Drug Wars tooooo close to home!
So--I live in a border town. El Paso/Cd. Juarez is essentially one big city, with an international border in the middle. Lots of commerce between the two. But let's just say--tourism is way down. People used to go to visit, to shop, to eat, to drink--not so much any more.
Over 200 people have been killed this year alone--many of them police officers--in a war to control drug smuggling routes into the US. The violence is horrendous: executions, drive-by shootings are the least of it. People's heads cut off, kidnappings, multiple graves unearthed in suburban houses, (Houses of Death);
--and that's not even mentioning the mysterious and still unsolved rape-murders of perhaps 400 hundred women over the last decade, which may or may not be connected.
All this is happening a stone's throw from my very door. Is this on anyone's radar but El Pasoans?
Very, very scary.
Do what I do ,
Step out in the side yard and Boom with yer .44 mag lever action ,
it keeps the Meth heads away
Wait till those illegal mofo's start bringing it you your side of the fence.
Arm yourself, shoot to kill.
Yea, I live in a drug town/crime town...No one from Santa fe will live here..The whites are scared of this place. But the outbreak of violence inside santa fe makes me want to stay here on the outskirts on our quiet little property. Oh and I am ready for a B and E. I am also ready to be attacked in the city. Don't care..I will defend myself. They know it and I know it..They kind of test you first to see exactly how stupid you are, and I get that look about me that says that I will fight to the death over my purse or any of my belongings...so..they back off. They actually only like really easy targets.
It isn't just the illegals either...the whites and everybody else get addicted to the drugs too..Like that guy scouting out my wallet at the gas station the other day......
I just say nuke the other side of the fence and then mine it.
then where would our teenagers go to get drunk?
Oh, I forgot! Merc's house!
then where would our teenagers go to get drunk?
Oh, I forgot! Merc's house!
:D
Not!!!
:D
I just say nuke the other side of the fence and then mine it.
Your right-wing blather is starting to get as boring as Radar's libertarian blather.
Your right-wing blather is starting to get as boring as Radar's libertarian blather.
The difference is I don't take it seriously.
The difference is I don't take it seriously.
If you say so. But that doesn't mean
your simplistic answers to complex problems will make eyes roll any less than Radars.
If you say so. But that doesn't mean your simplistic answers to complex problems will make eyes roll any less than Radars.
[tongueincheek]
That is because you fail to recognize the true depth of the simplistic statements [/tongueincheek]
and it's just beginning. From today's paper:
Juárez recorded at least 11 more homicides linked to organized crime Friday . . . The deaths included the discovery of five bodies wrapped in blankets in an empty lot in an upscale east Juárez neighborhood about a mile from the border . . .
The grizzly find came less than a day after an anonymous e-mail warning predicted this would be the "bloodiest and deadliest" weekend in the city's history.
Two of the bodies were decapitated and wrapped in white plastic. Attached to them was a note calling them "traitors" who were associated with a reputed leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel.
The note was signed "La Linea," or The Line, a name given to corrupt police officers who allegedly protect drug traffickers, according to police documents.
Grizzly? Grisly, surely?
But for the record I am quite horrified.
I will remember this when I hear another hell in a handbasket report about crime in London.
yeah, decapitated bodies lying strewn about are Not. Good. Needless to say, I won't be crossing the border anytime soon--at least not into Juarez.
But I miss Mexico! I want to go San Miguel de Allende and rent a villa there for a while. And never come back.
lol! Grizzly...I noticed that too...I started to get confused about the actual location of these events.
I think you should contemplate moving Cloud. Srsly. What happened to moving? If you think I am telling you to run, I am. No harm in it. When the crime takes over your area, the quality of your life decreases significantly. Why not go somewhere that you don't have to worry about it on a daily basis...whether you are going to get robbed or not..etc.
yeah, decapitated bodies lying strewn about are Not. Good. Needless to say, I won't be crossing the border anytime soon--at least not into Juarez.
