Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

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?
 
EDIT: I moved my response to the oil spill thread, we should talk about there instead of here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Magehart']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='Clak']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Wouldn't that be a violation of Posse Comitatus?

Then again, the governor could declare the immigration problem a public emergency.[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
[quote name='Knoell']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='Knoell']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.[/QUOTE]
Do you not see how this is a bad idea?
 
[quote name='Knoell']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?[/QUOTE]
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?
 
[quote name='Clak']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Knoell']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?[/QUOTE]
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.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1121.ZS.html
 
[quote name='speedracer']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.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1121.ZS.html[/QUOTE]

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:
 
[quote name='Knoell']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='Knoell']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:[/QUOTE]
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2553782,CST-NWS-immig01.article
 
This is about a month old but made me laugh:

BLM-Warning-Sign1.jpg


The BLM has posted 15 of those signs in AZ, most between 80-120 miles from the border. Some are 30 miles from Phoenix.

My first thought was wondering why they don't just announce that we've allowed the Mexican drug cartels to Annex half of Arizona, since that's how I interpret those BLM signs.

If you are unwilling to even counter, in any way, an invasion by a hostile force into your territory, what else do you call it?
 
Interstate 8 doesn't even cover half of the state. Besides, do you really want to wander the desert of southern Arizona?

I know. I know. It's the whole, "I should be able to do anything I want where I want" argument but would you make the same argument if these signs went up in ghettos across America?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Interstate 8 doesn't even cover half of the state. Besides, do you really want to wander the desert of southern Arizona?

I know. I know. It's the whole, "I should be able to do anything I want where I want" argument but would you make the same argument if these signs went up in ghettos across America?[/QUOTE]

Yeah Why stop it? Its only the desert.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Interstate 8 doesn't even cover half of the state. Besides, do you really want to wander the desert of southern Arizona?

I know. I know. It's the whole, "I should be able to do anything I want where I want" argument but would you make the same argument if these signs went up in ghettos across America?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's good that they have to put up signs warning people not to travel into areas of the United States. Of course that's not a serious national security/national sovereignty issue. That's just totally fucking normal. So is this. If these kind of signs were showing up in ghettos in America, I'd be damn concerned too.
And then there's this report.
PHOENIX - He's been at the center of the discussions and controversies surrounding illegal immigration enforcement in Arizona for quite a while.
On the day parts of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, went into effect, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in the news for another reason: there's a price on his head - allegedly offered by a Mexican drug cartel.
The audio message in Spanish is a bit garbled, but the text is clear.
"It's offering a million dollars for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's head and offering a thousand dollars for anyone who wants to join the Mexican cartel."
A man who wants to remain anonymous says his wife received the text message Tuesday evening. It also included an international phone number and instructions to pass the message along.
"She showed it to me..I was kind of disgusted..I reported it to the Sheriff's department yesterday..they said they were going to direct the threat squad on it."
Lisa Allen of the Sheriff's office says they believe the message originated in Mexico.
Although the Sheriff has received numerous death threats in the past, they believe this threat is credible because of its timing.
Click to expand...
Now, I realize that the immediate reaction from some of the people on here is going to be, "Hahahaha fox news that's bs." But can you imagine what would actually happen if someone like Arpaio was killed by a drug cartel? Can you imagine how much civil unrest there would be?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Yeah, it's good that they have to put up signs warning people not to travel into areas of the United States. Of course that's not a serious national security/national sovereignty issue. That's just totally fucking normal. So is this. If these kind of signs were showing up in ghettos in America, I'd be damn concerned too.
And then there's this report.

Now, I realize that the immediate reaction from some of the people on here is going to be, "Hahahaha fox news that's bs." But can you imagine what would actually happen if someone like Arpaio was killed by a drug cartel? Can you imagine how much civil unrest there would be?[/QUOTE]

370 kidnappings last year? Pffft thats not that many, and we will never stop them all anyway. Let's just leave this stuff alone, we can't afford to do anything about it, noone wants to pay for it. /sarcasm

It is sad I had to end that with /sarcasm, since people on this board actually say stuff like that.
 
The left really needs the troubles associated with illegal immigration for future elections and agendas to be successful. Thus, they really aren't "troubles". The troubles are caused by racism, not inaction.
 
I'm really feeling tired of the back and forth over this. Nobody is doing or saying anything worth while about it. Inaction isn't going to work, but none of the actions proposed are going to work or feel right either.
 
Well then, let's switch the conversation to have you list exactly what you 'feel' would be the right moves that 'feel' right? I've pretty much done so already, and you've mostly just countered that...
 
fullmetal, you don't get what I'm saying. There's no way I'm going to just wander into the desert and stumble into drug activity. There is a way for me to wander into the wrong part of town and get shot. I think we should have more of these signs all over the country.

I don't care about national security/sovereignty issues because the ones that truly want to hurt us will just get around all of our crappy little counter measures. The only way to truly counter this issue is to take away the motivation for coming here. Money.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well then, let's switch the conversation to have you list exactly what you 'feel' would be the right moves that 'feel' right? I've pretty much done so already, and you've mostly just countered that...[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean us as just here on CAG, but as a country. Both sides do nothing but argue their position without any real solution. I have ideas, I think I've stated at least some of them, but I'm just tired of the issue, feel like we've discussed it to death.
 
