Demonstrator Jose Acosta told CNN television he was concerned about the new law.

"What is reasonable suspicion? Are we going to get pulled over just because of a broken taillight,

Yes



(god this is too much fun)

Dmtdust wrote:

(god this is too much fun)
Glad you like it.
I see nothing wrong with an actual guest worker program.  Somehow, I can't quite get my head around un-employed whites migrating to working in the fields.  Yeah, your ancestors did it, hell I did it as a kid... but can you see Buffy or Spencer working for the wages agri-biz pays, without any benefits?

Not gonna happen.

Maybe they're not hungry enough.

I still think the bracero program worked well.  I don't understand why we don't have a version of that going right now.  Legalize all drugs and enact a fairly liberal bracero-type program, and most of our border problems would evaporate.

Em wrote:

I, personally, believe that enforcement of our current laws must occur before we "reform" anything.  In a nut shell, if you want to immigrate to the US you must reside in your home country and apply from there (like everyone else in the world does).

I thought this WAS George Bush's plan.  It certainly is the plan Arizona wants to enforce.  The problem is what to do with those who ignore the law.  Without punishment, there is no disincentive to flout the law and sneak in.

Fled wrote:

The Arizona "plan" doesn't seem like a plan at all.  It just extends, or purports to clarify, the powers of state and local police.  Put in a favorable light, it is designed to facilitate state and local police actions to enforce or assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. 

There are some provisions in the legislation that would give any person with libertarian leanings pause, such as Section 13-2929, which makes it a crime to provide transportation or "shelter" to another if you know or recklessly disregard the fact that the person has entered or remains in the US in violation of law.  Moreover, if you commit this crime, your vehicle is subject to confiscation and impoundment.  Thus, before you give a ride to a neighbor or the guy mowing your lawn, you may need to check his papers, lest someone decide that you recklessly disregarded his immigration status. 

Most attention is being paid to two provisions of Section 11-1051.  The first requires that, when any "lawful contact"  is made between a state or local policeman and a person who is "reasonably suspected" of being in the US unlawfully, the policeman shall make an attempt to verify the person's immigration status.  This appears to include detained the person, perhaps even jailing the person, while the verification is attempted.  While this provision may have some appeal, it does deviate sharply from the normal rights of police where there is a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal conduct (i.e., a Terry search).  In Terry search, because the probable cause standard is not satisfied, the police can only briefly detain and frisk the individual, usually looking for drugs or weapons.  The Arizona statute seems to reach beyond a Terry search, which may make it subject to constitutional challenge.  In the new Arizona statute, the extent of the power is quite vague. 

The second provision in Section 11-1051 that is getting attention is one authorizing state and local police to arrest without a warrant anyone for whom there is probable cause to believe the person has committed any offense that makes him deportable.  It is not clear how such "probable cause" would arise, and some think it will encourage racial profiling.

It will be challenged, the language will be cleaned up and it will eventually stand; more states will adopt the approach and eventually the Fed will start doing their job again.

We really just can't go on granting citizenship to every border-hopper that comes along.  The last time we granted amnesty it was supposedly going to fix the problem; I'm not claiming to be an expert on the matter but I don't think it fixed the problem.

Here's what people haven't mentioned, as far as I can tell. Say you're naturalized, but look illegal. It's not like the cops stop you once, check your papers, and let you go--it seems like you're going to be stopped and checked out by every cop who ever sees you. When you look at it that way, the level of hassle quickly becomes intolerable. It's not like a test you have to pass once; conceivably you could have to pass it every day. And that's how we want to treat an American citizen who hasn't done anything illegal?

POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH V

POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS BLAH BLAH BLAH

Fled wrote:

I think RT is trying to tell us something.

New desktop wallpaper, tx.

Any lady who claims not to enjoy that is just uptight and has a heteronormative, patriarchal view of her body.

Emmeran wrote:

*   *   *
Spare us the paranoia this law passes the 4th amendment sniff test, you can't stop someone for how they look you have to have reasonable suspiscion a law has been broken.  The key phrase here is "in the course of their normal duties" - the justice department has been all over this for weeks, this thing is pretty much air tight. *   *   *

The Fourth Amendment question that interests me is whether the can do more that a Terry frisk based on a mere reasonable suspicion.  Can they detain the individual while they contact the responsible officials and attempt to determine immigration status?  How long can the continue the detention?  Where can they hold the individual?  What if it is clear that the individual neither poses a threat nor holds any contraband?  Remember, there is no "probable cause," as required by the Fourth Amendment, otherwise there would be no issue and no need for the new statute.

"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."

SORRY RT SORRY RT SORRY RT

Last edited by Fled (2010-04-28 05:09:39)

Fled wrote:

I think RT is trying to tell us something.

Jesus, that's gotta hurt.

Emmeran wrote:

*   *   *. 

Remember, this law only dictates that state officials enforce the existing Federal statutes and provides clarification for certain specific situations (such as hangin out at Home Depot) which are already part of existing law.

This particular law does not introduce any new crimes or penalties; it merely forces current statutes to be enforced, which is why the justice dept hasn't done anything except stomp their feet.

Hanging out at Home Depot is not a crime; rather, it is an indication of mental disability. 

The statute does specifically create one new crime and penalty, as I mentioned in my first post, which relates to providing transportation or shelter to someone here illegally.

Until this law was enacted, it was not a crime to transport people under these circumstances, except in the case of smuggling, human trafficking, etc.  It is a brand new concept to make the mundane act of driving someone to school or a grocery store a crime.  Maybe in the extraordinary circumstance where the driver was conspiring to violate immigration laws could it have been prosecuted.  This law reaches way beyond that.  In addition, you can commit this new crime even if you don't have actual knowledge that the person is here in violation of immigration law.  Reckless disregard of the individual's immigration status is sufficient to constitute a violation of the new criminal law.