But I miss Mexico! I want to go San Miguel de Allende and rent a villa there for a while. And never come back.
It is not such a bad thing...;)
So, 1,000 people dead so far. I mean, it's practically inconceivable.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_10573358
The official death count is 984 through August when towns and villages on the outskirts of Juárez and other communities in northern Chihuahua are included.
Border Patrol and Customs are siezing that stuff by the truckload down here.
One of the reasons I am going back to OTR driving is my desire to buy new and higher quality firearms than I currently own. The drug wars are a big part of that decision.
Even my wife, a native-born El Pasoan, is starting to look at real estate elsewhere, although she denies it's due to the rapidly rising crime rate here and just across the border.
But she doesn't fool me... I see her eyes and feel her emotions on the rare occasions that we travel across the border. She is getting scared.
I even worry since I'm not going to be home to protect her and the dogs (dog theft is rising, too) while I'm earning a living.
If only we would hit a big lottery and be able to retire with all the things we want. Sigh. I could see myself on a twenty-acre spread with horses, dogs and an airstrip.
She wants to buy new furniture, clothes and the usual girl stuff. I want something typically guy-ish. This:
So back to work I go. But I still dream of a small farm/ranch in the Smoky Mountains.
the death toll is about 1400 so far this year. A stone's throw from the second or third safest city in the US. It's just unbeliveable. From Newsweek:
The border between El Paso (population: 600,000) and Juárez (population: 1.5 million) is the most menacing spot along America's southern underbelly. On one side is the second-safest city of its size in the United States (after Honolulu), with only 15 murders so far in 2008. On the other is a slaughterhouse ruled by drug lords where the death toll this year is more than 1,300 and counting. "I don't think the average American has any idea of what's going on immediately south of our border," says Kevin Kozak, acting special agent in charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's office of investigations in El Paso. "It's almost beyond belief." Juárez looks a lot like a failed state, with no government entity capable of imposing order and a profusion of powerful organizations that kill and plunder at will. It's as if the United States faced another lawless Waziristan—except this one happens to be right at the nation's doorstep.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171251Do you ever think about moving Cloud? I don't think I'd want to live in an area like that.
but the only place safer in the US is Honolulu, which is a bit far.
it's paradoxical.
I think I'd be scared of it spilling over the boarder.
people are scared of that, yes. But so far, it really hasn't happened.
legalizing marijuana would help a great deal, I think, 'tho there are other drugs.
Well, I hope for your sake that where you live stays safe. :)
but the only place safer in the US is Honolulu, which is a bit far.
it's paradoxical.
Where did you get that notion. I lived in Hawaii for 3 years, I would hardly call it the model of low crime rates.
yeah the problem with eliminating the suppliers is that if a demand exists, a new supplier will step to the plate. You need to eliminate the market. Flooding the market with cheap or even free product for a generation would solve a lot of problems...
*I* think about moving all the time. Tho not because of Ciudad Juarez, because it's a DESERT and has no redeeming qualities. I keep trying to talk the wife into moving to Tennessee, which is beautiful, has trees, all four seasons, not just December, January, February and summer (natch!) and I even like the accent better. There needs to be a long vacation there. She will understand better when she sees the place. Knoxville, Chattanooga, anything east of the Smokies is ideal (I'm severely allergic to tornadoes). The best moonshine comes from there, too. Must be the water...
Where did you get that notion. I lived in Hawaii for 3 years, I would hardly call it the model of low crime rates.
from the Newsweek article.
I think it's pretty here, and I like the weather. It appears barren at first (okay, it is pretty barren) but the landscape grows on you.
It's pretty cheap and laid back and not too crowded, all of which are important to me.
note that I am a native of the San Francisco Bay Area, which is expensive, frenetic, and crowded. But pretty.
I love it where I am. The severe, bitter cold, and seemingly interminable winter keeps a lot of the real losers uninterested in living here.
<--- The whiners on the other hand seem to thrive.