"She's going to do all that she can to continue down the litigation path to allow secure borders," Palin said on Fox News Sunday. "Jan Brewer has the cojones that our president does not have to look out for all Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans, in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country, as was the purpose of immigration laws."
Click to expand...

What's Palin talking about? How does SB1070 secure the border?
 
[quote name='depascal22']fullmetal, you don't get what I'm saying. There's no way I'm going to just wander into the desert and stumble into drug activity. There is a way for me to wander into the wrong part of town and get shot. I think we should have more of these signs all over the country. [/quote]
Just because the area is in the middle of the desert doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue. The fact that any area of this country is so dangerous that those signs have to be put up, is absolutely detestable. It shows a lack of action by our government. The establishment already doesn't give a shit about the ghettos of America, and they never really have. So they've become what they are today. If we just allow drug traffickers and human traffickers to take these areas over, and use them for their criminal purposes, we are not only ceeding our sovereignty, but we are also creating new "danger zones," something we don't need.

I don't care about national security/sovereignty issues because the ones that truly want to hurt us will just get around all of our crappy little counter measures. The only way to truly counter this issue is to take away the motivation for coming here. Money.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the national sovereignty issue is, how many stable countries are there in which they have a for all intents and purposes an open border? It's just not a good idea, as Mexico is for all intents and purposes a failed state.
I do agree with you that we need to take the money out of this situation to solve this problem. To get rid of the drug cartels, we need to seriously look at pot legalization, and the decriminalization of certain drugs. To get rid of the illegal immigrants, we need to aggressively go after people who employ illegal immigrants, and give them huge fines for hiring them. ($100k+/each should do it.) Of course, this will probably never happen, because the Republicans have always been the party of big business, and the Democrats have turned into a bunch of corrupt bastards.
 
[quote name='Clak']I didn't mean us as just here on CAG, but as a country. Both sides do nothing but argue their position without any real solution. I have ideas, I think I've stated at least some of them, but I'm just tired of the issue, feel like we've discussed it to death.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we have discussed it to death. You are right that it's time to stop talking and do something. At this point, I don't even really care what we do - someone just needs to do something. It's like Healthcare, we can spend a few decades arguing about the best course of action, or we can just do SOMETHING.

I also think we best get use to the subject, as it will be paramount in the next two elections. I think immigration reform / border issues have a very real chance of being second or even beating economy as the populations number one concern at the ballot box.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I also think we best get use to the subject, as it will be paramount in the next two elections. I think immigration reform / border issues have a very real chance of being second or even beating economy as the populations number one concern at the ballot box.[/QUOTE]
It's dog whistle politics. Nobody is going to do shit. Liberals generally don't give a shit about immigration and conservatives wouldn't dare vote yes (much less introduce legislation) on employer fines, which are the only thing that might actually make a dent (like fullmetal said).

It's like abortion, reducing the debt, and "strict constructionism". Republicans bleat on and on about it to get elected, but then don't raise a finger to make it happen when they have power.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes, we have discussed it to death. You are right that it's time to stop talking and do something. At this point, I don't even really care what we do - someone just needs to do something. It's like Healthcare, we can spend a few decades arguing about the best course of action, or we can just do SOMETHING.[/QUOTE]

We tried something with healthcare, it was characterized as 'tyranny', 'socialism', 'marxism', etc.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with immigration. I imagine Congress will come up with a bill similar to McCain-Kennedy. When it's up for debate, we'll see the same Republicans who voted for McCain-Kennedy denouncing the new bill as 'tyranny', 'amnesty', and 'nazism'.

Anyone want to take some bets?

In Joe Arpaio news:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHVLQAvG6lKZebPfTKHLrZtFRjAwD9HC7RD00
 
[quote name='Clak']I didn't mean us as just here on CAG, but as a country. Both sides do nothing but argue their position without any real solution. I have ideas, I think I've stated at least some of them, but I'm just tired of the issue, feel like we've discussed it to death.[/QUOTE]
Become a vigilante. Yay justice, Street Style
 
Wait a minute, it's ok to reexamine the 14th amendment becasue Graham thinks it's outdated, but try to argue that same point about the 2nd amendment and you're some pinko commie trying to take der guns. Beautiful.
 
[quote name='dorino']Isolation is the only way to preserve American values. If we let "reality" seep across the borders, we'll all die.[/QUOTE]

ok....

[quote name='Clak']Wait a minute, it's ok to reexamine the 14th amendment becasue Graham thinks it's outdated, but try to argue that same point about the 2nd amendment and you're some pinko commie trying to take der guns. Beautiful.[/QUOTE]

its fine to argue that, its constantly under evaluation, changed by laws, courts, votes etc. its not like this country has a free for all on guns.
 
Every time someone even mentions it every card toting NRA member in the country is ready to put their head on a pike.
 
[quote name='Clak']Every time someone even mentions it every card toting NRA member in the country is ready to put their head on a pike.[/QUOTE]

given that i have friends as liberal as myke who are NRA members i know thats not true, but i know how you kids love to lump up anyone slightly conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top