 |
Hello Righty's:
Come on. You can tell me. Do you think it's Constitutional for the cops to be able to demand to see the papers of individuals based upon their race?
I don't know what Constitution you want to restore, but it ain't one I'm familiar with.
excon
What are you talking about ?
The 4th amendment is easy to read .
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".
This doesn't make an exception to anyone based on race. In addition the 14th amendment reinforces that point.
Now I know that this is a setup question and you have some specific instance in mind.
My guess is that you are thinking of the new Az law . My answer is that is also covered under the word unreasonable .
But just imagine how oh lets say academic this discussion would be if there was a wall preventing endless waves of illegals to cross into the State ? Gee ;maybe there would be no reason for Az to consider such a law.You can thank the negligence of the federal government for Az feeling the need to pass this measure.
Tom you have said the intrepretation of this surrounds the word unreasonable but I would suggest it surrounds the word people. Who are the people to whom it refers. Does it refer to all the people of the World? No, the preamble is specific, and I suggest other parts are specific in specifying citizens. So the question becomes what is unreasonable in relation to a citizen may be reasonable for a non citizen. Is a citizen merely a person who lives in a particular place? Do I become a citizen by stepping across the border?
I would suggest that if a law officer first enquired whether a person is a citizen he does not violate that persons rights by then asking for written confirmation any more than he does by asking the young driver of a car to see his license
Clete ;excellent point. This is also a distinction Excon often misses. Perhaps it's due to his theory that the US constitution is universally applied even though most of the world doesn't live under it's tenets. It is the key point in my debate with Ex over wiretapping also .
I had that discussion with ex before, he just thinks "we the people" means the authors, not the citizens of the nation. That's how he can justify giving U.S. constitutional rights to foreign enemies in a time of war.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you only understood what the words in our founding documents mean, world peace would break out. But, you don't.
Here's the deal. In our Deceleration of Independence, Jefferson claims that we are endowed, by our creator, with "unalienable rights". To me, that means, for the first time in the history of the world, people HAVE rights. And, they have them AUTOMATICALLY, by virtue of being a person. Before that, only kings had rights. That is a unique concept. It's distinctly American. As a matter of fact, that concept IS the central core belief of our system... Frankly, I thought we ALL embraced those ideas.
I'm saddened to find that YOU folks still cling to the worn out anti American idea, that we're GIVEN these rights by the government. Therefore, we can CHOOSE who the government is going to GIVE them to next.
THAT fundamental misunderstanding of how our system works, and who we are as a nation, is the reason we have the disagreements we do.
excon
PS> By the way, I don't think of our Constitutional Rights as being a "get out of jail free" card, like you apparently do. After all, we ARE the worlds LARGEST jailer. Certainly, we couldn't have achieved that milestone if they were.
I doubt that is Steve's position and certainly not mine, Read a little further in the Declaration (next sentence ) you find that the founders believedQuote:
YOU, on the other hand, think we're GIVEN these rights by the government, and therefore we can CHOOSE who the government is going to GIVE them to next.
In other words they may very well believe that their values are universal ;but do not necessarily apply to people in other nations . In fact it would be too much for us to do to secure those rights for all humans. We in this nation secure our rights for our nation and there are no guarantees for others . That was also reinforced as Steve said by the preamble to the Constitution where they made it very plain that the document of laws and rights applied only to "We the people" .Quote:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The words... "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", do NOT, in my view, modify the previous sentiment. They don't even come CLOSE to saying that.
Plus, you say our founders thought that rights were universal, but not necessarily?? That makes NO SENSE on it's face. One thing our founders did, was MAKE sense. Besides, I don't believe they were conflicted or hypocritical like you suggest they were.
By the way, who said that it's too much to do? Certainly, not Ronald Reagan when he saw his shining city on the hill. Being a world leader ain't for sissy's.
excon
Yes shining city on a hill is a worthy sentiment and goal . But even President Reagan understood the limits of the country's power.It reminds me of the platitudes in the Monroe Doctrine at a time when James Monroe had absolutely zero ability to prevent European nations from encroaching .
It's easy to deem it so ,much more difficult to execute.
I'll go back to the Az example. The State has been forced to deal with an impossible situation being one of the point states in dealing with porus borders that are a Federal responsibilties to control . They suffer a disproportionate cost because of their location to the border and are having their hands tied behind their backs in their attempt to maintain some kind of control against what is an invasion... there are no better terms to describe it.
It is more than reasonable for an officer to ask someone to produce papers upon the occasion of resonable suspicion. This occures routinely in traffic situation and I have yet to hear this massive outcry by the we the people that rights are being violated . We think instead it is reasonable.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes, I was aiming at Arizona. I don't disagree with you that the state has been forced to act because the federal government is not.
