Raising Arizona ... Guns, Illegals ... what next???

[HackerF15E]

For all the Arizona love-fest that I see going on here, the immigration bill seems stupid to me:

It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

This inches closer and closer to this every day:

I agree we should give no quarter to illegals...I just don't believe that giving the power to police to stop anyone they please and force them to prove their citizenship is what we do in a free country. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's this little thing called the 4th Amendment that all ready gets infringed on a regular basis in this country. We don't need to push it any further.

 

[A4sForever]

This inches closer and closer to this every day:...

Perhaps you tend to the libertarian side of the playing field based on years of experience (as do I on some things), but you don't REALLY believe that, do you? I seriously doubt this (above pix) is the sentiment behind this bill -- do you?? Otherwise -- why not do it decades ago ... ???

I think it's got more to do with this:

And, of course ... let us not forget this minor item:

​

​

​

​

 

[HackerF15E]

Of course it isn't *intended* to do that...but that happens none the less. It means that I, as a white citizen non-felon (and active duty military) can be arbitrarily detained and made to show proof of citizenship based strictly on the "suspicions" of a LEO. I know of an acquaintance that this has happened to *twice* in the last six months at checkpoints down near Uvalde by CBP and ICE agents -- and he's just as white (and active duty military) as can be. Detained for upwards of an hour...car torn apart in a search...just based on some agent's "hunch".

Sorry, that's not how it's done in the land of freedom. This shit needs to get scuttled, regardless of the "best intentions". The 4th Amendment exists for a reason, and this is infringing on it. I'm sure the gun control people have "best intentions", too...but I don't tolerate infringement of the 2nd Amendment, either.

 

[A4sForever]

Of course it isn't *intended* to do that...but that happens none the less. It means that I, as a white citizen non-felon (and active duty military) can be arbitrarily detained..... The 4th Amendment exists for a reason, and this is infringing on it....

Wel-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l .... post 9/11 coming through airport security at many USA airports (it was 'easier' overseas) -- free, white (sometimes ... kinda), 21+, in uniform, former military -- I not infrequently got the TSA equivalent of a full body cavity exam .... all the while in uniform, emblazoned with scrambled eggs on my cover and 4 stripes, assigned to fly the aircraft, and w/ my crew in tow ... and in front of the passengers. Bad show.

It happened. It happens. It was bullshit. What are you gonna' do ... ???

This bill is STILL a good measure (got any better ideas??) in an attempt to plug some holes in the dike that is being breached by a flood of illegals is coming through our porous southern borders ...

I like the 'concept' of severely fining employers of illegals and/or awarding jail time for repeat employer offenders -- NO exceptions. Fewer/less/not many/NO jobs might just put a couple of fingers in the dike -- unless our social welfare basket of goodies makes it worthwhile, anyway.

The druggies and potential terrorists would still make the effort to cross the border surreptitiously, but that would clarify many things. Shoot them when they try to attack you in the desert ... ?? :sleep_125

 

[SkywardET]

Wel-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l .... post 9/11 coming through airport security at many USA airports (it was 'easier' overseas) -- free, white (sometimes ... kinda), 21+, in uniform, former military -- I not infrequently got the TSA equivalent of a full body cavity exam .... all the while in uniform, emblazoned with scrambled eggs on my cover and 4 stripes, assigned to fly the aircraft, and w/ my crew in tow ... and in front of the passengers. Bad show.

I'm curious as to what the success rate of the Theatrical Security Actors(resses) is. Granted, the first step of the force continuum is presence/visibility, but c'mon now...

I don't like the concept of a random hunch being reason enough to warrant an interrogation, but if that's how Arizona wants it, I'll just have to hope it doesn't backfire in any way on them. Does seem like a violation of the 4th Amendment though. Also the 5th via Miranda. Then again, it's not like Miranda will protect you from presenting your proof of insurance if you get pulled over...

 

[HackerF15E]

C'mon...are you really using TSA as an example? I agree -- that is just as much useless bullshit, HOWEVER, airline travel is not a Constitutionally-protected right.

The ability to freely be in my own f*cking country without unreasonable search and seizure IS.

I don't have a better answer for solving the immigration problem, but the lack of a better answer isn't rationale enough for giving the police greater power to arbitrarily stop people.

Constitutional rights are what they are...and should NEVER be infringed simply for the convenience of solving a problem.

 

[A4sForever]

C'mon...yadda, yadda, yadda ...immigration (sic) problem ....

You know ... when it comes ... right ... down ... to ... it.... I think the AZ LEO's and Border-Patrol Bubba's in the area know EXACTLY what the problem is -- and how to address it.