EL PASO -- Sometimes controversial and always outspoken, former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates said Thursday that casual drug users in the U.S. are at the root of the violence in Juárez and should be shot.
excuse me? SHOT?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11142648
oh, I like the legalization idea much better!
from the Newsweek article.
I was speaking from personal experience. The crime was bad, mostly theft, and stuff of that nature.
I was wondering if livng in a place like El Paso is as scary as the news reports it to be.
Or any other border town for that matter. I hear of kidnappings and decapitation. What is the Mexican government involvement?
@ brian. Why not move because of Ciudad Juarez?
An interesting take on the economic benefits, realized by the US, of the "war on drugs." A three part article here:
http://www.drugwar.com/fittsnarco1.shtmSam & Dave would make the same money if one load weren't illegal.:eyebrow:
that Solari index was NEVER 100%--we're just more aware of problems to kids now. (slightly off topic, I know)
Yeah, I'd say the solari index where I was a kid was in the 90's easily. Around here it's in the 60s or 70s. But I think that is a function of the relatively small population. And a hyper vigilant police force, which I have no complaints about. 31mph and out of state plates = license and registration please.
An interesting take on the economic benefits, realized by the US, of the "war on drugs." A three part article here:
http://www.drugwar.com/fittsnarco1.shtm
Filled with quite a bit of conspiracy theory. Not sure how much credibility it can have with insinuations like that.
I was wondering if livng in a place like El Paso is as scary as the news reports it to be.
Or any other border town for that matter. I hear of kidnappings and decapitation. What is the Mexican government involvement?
@ brian. Why not move because of Ciudad Juarez?
Not scary, really. Just the Mexico side is unsafe, IMO, but I'll take any excuse to move that convinces the wife to move.
Obama: Troop move to Mexican border under consideration
WASHINGTON — President Obama weighed in Wednesday on the escalating drug war on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that he was looking at possibly deploying National Guard troops to contain the violence but ruled out any immediate military move.
Obama said during an interview:"I don't have a particular tipping point in mind," he said. "I think it's unacceptable if you've got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens."
Already this year there have been 1,000 people killed in Mexico along the border, following 2008's death toll of 5,800, according to federal officials who credit Mexican President Felipe Calderon for a crackdown on drug cartels.
In a recent visit to El Paso, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called for 1,000 troops to protect the border.
Obama was cautious, however. "We've got a very big border with Mexico," he said. "I'm not interested in militarizing the border."
"It should be noted that over 200 U.S. citizens have been killed in this drug war, either because they were involved in the cartels or were innocent bystanders," she said. "With those concerns in mind, it is essential that the Department of Homeland Security, along with other relevant departments, continue to pursue a contingency plan to address 'spillover' violence along our border."
I think so too
The US-Mexico border is less than half the length of the US-Canada border, without even including Alaska-Canada.
The collapse of the Mexican political structure is apparently very possible in the near future. We should be concentrating on THAT border instead of worrying about Iraq and the border between Pakinstan and Afghanistan.
The National Guard was created for exactly that purpose, protect the Homeland, NOT to be fighting wars in some far off country.
Hopefully things will calm down by November. We've already booked our flight and hotel for two weeks in Puerto Vallarta.
The collapse of the Mexican political structure is apparently very possible in the near future.
Another reason to BUILD THE WALL.
Another reason to repeal the drug laws! If people could grow their own pot, or knew someone who grew it locally, which accounts for 60% of the illegal drug trade with Mexico, then it would take away 60% of their power and money and violence would go down. Not to say, it would really stimulate the economy! :D
Somewhere around 2/3rds of the people i know who do smoke grow their own here in the States, or get it from someone they know who grows their own. That said, the drug trade def. needs to be handled one way or another.
The drug wars aren't about pot really. When people say drugs people jump to pot.............Out of a personal affinity maybe?
Drugs are bad mm'kay?
But pot is the most common illegal drug, isn't it?