Fled wrote:

Until this law was enacted, it was not a crime to transport people under these circumstances, except in the case of smuggling, human trafficking, etc.  It is a brand new concept to make the mundane act of driving someone to school or a grocery store a crime.  Maybe in the extraordinary circumstance where the driver was conspiring to violate immigration laws could it have been prosecuted.  This law reaches way beyond that.  In addition, you can commit this new crime even if you don't have actual knowledge that the person is here in violation of immigration law.  Reckless disregard of the individual's immigration status is sufficient to constitute a violation of the new criminal law.

No, it's always been a crime to knowingly assist someone in the execution of a crime, being here illegally has always (in modern times) been a crime, therefore...

People are twisting the wording anyway they can to sensationalize this thing, it's really quite simple in concept: should the cops have reason be involved with you and you give them reason to believe you are not a legal resident it is mandatory that they check. 

This has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, skin color or religion.  This is just the way the world is today, the entire world - not just here.

I realize that enforcing our immigration laws will have short term economic consequences and will cause disruption in many peoples' lives.  In the long run, being able to control who is allowed to enter and stay in our country is necessary to ensure our long term survival as a First World society.  I've been through several episodes of having my papers checked when I've been in other countries; and while I wasn't thrilled, I accept their right to control their borders and the composition of their populations.

Dmtdust wrote:

Borders are artificial constructs as are countries.  Welcome to the Post Modern World.

America no longer needs hordes of unskilled foreign workers, thanks to manufacturing jobs having moved overseas. The ease of modern transportation also makes it easier for less desirable individuals to migrate to other countries.  Before, the difficulties involved in picking up and moving to another country acted as a filtering mechanism. These are aspects of the Post Modern World that need to be taken into account.

Last edited by fnord (2010-04-28 20:10:28)

Dmtdust wrote:

Borders are artificial constructs as are countries.  Welcome to the Post Modern World.

Automobiles are artificial constructs, but that doesn't mean it's safe to step in front of one.  Welcome to the world of physics.   

I see your non sequitur and raise.

Dmtdust wrote:

Have you ever straddled a border?  Did one side feel different than the other?  At one time, Checkpoint Charlie may indeed offered a different sensation.  Comparing this experience to stepping in front of a car is a deviation from actual sense, "Yes, a fish on a bicycle!" and other Dadaist promulgations.

Yes, North Korea/South Korea - and the feeling was obvious.

Dmtdust wrote:

There are watersheds, and mountains, and they are the real divides.

and guns.

Guns define a border and it's not an artificial construct; philosophy be damned - if something affects your life, it's real.

Fled wrote:

Note - in deference to RT and other conscienceless objecters, I think I'll bow out of this back and forth.  It is political and thus incorrect.

THANKS!!!

RT

Hadrian's Wall.

sigmoid freud wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/34_arizona.jpg

Sweet - except even in AZ they are mindful of the influx of eastern European immigrants.  If Polish is your only language and you're driving without a license you're gonna get the same treatment.

This isn't about skin color (as much as the Latino caucus want to make it so) it's about enforcing the existing law.  If you don't like it, then change the Federal law.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Emmeran wrote:

sigmoid freud wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/34_arizona.jpg

Sweet - except even in AZ they are mindful of the influx of eastern European immigrants.  If Polish is your only language and you're driving without a license you're gonna get the same treatment.

This isn't about skin color (as much as the Latino caucus want to make it so) it's about enforcing the existing law.  If you don't like it, then change the Federal law.

Don't be naive, Em.  Do you honestly believe that the "reasonable suspicion" for detaining people will not be related to skin color or ethnicity?  Seriously? 
The debate cannot be rational unless the debaters will acknowledge reality.

The statute is intended to enforce existing law.  But it also runs a high probability of encouraging, or at least resulting in, violations of existing (constitutional) law.  It is not an easy problem.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Fled wrote:

Don't be naive, Em.  Do you honestly believe that the "reasonable suspicion" for detaining people will not be related to skin color or ethnicity?  Seriously? 
The debate cannot be rational unless the debaters will acknowledge reality.

The statute is intended to enforce existing law.  But it also runs a high probability of encouraging, or at least resulting in, violations of existing (constitutional) law.  It is not an easy problem.

If we are to focus on the reality of the human condition then this law has a higher probability of minimal enforcement due to basic human laziness; I can also guaruntee that no matter what we do there will be 4th admendment violations, perhaps by someone trying to protest the law by creating that situation.

This law will survive constitutional challenges, if the arguement is that we might have over-zealous individuals abuse the 4th amendment in the application of this law you must acknowledge that the same logic can be applied to the majority of our behavioural laws.  How about "Disorderly Conduct", completely arbitrary and has been used repeatedly over-time as a tool to harrass, clearly allowing individual rights to be infringed.

Arguing that someone will mis-use this law is argueing that the sun will rise in the morning; that is a known problem and is the reason for codes of conduct, civil lawsuits, etc.

Fled wrote:

So if race and ethnicity is not the basis for a "reasonable suspicion" stop/detention, what basis do you think the police might have?  The law has inherent problems.  Perhaps they will pass constitutional muster, perhaps not.  This law has the particular problem that it likely will be subject to strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, which means it will face the toughest kind of equal protection standard.

Realistically this law is only meant to address the most obvious of offenses, for example: stopped for expired tags, no license and can't speak a word of english or fully explain what he is doing.  At that point, obviously, someone should check to see if he is a legal resident.

As a society we face serious problems and if nothing else the unfairness of the current immigrant situation demands we do something to address it; this outcry from the Latino community is nothing more than selfishness - they don't want to follow the existing laws and immigration procedures.  In fact they flat out refuse to.

The Great Wall Of China.