Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill


  • Please log in to reply
1189 replies to this topic

#1021 fatherofcaitlyn

fatherofcaitlyn

    Der Uber Hoarder

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 July 2010 - 03:20 PM

Why not put the military to work on the borders? It would be excellent training, and they can handle it.

Edit: I better say I realize the military still costs money, but I am sure we can figure out something, if we can figure out how to spend 4 trillion dollars in 2 years.


Wouldn't that be a violation of Posse Comitatus?

Then again, the governor could declare the immigration problem a public emergency.
Synergize, bitches!
Posted Image

#1022 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 July 2010 - 03:27 PM

When involved with criminal activity, police can ask you for identification can't they? What's the difference? All you guys can come up with is that police might abuse it.

That's ID so they know who the Fuck you are, not if you're legal. I can't believe you're fine with having your citizenship questioned whenever you're stopped by police.

#1023 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 July 2010 - 03:29 PM

Lets get the corps of engineers to build it, at least then we know it will last...

#1024 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 July 2010 - 03:30 PM

Nonono. Guys, the Constitution doesn't matter when it is unconstitutional.
Posted Image

#1025 tivo

tivo

    taking care of buisness

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 July 2010 - 03:58 PM

At the very least, the government should give every American a tax refund. They take our $$ to secure the boarder and remove illegals but they aren't doing thier jobs. They would never do that, but the principle is there- If a private company was tasked with securing the borders, we would never put up with such incompetence. Furthermore, in contrast to knoell's idea of using the military, I suggest we contract out sections of the border to private companies. "put american's to work." Current border agents can still be used to monitor effectiveness, provide training, and ensure humanitarian rights are preserved. I cannot imagine any qualms about this idea.


p.S. Clak's comment is both misleading and ridiculous and shows he is unfamiliar with the law. wise up first and then post your 2 cents.

#1026 SpazX

SpazX

    13 Billion Years in the Making

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 July 2010 - 04:17 PM

So you are arguing for no limit for legal immigration? If someone wants to come in let em in? It is not about the "why don't they come legally" question.

Obviously theres waits, and you may never get in, but that does not mean we should look the other way to people who do come in illegally. Either let everyone in, or raise the limits if it is unfair, why should the people on those waiting lists not be able to get in, while people who break the law are perfectly fine? If you raise the limits, people will still be denied entry, and come illegally so what happens then? Why not secure the border, give amnesty to most illegals, and then after determining our population status and its effects, raise or lower the legal immigration amounts.


I didn't actually argue anything, I was just pointing out that it's a stupid question, at least the way he was framing it. If it was easy for them to come legally obviously they would. They come illegally because it's easier, that's why. And seeing how "easier" involves the possibility of dying in the desert it implies a certain level of difficulty.

Also, tivo always delivers.

Posted Image


#1027 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 July 2010 - 10:16 PM

Lilly Ledbetter?
Not sure I get the reference you're making...


The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was a response to the SCOTUS' decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

I was giving an example of Obama saying 'damn the courts I'm gonna do whats best for them'. That's the one example I can think of, and I don't have a problem with the Fair Pay Act.

Got more?
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#1028 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 29 July 2010 - 10:51 PM

At the very least, the government should give every American a tax refund. They take our $$ to secure the boarder and remove illegals but they aren't doing thier jobs. They would never do that, but the principle is there- If a private company was tasked with securing the borders, we would never put up with such incompetence. Furthermore, in contrast to knoell's idea of using the military, I suggest we contract out sections of the border to private companies. "put american's to work." Current border agents can still be used to monitor effectiveness, provide training, and ensure humanitarian rights are preserved. I cannot imagine any qualms about this idea.


p.S. Clak's comment is both misleading and ridiculous and shows he is unfamiliar with the law. wise up first and then post your 2 cents.

And which comment would that be? You say stupid shit like that, and somehow expect me to know which comment you're referring to?

Why don't you try rubbing your last two brain cells together and see if you can get a spark.

#1029 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:01 PM

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was a response to the SCOTUS' decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

I was giving an example of Obama saying 'damn the courts I'm gonna do whats best for them'. That's the one example I can think of, and I don't have a problem with the Fair Pay Act.

Got more?


Ah, it's Lilly. Naw, I don't as much have a problem with that. The court ruled on the law, so the law was changed.

I'm thinking of the halt on drilling. Obama says no, courts say yes, Obama says no again, courts say yes again, Obama says no again.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#1030 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:16 PM

do we know what caused the oil rig explosion? do we know why the well is leaking?
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#1031 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:31 PM

do we know what caused the oil rig explosion? do we know why the well is leaking?


