Mr. 300 wrote: Time to back on topic and not let LJ go off on another one of his detours.

I have a question for everyone. Who rights are being trampled on......the American citizens who are having to pay for the illegals being here, dealing with the gangs and drugs that the border jumpers bring with them, the jobs that they are taking from US citizens and then not paying their proper share in taxes on those wages made, and now healthcare for all???

Or are the rights of those that are of Mexican decent, brown skin, south of the border, latinos that are dettained who are here illegally and jailed for it??

Please, I want to know, if they are here illegally, how are their civil rights violated??

The local/state/and federal gov'ts need to crack down on the business owners that hire these scumbags as well.

It's the people who are here legally who are now required to prove that they are here legally at the whim and fancy of any beat cop.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote: Time to back on topic and not let LJ go off on another one of his detours.

I have a question for everyone. Who rights are being trampled on......the American citizens who are having to pay for the illegals being here, dealing with the gangs and drugs that the border jumpers bring with them, the jobs that they are taking from US citizens and then not paying their proper share in taxes on those wages made, and now healthcare for all???

Or are the rights of those that are of Mexican decent, brown skin, south of the border, latinos that are dettained who are here illegally and jailed for it??

Please, I want to know, if they are here illegally, how are their civil rights violated??

The local/state/and federal gov'ts need to crack down on the business owners that hire these scumbags as well.

It's the people who are here legally who are now required to prove that they are here legally at the whim and fancy of any beat cop.

which is, in fact, illegal. It's up to the cop to run your name to find out if you are legal or not, not for you to show them proof that you are.

SQ_Crazies wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: They had probable cause to ask you for your ID.

What cause? The assumption that I'm drunk?

Glassy eyes, red eyes, smell of alcohol, stumbling around, slurred speech, jittery eyeballs, inability to follow a conversation.

All are probably cause to suggest that someone is under the influence of something. That is enough to allow them to make you get out of your vehicle without a warrant so I bet it's enough for them to stop you on the sidewalk.

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote: Time to back on topic and not let LJ go off on another one of his detours.

I have a question for everyone. Who rights are being trampled on......the American citizens who are having to pay for the illegals being here, dealing with the gangs and drugs that the border jumpers bring with them, the jobs that they are taking from US citizens and then not paying their proper share in taxes on those wages made, and now healthcare for all???

Or are the rights of those that are of Mexican decent, brown skin, south of the border, latinos that are dettained who are here illegally and jailed for it??

Please, I want to know, if they are here illegally, how are their civil rights violated??

The local/state/and federal gov'ts need to crack down on the business owners that hire these scumbags as well.

It's the people who are here legally who are now required to prove that they are here legally at the whim and fancy of any beat cop.

which is, in fact, illegal. It's up to the cop to run your name to find out if you are legal or not, not for you to show them proof that you are.

That's what I meant, that's who is hurt by this law.

I Wear Pants wrote:

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote: Time to back on topic and not let LJ go off on another one of his detours.

I have a question for everyone. Who rights are being trampled on......the American citizens who are having to pay for the illegals being here, dealing with the gangs and drugs that the border jumpers bring with them, the jobs that they are taking from US citizens and then not paying their proper share in taxes on those wages made, and now healthcare for all???

Or are the rights of those that are of Mexican decent, brown skin, south of the border, latinos that are dettained who are here illegally and jailed for it??

Please, I want to know, if they are here illegally, how are their civil rights violated??

The local/state/and federal gov'ts need to crack down on the business owners that hire these scumbags as well.

It's the people who are here legally who are now required to prove that they are here legally at the whim and fancy of any beat cop.

which is, in fact, illegal. It's up to the cop to run your name to find out if you are legal or not, not for you to show them proof that you are.

That's what I meant, that's who is hurt by this law.

just expanding

I still say that the most interesting thing is the bill does not deport illegals, only crowds the jails costing taxpayers even more money. That also submits a whole new population to gang activity.