Nonetheless, this ISN'T the way to do it. I also don't disagree with you that the cops DO have the right to ask to see your papers based upon "reasonable suspicion". The problem with THIS law, is the only way a cop could possibly HAVE reasonable suspicion about ones immigration status, is based on race. That's racial profiling, and you can't do that here in the good old US of A, even if it IS reasonable. It has to be CONSTITUTIONAL, not just reasonable, and it ain't.
excon
It is ridiculous to imagine that everyone with brown skin in Arizona will suddenly come under surveillance .Probable cause still has to be established. The law just lowers the bar as to what qualifies as probable cause. But the words probable cause is used a number of times in the new law . So your fear of cops indiscriminently stopping Hispanics is unfounded.
The Supreme Court has already decided that it is legal for police to stop anyone and request valid identification;and refusing to produce one can indeed be reasonable suspicion.(Hiibel v Sixth )
Drivers are required to produce on demand their driver's license and legal immigrants are also required to produce their "green card " upon demand . I don't see how this law violates anyone's rights.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The legality of the law rests on the answer to a simple question. How do you reasonably suspect someone of being an illegal alien, if NOT for their race? You discussed everything BUT that, yet THAT is the only question.
excon
Scenario . I the policeman see a pick up truck stopping by a group of day laborers and 20 of them squeeze into the truck . I think I have probable cause to stop the truck (what the driver did is most likely a violation of the traffic laws ) ,and to ask all the passengers to produce a valid ID .
That's just one of many examples I could think of. OK I'll give you another... a bunch of Minute men doing the job the Federal Government won't do ;sitting on the border, observe a bunch of people crossing the border.
Knowing that the Feds won't do anything they call Sheriff Arpaio . With this law ,he now has the enforcement tool he has been looking for to do his job.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That is about the only scenario wherein a cop might suspect people are illegal. Although, I don't think the cops are going to hang out at Home Depot or Lowe's all day. That's the ONLY place that could happen, because people jamming into a truck from the parking lot of McDonald's DOESN'T indicate that they're illegal OR day laborers.
excon
However Ex you have provided the ideal scenario where a law officer might suspect some of those people are illegal without racially profiling themQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Probably. But, after they clean out Home Depot and Lowe's, what are they going to do?
excon
Ah well there is always McDonells, I hear they hire cheap labourQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Is anyone with a different accent, let alone skin color, probable cause?
How about a Russian accent in a prostitute? Or an Indian accent behind the counter at the gas station store? Sorry, but most small town cops are not trained enough to be constitutional scholars.
G&P
G&P
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I only caved on Home Depot and Lowe's because I personally think most of those people are illegal. I have NO idea if that's so, but if a cop thought like me, he COULD harass people at Home Depot.
But, McDonald's hires all sorts of people, and most of them are citizens. So, NO, they couldn't reasonably assume, because a person works there, that they're illegal.
excon
I think you are getting the point Ex there are many ways to profile people and not all of them are racial. I thought police officers had certain training that allowed them to home in on the criminal class surely that training would be useful in observing behaviour. What it means is that police forces need to be better trained and not just someone's cousin.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I do think that it is unfortunate local police forces are being used to do the federal government's job for them but obviously there is a local problem that prompted these laws. We see law enforcement problems among certain populations, as I'm sure you do, and it is very easy to racially profile potential offenders, particularly in a given region or neighbourhood. What will happen, as is the intent of the legislators, is that these populations will depart the area and stay away. Whether that is economically desirable is another issue.
What about a policy that asks everyone with no ID if they are illegal. Like if they get pulled over and magically they have no papers? Or they get arrested? Doesn't matter what they look like. Would you support that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Al Sharpton (sp) just announced that he will lead a march in Az and all of them will not have proper ID.
Hello dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
My problem is with racial profiling. If they ask EVERYBODY to show their papers, across the board, I would support it.
But, it would really waste a lot of police time that could be better spent doing real law enforcement, because MOST of the people they'll be asking for papers will be white. So, it might be Constitutional, but it won't work very well to arrest illegals.
excon
Hello:
Being the suspicious type, I wonder if this law has anything to do with disenfranchising Democratic voters... Nahhhh. They wouldn't do that, would they?
excon
Here's the actual law, it doesn't sound nearly as ominous as it's being portrayed. The feds will still be counted on to enforce immigration laws and as was entirely predictable, Dems are already suggesting the feds not cooperate. I guess they don't get that not enforcing immigration laws IS the problem AZ is addressing.
Arizona must do something to stop the unnecessary crime and violence that has resulted in the sanctuary cities such as Phoenix. Last Thursday in anticipation of the bill being signed into law a company fired 500 workers. Imagine that. Guess the company didn't want to get heavily fined for having hired illegals.
If the jobs are taken away from the illegals (and not just the Mexican or Latino illegals by the way) in Arizona then they will have to move elsewhere to have a job or better yet go back to their original country. There are a lot of other illegals in Arizona as well that need to be addressed.
I am sure a lot of "legal" Latinos will be stopped and have to prove who they are, but that is to be expected. If done properly there should be no problem with having to prove to the police who they are.
During WWII all Asian people were rounded up and sent to detention camps even if they where born in the USA. Think about that one. They didn't have the luxury of proving identification - they were just taken away and detained... just because they "looked Asian". This happened also to the German and Italian peoples as well during the war. They had no say so but were just "rounded up" and detained.
Having 57,000 stolen cars per year for one state is a lot of stolen cars. Arizona is just fed up waiting for the government to actually DO something so they've done something for themselves. I am sure that a lot of other border states will shortly follow suit with this same type of law.
I have noticed that since the economy has really tanked here in Ohio there are a lot less Latino looking folks shopping at WalMart and the local Mexican restaurants have gone out of business. I don't even see the fancy, flashy expensive cars and pick up trucks driven by Latinos here anymore. Ohio lost too many jobs for the Latinos to stick around and make money to send home so they've left here.
Actually it is the president who is trying to exploit this for political reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
YouTube - President Obama Announces Vote 2010
Does he have no boundries nor shame?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again:
I wonder if you live in Arizona, and happen to be a brown skinned person, and you get assaulted, would you be hesitant to call the cops? Nahhh. This law won't do that.
excon
Ex re #24
Are you implying that a Democratic voting block is illegal immigrants?!
I thought they were not allowed to vote?
G&P
Tom
The POTUS thinks American priority is about winning an election?
Hmmm... I thought it was about jobs and economic recovery.
It is disgraceful that the POTUS plays the identity politics of getting, women, the young, blacks, and hispanics to vote as if the old, men, non black/hispanic people did not vote for him.
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Not at all. And, you're to be congratulated for thinking such pure thoughts...
No, I'm thinking that the law is going to be enforced BIGTIME on voting day, in hispanic districts, perpetrated against LEGAL hispanic citizens waiting in line to vote, but forgot their "papers".
Nahhh, the Republicans wouldn't do that... I should have pure thoughts, too, but I'm a realist.
excon
As Captain Renault said "I'm shocked, shocked ......"Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
* 95 percent of homicide warrants in Los Angeles are issued for illegal aliens. Additionally, 67 percent of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants in that city are issued for illegal aliens.
* 83 percent of homicide warrants in Phoenix are issued for illegal aliens.
* 86 percent of homicide warrants issued in Albuquerque, New Mexico are issued for illegal aliens.
* In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. There have been many studies which suggest that each pedophile molests and average of 148 children over their lifetime. Considering that estimate, the deportees alone could have accounted for 900,580 victims.
* 29 percent of the U.S. prison population is comprised of illegal aliens, at an annual cost to the American taxpayers of more than $1.6 billion.
Have you had enough of this or do you want this to come to your city/state? It's about time something has started to be done to alleviat this problem that is literally draining this country of it's resources. Hats off to Arizona for having the guts to stand up to the illegals.
I'm beginning to think that Obama messed up in pushing the health care scam down our throats instead of the illegal immigration problem. Now he's waited too long and the immigration amnesty is essentially a "dead" issue. He should have pushed the amnesty down our throats instead.
Oh well, he had his chance and essentially picked big money over the illegals.
Hello again:
I wonder if the tea partiers, who HATE big government, mind that government now has the authority to stop you and ask for PROOF that you belong here...
Nahhh, that's OK with the small government types.
excon
Now ex you know that that right wing conservative bunch always like to be in control, what could be better than a legal reason to stop, question and detain for exercising control. But there is a certain genius to the Arizona law, this is one time when the threat of the law just might work, not because of anything their police might do but because these illegals are used to heavy handed police tactics. Rreading that law was very interesting, it was more about traffic control than it was about immigration enforcement, and it certainly didn't demand that law enforcement stop people in the street and ask for ID, however once the system has hold of them, I could see a lot of police time being taken up in processing illegals. Law Enforcement, a growth industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No big deal. I go to vote - ID. I go to a club - ID [ though that is very rare these days ]. I go to the bank - ID etc.
I don't like the BIG government taking more money from me just because I work hard and am more successful. And if BIG government can't get you that way, they will in AMT. For those of us in our 40s or younger - sorry about all those years we took your hard earned money to support the ponzi scheme called social security and medicare - that will be broke or gone in 10-20 years.
But one of the few things I do expect big government to do is to competently protect our borders.
This, from one who is an American and an ethnic minority with darker skin than you, if you are white, and a Spanish sounding surname.
G&P
YUPQuote:
Rreading that law was very interesting, it was more about traffic control than it was about immigration enforcement, and it certainly didn't demand that law enforcement stop people in the street and ask for ID,
Small government types do want the government to perform the few things the government alone can do ,like provide security against invasion.Quote:
Nahhh, that's OK with the small government types.
Eleven or is it fourteen million and you call that protection against invasion, where I come from we call that not asleep at the wheel but in hibenation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We go into apolexy about a few thousand and you guys are sweet with a few million, just shows to go you, different strokes for different folks
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM. |