You tell me. Obama made BP pay up $20 Billion, so Obama seems to know it had something to do with BP's methods. Thus, it seems silly to force all the other companies to stop when there's no evidence they use any of the same methods.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#1032 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:36 PM

Cool, we don't know all the details other than that whole 'BP = responsible party' on all the paperwork thing.

Wouldn't you want to know what caused the explosion/spill before you continued to operate an oil rig? I definitely would.

I think all the other companies had the exact same word for word plan to deal with an oil spill didn't they?
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#1033 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:40 PM

Would you want to know what caused a jetliner to crash before letting any more jets take off?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#1034 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:42 PM

It would definitely help. My concern is the safety of the people on those jets.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#1035 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:43 PM

What about taking all cars off the road until they're done finding out what caused those Toyotas to crash?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#1036 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:52 PM

EDIT: I moved my response to the oil spill thread, we should talk about there instead of here.

Edited by IRHari, 30 July 2010 - 12:59 AM.
wrongtopic

"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#1037 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 30 July 2010 - 01:04 PM

!

Wow. After that, I almost want to join the other side of this debate...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#1038 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 30 July 2010 - 01:12 PM

Don't worry, Republicans won't treat him like they treated the Dixie Chicks. They'll plug him on their TV shows.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#1039 Magehart

Magehart

    It's on like Donkey Kong!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 July 2010 - 04:50 PM

When involved with criminal activity, police can ask you for identification can't they? What's the difference? All you guys can come up with is that police might abuse it.


WRONG!

Well; yes they can ask you for ID but the only time you have to provide ID is when you are doing any licensed activity. Hunting, fishing, driving etc.
Posted Image

Mr Simon was there, too, as well as other Germans who lived through the Berlin blockade like Gerhard Kapito.
"After the war, we looked on the Allies as occupiers," he says. "But after that we came to see them as our friends."


Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

#1040 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 July 2010 - 05:11 PM

WRONG!

Well; yes they can ask you for ID but the only time you have to provide ID is when you are doing any licensed activity. Hunting, fishing, driving etc.


When you are suspected of criminal activity they can ask you for ID. If you do not have ID they can detain you until they confirm your identity. This mirrors the Arizona law in which you can only be asked to prove your citizenship when you are suspected of criminal activity, and/or detained.

That's ID so they know who the Fuck you are, not if you're legal. I can't believe you're fine with having your citizenship questioned whenever you're stopped by police.


They check for ID for a major reason that you are forgetting...to see if you have outstanding warrants. How is it different again? Are you going to start complaining about you being a law abiding being questioned whenever you are stopped by police?

#1041 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 July 2010 - 05:12 PM

Wouldn't that be a violation of Posse Comitatus?

Then again, the governor could declare the immigration problem a public emergency.


The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.


For whoever said it was from the constitution.

Firstly, Isn't the border considered sort of no mans land? Like where they were building the wall, isn't that federal property?

Secondly, Congress can authorize it

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

I don't think bypassing an 1878 reconstruction law to secure the borders is really disputing the law itself. They arent acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, they are looking outside the United States.

#1042 Quillion

Quillion

    Not Proprietary

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 July 2010 - 05:45 PM

For whoever said it was from the constitution.

Firstly, Isn't the border considered sort of no mans land? Like where they were building the wall, isn't that federal property?

Secondly, Congress can authorize it I don't think bypassing an 1878 reconstruction law to secure the borders is really disputing the law itself. They arent acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, they are looking outside the United States.

Did you really just dismiss Posse Comitatus as a "1878 reconstruction law"? Implying that it was outdated or had outlived it's usefulness?

I love the argument "securing the borders", illegal immigration is not the act of a foreign government or power, nor is it even a criminal matter, it's civil. We're not being attacked or "invaded" no matter what the rhetoric is. Placing uniformed soldiers to intercept foreign nationals and prevent that civil violation is the very definition of law enforcement.

<Clever Signature Here>


#1043 fullmetalfan720

fullmetalfan720

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 July 2010 - 08:21 PM

For whoever said it was from the constitution.

Firstly, Isn't the border considered sort of no mans land? Like where they were building the wall, isn't that federal property?

Secondly, Congress can authorize it I don't think bypassing an 1878 reconstruction law to secure the borders is really disputing the law itself. They arent acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, they are looking outside the United States.

Do you not see how this is a bad idea?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
-Ben Franklin
The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. - William Jennings Bryan

#1044 fatherofcaitlyn

fatherofcaitlyn

    Der Uber Hoarder

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 July 2010 - 10:24 PM

Do you not see how this is a bad idea?