I'm actually against the law for that reason, as it could overpopulate the jails.

But they're breaking the law so we got to lock 'em up!

/fuggin' ridiculous sarcasm

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I still say that the most interesting thing is the bill does not deport illegals, only crowds the jails costing taxpayers even more money. That also submits a whole new population to gang activity.

I'm actually against the law for that reason, as it could overpopulate the jails.

wouldnt it be the fed's job to actually deport them? maybe just getting them into jail is all the state could do.

Glory Days wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I still say that the most interesting thing is the bill does not deport illegals, only crowds the jails costing taxpayers even more money. That also submits a whole new population to gang activity.

I'm actually against the law for that reason, as it could overpopulate the jails.

wouldnt it be the fed's job to actually deport them? maybe just getting them into jail is all the state could do.

Yeah there was discussion of this on another forum. What if the Feds refuse to go forward with the deportation? Obama is mad at the law, so it's very reasonable to think that they will not pursue illegals that are caught with the new law.

Time to coin a phrase Obama made famous..."it may not be a perfect bill, but we must do something now!! We can not afford to sit by and do nothing"

Wonder why he can trample on the constitution to pass healthcare and not care about it, and yet has a problem with a state's rights to control a criminal problem.

LJ and Pants, I am curious to your thought on the following.

I posed this question earlier in the thread. What is the difference between this and a DUI checkpoint? Here in Ohio a DUI checkpoint allows "beat cops" to stop anyone at random regardless of any apparent violation of the law. They would be subject to questioning by the officers and asked to produce identification proving that they are driving legally in the state of Ohio. Officers manning check points would be just as apt to profile likely violators of Ohio's traffic laws as law enforcement in Arizona would be likely to profile those they felt most likely in violation of immigration law.

Recent article in the dispatch.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/17/DUI-arrests.html

A sobriety checkpoint in Gahanna Friday night resulted in four arrests and 13 traffic citations along Hamilton and Johnstown roads, according to the Franklin County DUI Task Force.

The DUI checkpoint operated from 9:35 p.m. Friday to 1:40 a.m. today by officers of the Gahanna police department, the Ohio State Highway patrol and the Franklin County Sheriff's Office. Officers stopped 687 vehicles at random, according to a news release. Of those, police found an open container of alcohol in one vehicle and illegal drugs in three others.

Traffic citations were issued to seven motorists for having no driver's license. Three vehicles were impounded out of the four arrests.

The task force operates various sobriety checkpoints with federal grant money throughout Franklin County as a deterrent to drunken driving. Locations are often based on alcohol-related arrest data, hit-skip crashes and complaints from the public. More checkpoints are expected between Memorial Day and Labor Day, including the first checkpoints inside Columbus city limits since 1993.

Notice:

1) Stopping and questioning was random at the judgment of the officers manning the checkpoint. Same power this law gives Arizona law enforcement the power to do in order to curtail illegal immigration.

2) Citations issued for motorists operating a vehicle illegally in the state. Just like someone illegally living and working in Arizona.

3) Federal grant money. This is interesting. Obama stated that the Arizona law was "misguided", yet he does not state publicly that DUI checkpoints are equally "misguided".

I am for enforcement of both immigration and DUI laws. But I smell political correctness all over this. According to the federal government it is okay for one group of people to be subject to random questioning to protect the public, yet another group subjected to this type of random enforcement is "misguided".

I don't really care about DUI Checkpoints. You don't have to provide your ID, all you have to do is give them your name. Plus I always check for them and choose to drive a different route. Technically, since they have to announce them, you are consenting by driving that way.

See, they stopped the cars, and all the drivers have to do is provide their name. It is then up to the cop to show that something is wrong, not the driver to prove that they have done nothing wrong. I am afraid that this law in Arizona is going to start showing people being arrested for not providing proof of citizenship, which nobody has to do.

I don't like DUI checkpoints. They should have to have a reason to pull you over when you are in your vehicle.

