impinges on the legitimacy of the whole damn process, doesn't it ? We need to admit that some of that is goin on, and shut it down before there's even a HOPE of honest discussions on the merits - and frosting it over and pretending that ain't what IS happening, that is not a solution either. Happy now ? -Frem
Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:26 PM
Quote:Originally posted by mincingbeast: You need a warrant to arrest someone or seize property; this entails probable cause and specificty. And a magistrate. Even then, there are many exceptions, and probable cause alone is generally enough to constitutionally justify obnoxious police behavior. Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard, generally justified by exigent circumstances like officer safety. A cop can frisk you for a gun without probable cause, for example, because the law doesn't want to make it too difficult for officers to protect themselves. The law strives for balance. Of course officers exploit this. "I was concerned for my safety and frisked him, when I felt something that I instantly recognized as drugs." Bullshit, but it happens all the time, and usually sticks. Doesn't mean these searches are bad. A laws value isn't determined by its potential for abuse. Cops have this discretion over all laws.
Quote: Is there a better enforcement mechanism then giving officers, who have lawfully detained someone, discretion to request proof of citizenship based on reasonable suspicion? The current law directs officers to; that's most of the trouble. At what point are we comfortable with cops making such a request? Say, Jose was stopped because his car has no tags. He is swarth. He speaks no English. Jose has no ID (which cops can generally demand). He is evasive. The stop happens in a border town. At any point, in that ill conceived hypo, would it be proper for the officer to say "are you a US citizen?"
Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: I do so love a good torture!
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL