Arizona Governor signs new immigration law, Obama disagrees with the states rights?

MakeItHappen said:
The language in use in the USA is "predominantly" english. However, in business, from the Fortune 200 to sole proprietorships, the language that creates value for shareholders and turns a profit is used. Business execs. and small business owners usually balk at others telling them how to conduct their ventures.

BTW, I appreciate your candor and information on the boards.
Click to expand...

I wish we all had candor and honesty on the boards MIH!

The kids might fall for it but I sure don't :wink:
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Flieger - Isn't there a difference between shaming them and jailing them?

Of course your native language or your accent alone should not make one "suspicious" of committing a crime.
There are countless examples of people who are here legally but speak with a strong native accent. People who come here legally with no English skills but learn them. Even people who were born here and are citizens by birth but raised in another country.
Click to expand...

Wow, we're going to cover the whole gamut of the slipper slope over law and security, sad :thumbdown:

Where do you draw the line jam?
 
Maximus said:
Oh?

QUESTION:

What are the laws regarding the questioning of passengers during a routine traffic stop?

_____

ANSWER:



Asking Passenger for Identification
What Happens when He or She Refuses?
Click to expand...

Did you read what you posted? They back up my position prefectly, thanks.

They were investigating a suspected crime. Big difference.

There is no law that gives the police the right to demand auto passengers identify themselves if not under suspicion of a crime. Same as walking down the street, they have no right to demand you identify yourself ("May I see you paperz pleaze!")
 
Let's see. I have to provide the Federal Government with valid documentation proving approved Health Insurance Coverage but I don't have to provide proof of citizenship when a police officer stops me for a violation? Why doesn't this make sense.
 
MakeItHappen said:
And this from AZ:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582
Click to expand...

As an Arizona resident and interested observer here...

I believe the sheriff should resign his office, when/if this becomes the law of Arizona as he will have abrogated his oath of office with this statement.

If your convictions compel you to disobey your superiors, to violate the law (it may/may not be law, 90 days must pass first), then the honorable and lawful thing to do is to resign so that there is no conflict and no crime.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Pima said:
Public schools can deny entry based on residency.
Click to expand...
Residency and citizenship are two different things. Most school districts are interested in a child's home address/location so children from out of "zone" are not registered. The new immigration law in Arizona is not addressing the residency issue.
 
Maybe the Sheriff thinks that .08 is too low. Maybe he thinks that it should be .20. Maybe he should only enforce the laws he agrees with. Maybe he should run for State Office and change the law.
 
Luigi59 said:
Did you read what you posted? They back up my position prefectly, thanks.

They were investigating a suspected crime. Big difference.

There is no law that gives the police the right to demand auto passengers identify themselves if not under suspicion of a crime. Same as walking down the street, they have no right to demand you identify yourself ("May I see you paperz pleaze!")
Click to expand...


I usually agree with your position Luigi and I know you're taking the literal position of the Constitutional stance on this point but, in this case, it's time for a change and something needs to be done. Especially in Arizona! Should more Americans be shot down on their own land because the Federal Government won't do it's job? I don't give a damn if Bush didn't do it either, someone has to at this point. I'm actually surprised on your position here.

BTW, did you hear Col. Allen West's position on this law today on Savage this evening? I'll take his position and it's the same as I'm on record for here in this thread, we need to do something. The link is not yet available, but should be on You Tube by tomorrow, I'll be sure to post it when available. For now, here is a link to Col. Allen West and his refreshing views on America's future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k
 
Talked to my family in AZ today. Their opinion: whether the bill is flawed or not, at least the country is now paying attention to AZ's illegal immigrant problem.
 
Maximus said:
I usually agree with your position Luigi and I know you're taking the literal position of the Constitutional stance on this point but, in this case, it's time for a change and something needs to be done.
Click to expand...

I concur. Something needs to be done. But not at the expense of depriving the people of their basic right to be free in their own person. I sincerely believe that this law violates the 4th Amendment (giving the policia WAY TOO MUCH latitude in deciding what is "reasonable suspicion" to begin a search and/or seizure) and the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection).

Every time I hear about this law I think of these quotes from our Founding Fathers:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - Thomas Paine

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin

:cool:
 
Luigi59 said:
I concur. Something needs to be done. But not at the expense of depriving the people of their basic right to be free in their own person. I sincerely believe that this law violates the 4th Amendment (giving the policia WAY TOO MUCH latitude in deciding what is "reasonable suspicion" to begin a search and/or seizure) and the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection).