It is too late to deal with the illegals once they reach the general population, because then you have to violate people's rights to try and track them down. We need to catch them at the border and turn them right back around.

LJ wrote: I don't really care about DUI Checkpoints. You don't have to provide your ID, all you have to do is give them your name. Plus I always check for them and choose to drive a different route. Technically, since they have to announce them, you are consenting by driving that way.

I know they have to announce them, but my opinion is most drivers are not aware of the checkpoint so because all drivers can not be guaranteed to have this information, how can all be said to consent?

Would it make sense then to set up"illegal" checkpoint in areas deemed frequented by local law enforcement by illegals? And publicly announce them. Would this not provide technical consent to be questioned regarding your legal status?

LJ wrote: See, they stopped the cars, and all the drivers have to do is provide their name. It is then up to the cop to show that something is wrong, not the driver to prove that they have done nothing wrong. I am afraid that this law in Arizona is going to start showing people being arrested for not providing proof of citizenship, which nobody has to do.

I agree with your statement in bold.

But it is worthy to take note from the article I provided several were cited for not having a legal license to drive in the state of Ohio. Evan though it was a DUI checkpoint people were cited for other offenses. Those that were cited for not having a legal operators license I wonder what caused the officer to suspect them of that offense if all they would have to do is provide their name? Perhaps it was the drivers own ignorance?

I think both law enforcement techniques provide equal potential for abuse.

Mr. 300 wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/24/advocates-vow-challenge-arizona-immigration-law/

PHOENIX -- Arizona's governor vows the state's tough new law targeting illegal immigration will be implemented with no tolerance for racial profiling, but at least two advocacy groups were preparing legal challenges and Mexico has warned that the law could affect cross-border relations.

Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill that supporters said would give police more powers to deal with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico and home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

The law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

I'm all for this. How can anyone be against this?? If you're here without going through the proper chanels, you're breaking the law. I don't understand why Mexico would be waring us that this will strain relationships with the USA.

All Illegal immigrants should be given amnesty. The Arizona law is Hitler in action sorry for violating Godwins law.

I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.

BCSbunk wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/24/advocates-vow-challenge-arizona-immigration-law/

PHOENIX -- Arizona's governor vows the state's tough new law targeting illegal immigration will be implemented with no tolerance for racial profiling, but at least two advocacy groups were preparing legal challenges and Mexico has warned that the law could affect cross-border relations.

Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill that supporters said would give police more powers to deal with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico and home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

The law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

I'm all for this. How can anyone be against this?? If you're here without going through the proper chanels, you're breaking the law. I don't understand why Mexico would be waring us that this will strain relationships with the USA.

All Illegal immigrants should be given amnesty. The Arizona law is Hitler in action sorry for violating Godwins law.

I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.

Sieg Heil, Sparky.

Mr. 300 wrote: Time to coin a phrase Obama made famous..."it may not be a perfect bill, but we must do something now!! We can not afford to sit by and do nothing"

Wonder why he can trample on the constitution to pass healthcare and not care about it, and yet has a problem with a state's rights to control a criminal problem.

Good question!

It shows how F'd up this country is that there is actually a debate on prosecuting criminals.

majorspark wrote: LJ and Pants, I am curious to your thought on the following.

I posed this question earlier in the thread. What is the difference between this and a DUI checkpoint?

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

majorspark wrote:1) Stopping and questioning was random at the judgment of the officers manning the checkpoint. Same power this law gives Arizona law enforcement the power to do in order to curtail illegal immigration.

I'm not sure the questioning is at the officers discretion. I think they have a formula to determine which cars to stop. If they started stopping all the cars with drivers who looked Mexican (or black or muslim etc...) then they would be profiling and someone would complain.

ManO'War wrote: It shows how F'd up this country is that there is actually a debate on prosecuting criminals.