If you can think of a better way to reach a dystopian future, I'm all ears.
Synergize, bitches!
Posted Image

#1045 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 30 July 2010 - 11:19 PM

When you are suspected of criminal activity they can ask you for ID. If you do not have ID they can detain you until they confirm your identity. This mirrors the Arizona law in which you can only be asked to prove your citizenship when you are suspected of criminal activity, and/or detained.



They check for ID for a major reason that you are forgetting...to see if you have outstanding warrants. How is it different again? Are you going to start complaining about you being a law abiding being questioned whenever you are stopped by police?

No kidding, I'd always wondered how they tracked that stuff, you learn something new everyday.

Now that the sarcasm is out of the way I'll ask again, how can you be ok with having your citizenship questioned every time you are stopped by the police? Of course I'd complain about being stopped by the police if I'm not doing anything, who wouldn't?

#1046 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 July 2010 - 02:23 PM

No kidding, I'd always wondered how they tracked that stuff, you learn something new everyday.

Now that the sarcasm is out of the way I'll ask again, how can you be ok with having your citizenship questioned every time you are stopped by the police? Of course I'd complain about being stopped by the police if I'm not doing anything, who wouldn't?


If you are stopped for wandering around outside an office building at 3:00 am, and a cop asks you for ID, would you complain about your rights being violated if he checked your ID for warrants?

If you are ok with that, then what is the difference here, do we at least agree that being an illegal immigrant IS illegal? They are checking your ID for any crimes you have committed that you may be wanted for. It is the same thing.

If you aren't ok with that, then you better start protesting that law as it is common across America.

#1047 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:26 PM

If you are stopped for wandering around outside an office building at 3:00 am, and a cop asks you for ID, would you complain about your rights being violated if he checked your ID for warrants?

How does wandering around a public street at 3 am rise to the level of an articulable level of suspicion? It doesn't.

Standing in large groups on a street corner doesn't rise to that level either.

http://www.law.corne...97-1121.ZS.html
Posted Image

#1048 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 July 2010 - 04:17 PM

How does wandering around a public street at 3 am rise to the level of an articulable level of suspicion? It doesn't.

Standing in large groups on a street corner doesn't rise to that level either.

http://www.law.corne...97-1121.ZS.html


I said outside an office building, not on a public street. Police have detained people for that for a long time now, its called suspicious activity and you don't have to be hispanic to be accused of it. I know its crazy right? :roll:

#1049 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:23 PM

If you are stopped for wandering around outside an office building at 3:00 am, and a cop asks you for ID, would you complain about your rights being violated if he checked your ID for warrants?

If you are ok with that, then what is the difference here, do we at least agree that being an illegal immigrant IS illegal? They are checking your ID for any crimes you have committed that you may be wanted for. It is the same thing.

If you aren't ok with that, then you better start protesting that law as it is common across America.

Of course I wouldn't be alright with it, if I know I'm not doing or have done anything, of course I wouldn't like it. Doesn't meanI wouldn't do it, but of course I wouldn't like it.

And they aren't even close to the same thing. I'm going to keep repeating that I can't believe you're alright with this. I know you'd do damn near anything to get rid of illegals, but this is too far. Might as well dress up as Nazis and walk around asking everyone for their papers.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#1050 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 July 2010 - 07:36 PM

I said outside an office building, not on a public street. Police have detained people for that for a long time now, its called suspicious activity and you don't have to be hispanic to be accused of it. I know its crazy right? :roll:

Ok. But for it to actually stand up in court, they MUST have "an articulable level of suspicion". Otherwise anything they did find gets thrown out.

"I saw him standing outside an office building" doesn't cut it.

"I saw him standing on a corner known to be used by drug dealers AND he looked suspicious in his mannerisms after he noticed me WHICH INCLUDED him walking so as to avoid me WHILE putting his hands in his pockets as if he had something he wanted to conceal inside AND having a general demeanor which can be described EXACTLY as such and such" is what it takes.

That link I posted about went "They were KNOWN to be drug dealers on a corner KNOWN to be a location for dealing drugs" and it was thrown out.

But I would like to point out that THAT REASONING IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT. They are arguing field preemption.

Well, at least we can have a rational discussion like adults about all of this without threatening to kill each other. I mean, all the thrustbucket con law warriors out there that love and cherish America and the Constitution at least understand the reasoning of the court, which is clearly in line with precedent. Right?

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton received hundreds of threats at her court offices within hours of her ruling last week on Arizona's tough and controversial immigration law.


http://www.suntimes....immig01.article
Posted Image