Every time I hear about this law I think of these quotes from our Founding Fathers:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - Thomas Paine

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin

:cool:
Click to expand...
Totally unrelated to this topic, but since you bring up quotes by great Americans...how are you with these two?

"...There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

"Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."
- President Woodrow Wilson

Now back to the original topic, I understand your concern re: 14th Amendment; we've discussed that before, but I do NOT see your 4th amendment argument.

Taking just one part of the 4th for review, "...The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but not every government action to obtain information is a "search." A search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable."

The SCOTUS has also held that a vehicle is different from a home re: expectation of privacy: "The Supreme Court also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. "

And the proposed law in Arizona was written using SCOTUS decisions to follow the law precisely.

That's why I have no issue with it.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
...and by the way, in Mexico, if you need assistance by any government agency (i.e police), you must first prove you are in the country legally...this is ariticle 67.
 
flieger83 said:
And the proposed law in Arizona was written using SCOTUS decisions to follow the law precisely.
Click to expand...

And you believe that? :rolleyes:

I know way too many police officers and know exactly how they can "construct" (a nice way of saying it) reasonable suspicion, enough to give them a reason to stop and question every "Mexican-looking" individual they come across.

I value individual liberty way too much to give the police the kind of powers they will have under this proposed law.

As I posted before, only when they start stopping white, blue-eyed people in Vermont and Washington (on suspicion of being Canadian and being here illegally) will people suddenly realize that proposed laws like this violate everything we hold sacred when it comes to personal liberty.

The freedom from excessive Government intrusion is a part of the 4th Amendment. A freedom to be secure in our persons - i.e., not having to carry "travelling papers" whenever any "Mexican-looking" goes outside - is a right we may have taken for granted for too long.
 
flieger83 said:
Taking just one part of the 4th for review, "...The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but not every government action to obtain information is a "search." A search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable."

The SCOTUS has also held that a vehicle is different from a home re: expectation of privacy: "The Supreme Court also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. "

And the proposed law in Arizona was written using SCOTUS decisions to follow the law precisely.
Click to expand...

Steve, with reference to the AZ law, what criteria does law enforcement use to develop reasonable suspicion, or probable cause to question someone if they are in this country illegally?

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two different standards, not the same thing.
 
Just got back from stocking up on my Arizona Iced Tea:biggrin:. I know, I know, they are based in New York but it was a "beau geste". By the way, where is the probable cause for a DUI checkpoint. This might be considered a clear violation of the fourth amendment. My car is stopped for no apparent violation without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. I am asked to produce a driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. I may or may not be breathalyzed at the discretion of the police officer. I have not been perceived to have committed a crime but I may be committing one. See Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz. They always talk about precedent but the Supremes make their own and as far as I know are not bound by previous decisions. See Dred Scott.
 
MakeItHappen said:
Steve, with reference to the AZ law, what criteria does law enforcement use to develop reasonable suspicion, or probable cause to question someone if they are in this country illegally?

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two different standards, not the same thing.
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of the displayed ignorance of the "national groups" protesting this and making such vehement rhetoric...

THE STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN WRITTEN YET and ALL of LE have been told you will do NOTHING until it's in black and white. The folks in AZ are VERY concerned about this being done "correctly, in compliance with the US Constitution, etc."

And it's not even a law yet...have to wait 90 days.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
AF6872 said:
Just got back from stocking up on my Arizona Iced Tea:biggrin:. I know, I know, they are based in New York but it was a "beau geste". By the way, where is the probable cause for a DUI checkpoint. This might be considered a clear violation of the fourth amendment. My car is stopped for no apparent violation without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. I am asked to produce a driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. I may or may not be breathalyzed at the discretion of the police officer. I have not been perceived to have committed a crime but I may be committing one. See Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz. They always talk about precedent but the Supremes make their own and as far as I know are not bound by previous decisions. See Dred Scott.
Click to expand...

Actually DUI checkpoints are enumerated in SCOTUS decisions re: article 4 and 14.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
As previously stated see Michigan Department Of State Police v Sitz. There is no "Enumeration" in Supreme Court deciusions. The only "Enumiration" is in the Constitution. It is legal as per SCOTUS under DUI State regulations to stop anyone for a "precived" violation of law. Therefore I may be "precieved" to be an in violation of the current State Law or upon further investigation by the investigating officer be in violation of the State Law or an illegal alien and therefore in violation of Federal Law. I agree SCOTUS says it is OK to stop and question. Where does this violate the Fourth Ammendment???? It doesn' violate because SCOTUS says it doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top