Mebbe the Feds 'don't' ... or won't for a whole host of cynical reasons ... but the local bruddah's who live & breathe the air along the border -- they know the score and they know what to do ... all your protestations re: 'civil liberties' notwithstanding.

p.s. ... it's not 'immigration' (that's where you come in via the front door) ... they're not 'immigrants' ... they're illegal aliens.

 

[wink]

New AZ immigration law

I am sick and tired of seeing people on TV commenting on the new AZ immigration law and either characterise it incorrectly or out and out lie about it when they should know better. I have now seen two guys against the law claim facts about the law that were not true and then admitted they hadn't read it yet! It is clear the majority of commentators haven't read it, but are never challenged. I hear all sorts of commentary and yet not one news outlet has put up a screen shot of any of the relevant paragraphs in the new statute. So, I am doing you guys a favor. Don't sound like a fvcking idiot when commenting on this issue over a cocktail or at the ball game, read the bill. First link is the executive summery, well done, prepared by the AZ legislature. Second link is the actual Senate Bill signed by the governor, which will become law in about 80 days now. I will admit that the entire bill can be a bit of a slog, but is worth it. Unlike the characterization, it is very well crafted by constitutional scholars, not the work of a small town feed store owner elected to the legislature to represent a insignificant district. Most important, the most relevant parts are almost verbatim, the federal law as it currently exists. If the president is so worried about the divisiveness of the AZ law, maybe he should talk to congress about federal immigration law.

No comment necessary, just educate yourselves.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

 

[squorch2]

I think you're looking for winksblog.com.

 

[wink]

I think you're looking for winksblog.com.

I don't know how to set up a blog, so the War Zone will have to do. :icon_wink In any case, I didn't think I had to encourage comments in the War Zone on such a controversial topic. Would you have preferred I just posted the links and say "what do you think". Now, at least, you know what I think of the news coverage and commentary. Saves me posting later in the thread. Lucky for you I didn't "blog" about what I actually think of the various provisions of the law, you might have gotten down right testy about the abuse of the War Zone Forum.

 

[desertoasis]

I just don't get why people who are fighting this legislation are forgetting that illegal immigration is...

ILLEGAL????

Second, the big argument that it's unconstitutional centers around the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and as Wink said, this bill is crafted such that the request for proof of citizenship is only allowed to occur based on a reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, thus negating any Constitutional issues. The 5th amendment protects the right to due process and against unreasonable government overstepping in legal situations. Unfortunately, such laws are intended to apply to citizens and those here legally, not illegals. The 14th amendment incorporates the 5th to the states and effectively forces them to comply with the 5th Amendment in state legal proceedings. Again, applies to citizens and people here legally. There is no constitutional conflict.

If nothing else, this law will force the government to either crack down on enforcement of existing legislation or serve to further divide. I see the latter happening much more easily.

 

[m26]

desertoasis: While illegals are not protected by the constitution, I don't see how we can take away those rights from someone, only to give them back with a "sorry" if that person turns out to be legal (/citizen by birth or naturalization). Or am I misreading your post?

Wink, the bill looks good, EXCEPT I couldn't find any explanation of what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in either of the links provided (I didn't read them in their entirety). I personally can't think of what it would be, except talking funny and being dark, and that's obviously a problem. Perhaps you have an example handy? The bill looks fine to me, but I expect the enforcement to keep 9th circuit rather busy for a few years.

 

[Flash]

I just don't get why people who are fighting this legislation are forgetting that illegal immigration is...

ILLEGAL????

Second, the big argument that it's unconstitutional centers around the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and as Wink said, this bill is crafted such that the request for proof of citizenship is only allowed to occur based on a reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, thus negating any Constitutional issues. The 5th amendment protects the right to due process and against unreasonable government overstepping in legal situations. Unfortunately, such laws are intended to apply to citizens and those here legally, not illegals. The 14th amendment incorporates the 5th to the states and effectively forces them to comply with the 5th Amendment in state legal proceedings. Again, applies to citizens and people here legally. There is no constitutional conflict.

If nothing else, this law will force the government to either crack down on enforcement of existing legislation or serve to further divide. I see the latter happening much more easily.

Wrong, the Constitution applies to everyone, including illegal immigrants.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I don't see what people can possibly complain about. The Border Patrol already runs checkpoints that stop everyone. Go to virtually any other country in the world without a passport or a visa and see what happens. You will get asked to provide proof that you are there legally and when you can't you get sent packing. It's very simple.

 

[desertoasis]

You will get asked to provide proof that you are there legally and when you can't you get sent packing. It's very simple.

Sounds like what we should be doing. People here illegally should be sent back to where they came from. It's very simple.