The debate isn't about prosecuting criminals IMO. It's more about a presumption of innocence and not trampling the rights of innocent people. Being mexican (or looking mexican or being of Mexican descent) isn't illegal by itself.

BCSbunk wrote:

All Illegal immigrants should be given amnesty. The Arizona law is Hitler in action sorry for violating Godwins law.

I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.

Bullcrap, so people break the law and we just give them a pass?

My family came over from Scotland about 150 years ago, you know what? They came over through legal channels and became citizens the legal way, why is that such a hard thing to do/expect of the illegals?

I would be "ok" if every illegal was given some fine for doing illegal and then given the same option to become citizens as all immigrants are by going throught he proper channels/tests/etc.

However, just saying "well, we know you broke the US laws, but here's your free citizenship anyway because there are just too many of you to deal with".

FatHobbit wrote: Driving is a privilege, not a right.

So because you are sitting in a vehicle and transporting yourself under the good graces of the state and are driving through a certain area of town, it is ok for you to be stopped at random and observed for any signs of illegal activity? But if you are walking or riding a bike it would not?

Also since it is a privilege granted to us by the state and we have no individual right as a law abiding citizen to provide and engage modern transportation, the state could at its discretion revoke the privilege for some citizens and have them rely on mass transit. I mean why not if the individual has no right transport himself about the state?

This right and privilege thing is just a way to separate the individual from some of his individual rights that do not descend from government into some priviledge that is granted by government. I mean how far can we go with this. Is it a privilage to own your own home? How about fishing or hunting? You need a license to do both. I am not against licencing by the state. Just saying the state granting you a license to engage in an activity lawfully, does not turn your right to engage in the activity into a privilege descending from the state.

The 9th amendment really spells this out quite well.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

In other words they chose to highlight a few of them in the bill of rights. A right not listed in the constitution by no means limits the abundant rights retained by the people to engage in lawfull activity in life and liberty to pursue happiness.

FatHobbit wrote: I'm not sure the questioning is at the officers discretion. I think they have a formula to determine which cars to stop. If they started stopping all the cars with drivers who looked Mexican (or black or muslim etc...) then they would be profiling and someone would complain.

I read the governor of Arizona spoke of well defined process or formula to determine who to detain. Any formula is going to rely on statistics and probabilities. In other words a profile. Unless they were rigidly forced to stop every tenth car. Even if the 10th car was gradma and grandpa and the 9th was full of young punks. But something tells me that is not how it is set up.

As for stopping cars at checkpoint I would imagine they direct their attention toward young males. But since youg males tend not to complain about being profiled (unless they are non-white) this type of profiling is ok.

I'd question if a state can deport someone inside their boundaries to another country. That is why Arizona probably doesn't do it in their legislation. That seems to be a federal issue.

It depends how law enforcement practices the bill. If they ask for ID after stopping someone for a traffic violation or crime and then it is checked for citizenship then I don't have a problem with it. An actual violation of the law has taken place. The bill says people can't be profiled for race.

Ultimately this is happening because a major failure of the federal government. There are enough laws on the book to handle this problem, but the establishment wants to continue illegal immigration because it brings down American wages and could be future votes, which is why the Republicrat establishment supports it.

jmog wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

All Illegal immigrants should be given amnesty. The Arizona law is Hitler in action sorry for violating Godwins law.

I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.

Bullcrap, so people break the law and we just give them a pass?

My family came over from Scotland about 150 years ago, you know what? They came over through legal channels and became citizens the legal way, why is that such a hard thing to do/expect of the illegals?

I would be "ok" if every illegal was given some fine for doing illegal and then given the same option to become citizens as all immigrants are by going throught he proper channels/tests/etc.

However, just saying "well, we know you broke the US laws, but here's your free citizenship anyway because there are just too many of you to deal with".

This.

The left wants to reward these criminals by giving them citizenship and all its perks without making them go through the same processes EVERY OTHER LEGAL IMMIGRANT HAS HAD TO GO THROUGH.