The term "illegal" is loose. My room-mate used to grow it legally in San Francisco. I have also talked to police that quite frankly, also are not concerned with it. It's the bigger fish they are after usually. Sometimes that includes pot but they really are irritated by all the cocaine. I don't blame them. It causes a lot of problems.
Oregon is looking at growing and taxing it. $98.00 an ounce, I believe.
A friend also uses pot for "medical" purposes in CO legally. It is legal sometimes.
The drug wars aren't about pot really. When people say drugs people jump to pot.............Out of a personal affinity maybe?
Drugs are bad mm'kay?
Let me elaborate... every report I've seen, on TV or in print, has said 60% of the illegal drug trade coming in from Mexico is from pot. Not only that, Mexican drug cartels are now growing it on OUR public lands! :mad2: So, repealing that ONE LAW for that ONE
PLANT would put a serious dent in their business. (who outlaws a damn
plant anyway?)
And only stupid people would buy weed from Mexico, or from some source where they don't know where it comes from or how it's grown. Gawd, can you imagine all the toxic chemicals it would be laced with? yuckaroo! :greenface
A friend also uses pot for "medical" purposes in CO legally. It is legal sometimes.
Here's the rub. Medicinal marijuana is legal in some states, but federal law usurps state law. Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, has said he will leave it up to states how they want to deal with pot, and the DEA will no longer go after people in states that have legalized it.
That, however, is new. The DEA most certainly
would go after people in legal states before. In fact, they made an effort to rub it in in states where the people had voted to legalize it. And it just makes the crime worse.
When will we learn prohibition doesn't work? It didn't work back in the 20s with alcohol, and it doesn't work now with drugs. We will NEVER win the "war" on drugs. It is a big, fat waste of money, and it tramples on people's individual rights. All drug laws should be repealed.
Yah I totally agree with that. But I was just trying to emphasize the fact that the term, "illegal" was loose.
Yes I know a lot of the drugs coming in are pot. But people seem to think that the "drug war" is the "pot war"....
Legalizing "drugs" is a little different from legalizing pot. We have already discussed here the statistics on legalized heroin and other drugs....the reports coming back were not good and countries that legalized other drugs are now taking that back because of the ensuing violence and crime.
:)
The Onion Headline that still makes me laff: "Drugs Wins War on Drugs."
ah, gotcha. :D
I just find it very disingenuous when people rant about illegal drugs, while TV is overloaded with commercials from pharmceutical companies pushing THEIR drugs.
I think ANY PLANT should be legal, including mushrooms, peyote, etc. I understand some drugs really ARE evil, like ICE, and heroin, and crack. But, I don't think people should be thrown in jail for using them. Confiscate them and destroy them on the spot maybe, I don't know. But, if someone is using drugs, but they aren't breaking any other laws, then I believe it is their right to do that. As long as they aren't hurting someone else.
Another reason to BUILD THE WALL.
Can't. There's an Indian reservation right on the border.
ah, gotcha. :D
I just find it very disingenuous when people rant about illegal drugs, while TV is overloaded with commercials from pharmceutical companies pushing THEIR drugs.
I think ANY PLANT should be legal, including mushrooms, peyote, etc. I understand some drugs really ARE evil, like ICE, and heroin, and crack. But, I don't think people should be thrown in jail for using them. Confiscate them and destroy them on the spot maybe, I don't know. But, if someone is using drugs, but they aren't breaking any other laws, then I believe it is their right to do that. As long as they aren't hurting someone else.
Anecdote:
I was visiting my sister that takes various pharmaceuticals. She walks into the kitchen raving to my mom about junkies. Both of them were on scrips, right as they were complaining about it. Both of them, high and complaining about drug users. I shake my head.
Can't. There's an Indian reservation right on the border.
Why would "There's an Indian reservation right on the border." = "Can't."
Why would "There's an Indian reservation right on the border." = "Can't."
Rock, paper, scissors, Native American.
Can't. There's an Indian reservation right on the border.
They better pick a side and quick - TGRR is getting the concrete together as we type.:cool:
Rock, paper, scissors, Native American.
More like rock, paper, scissors, Sovereign Nation. :)
Anecdote:
I was visiting my sister that takes various pharmaceuticals. She walks into the kitchen raving to my mom about junkies. Both of them were on scrips, right as they were complaining about it. Both of them, high and complaining about drug users. I shake my head.
LOL. Cute.
Hey Cicero, where might I find that discussion about the legalization of other, more dangerous drugs? Since there are a lot of people here from other countries, I've been wanting to find out how that's been going. I remember seeing some documentary several years ago, and the outlook seemed pretty bright for some of the addicts that had gotten into programs, but I haven't seen anything else since then. Soooo...
More like rock, paper, scissors, Sovereign Nation. :)
That's what I was thinking.
Ron Paul was debating Stephen Baldwin last night on Larry King whether pot should be legalized. It was pretty funny, a Baldwin brother debating against legalizing pot, and a politician debating FOR legalization.
Here is a
link about the interview.
Well Ron Paul thinks its ok to drive while under the influence of marijuana. He also doesn't think there is any
DUI for marijuana..
Baldwin
guaranteed that marijuana use will lead to other drugs.
More like rock, paper, scissors, Sovereign Nation. :)
Mexico is a sovereign nation. We can sure as hell build a wall between the United States and
any sovereign nation.
That was great! Thanks for the link.
Sorry Cloud, the hits just keep on coming...
Police find 7 bodies in Mexican border cityit's a daily occurrence. Just in the past couple of weeks, they found several decapitated heads in ice chests near Guadalajara (which is NOT near the border); a prominent lawyer was gunned down as he sat in a busy intersection in broad daylight in Juarez; and the police chief there resigned. Mexico has sent thousands of troops into the city to keep the peace. Citizens are paying them to stand on their street on in front of their businesses; one can only presume the drug cartels are paying them not to.
ETA: it's 9 bodies now
And yet more reasons to legalize drugs in this country.
the wall is built. it's a done deal. and no, I don't think it will help much.
Wait when did that happen?
well, at least now it's getting some press. finally. took them long enough. And Anderson Cooper is supposed to be reporting "live from the border" tonight. Whoop de do.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/25/mexico.political.asylum/index.htmlIts on Obama's and Clinton's radar now. Clinton even admits that America's drug use has a large part in this conflict.
I've heard a lot of talk on this and there are some predictions of Obama having to bring not just financial aid to Mexico, but military. If it gets much worse, this plus the immigration issue will most likely explode.
Line the border and stop the influx.
TGRR - where the Heck is the concrete?!?!?!?!
TGRR - where the Heck is the concrete?!?!?!?!
A wall isn't going to solve the problem. With the amount of trade between the United States and Mexico it would be impossible to inspect all the trucks and cars going in and out so everything would get in and out anyways. Not to mention if you got a few border guards under the paycheck of a drug cartel...
We would be spending billions of dollars on something that will only make it hard to cross the border, not stop. I don't see how that is worth it in any way. The money can be spend in more efficient matter to help solve the same problem.
Lets do the math. 1969 miles * 5280 (ft/mile) * 5 ft (width) * 15 ft (height) * (1ft^3/3^3yd^3) = 2.887e7 cubic yards of concrete.
Assume $70 a cubic yard
So a total cost of $2.02e9 or 2,021,000,000 or 2.021 TRILLION dollars for only the material cost.
Then labor costs come in. That is MUCH more then material costs so you can muliply that by five (maybe more??)
So assuming 10 trillion dollars for an initial cost along with annual maintenance costs it is completely unrealistic.
Other methods would be much more efficient.
lol - PH - we already did the math. Its a joke, sorta.
Other methods would be much more efficient.
We could just kill them all I suppose. But then who will mix up my drinks on the beach?
We could just kill them all I suppose. But then who will mix up my drinks on the beach?
Bitter much?
We could just kill them all I suppose. But then who will mix up my drinks on the beach?
I say we adopt the Gurkha Battalions from the Brits and hire them to close the borders. They did a bang up job in HK.
Then labor costs come in. That is MUCH more then material costs so you can muliply that by five (maybe more??)
Well, we can save on the labour by employing ... ahh ... you know ... [SIZE="1"][COLOR="LemonChiffon"]illegal imigrant Mexican day-labourers[/COLOR][/SIZE]...
You could start by cutting the u. :p
Drug war pictures at
Boston Dot Com.
Since I first started this thread, well--everyone seems to know about this now. Unfortunately, despite apparent (and I do stress apparent) efforts by Mexican government and military, things are worse. This year so far, the murder count is about 1400--up 45% from last year. And that has spread to general lawlessness; kidnapping, carjacking, robbery--NO ONE goes over there now if they can help it. There is no rule of law, no one to trust, and no one to help.
If you're interested, here is a recent and very nice article by a bi-national engineer on the current state of affairs:
http://newspapertree.com/features/4092-the-violence-will-continue-in-juarez-where-all-are-not-created-equal
I'm very sad for the Mexican people.
Me too - They should revolt and take their country back.
El Paso is getting a lot of refugees. Those who can afford to leave Cd. Juarez, or who have relatives here they can stay with, have. I sit on my balcony and watch the helicopters patrol at night.
And just this week our local pd has raided and arrested four very small home pot growers. Like -- 2 plants to 2 lbs. This does not make sense to me. (shakes head)
And physically safer.
So, it's not so much a
war on drugs as it is a
bully on drugs. :p:
I think it is more of a govt on drugs.
What I want to know is, how did the police KNOW there were two pot plants in that apartment? It doesn't sound like a high tech operation to me...
that was my first question, too.
After discussion with my cow orkers, the consensus is "kids." Or it could be a roofer, or meter guy, or . . . or None of those operations looks really big enough to throw a red flag up for utility use I don't think.
If they get a report, they have to act on it, I guess.
Heh...yeah.
Police reports: Hey, we had 400 drug busts last month. Chico was smoking a j in an alley. Barb and Fred had 1/32nd oz of smoke. Mark took a hit from a bong at a party. We are nipping it IN THE BUD! :lol:
But not a peep about arresting the thousands of illegals that are bringing the shit here. noooooooo just the poor Mexicans trying to better their lives. Bullshit. Secure the friggin borders.
Actually, the newspaper is full of news about pot busts crossing the border. At least once a week, there is a major bust for cocaine or pot. The newest thing is to recruit kids to stash a brick or two in their schoolbags and get them to bring it across the border, on the theory that CBP officers won't look too closely at kids, penalties are less for children and that the kids are easier to corrupt.
Secure the friggin borders.
:2cents:
As long as the demand exists, someone (some many) will supply it. No amount of border sealing will fix that; maybe reduce it a bit.
As long as the US has both enough people who want drugs to be illegal to keep them so, and enough people who want to use drugs regardless, this situation will continue.
Kinda like "blood diamonds." I'm a little surprised that the anti-drug PSAs don't include guilt trips like showing dead bodies in the desert and saying "If you do drugs, you killed these people."
It's more fun to sit on the porch and yell about the borders, but it's hardly any kind of solution in the grand scheme.
Simple history: prohibition didn't work. Drug wars, or even Bully wars, don't work.
Duh!
"secure the border"
very nice sound bite. very impossible to put into practice It's not so much about "illegals" as it is the bi-national nature of the border. Half of the people in my town have half their families on the other side, or work on the other side.
I am opposed, in principal, to people living here illegally and working, going to school etc. But the problem is complex, and even more so now, when people are seeking sanctuary from violence.
My heart hurts for the Mexican people, because it's a great country that I love, but -- Yes, we Americans contribute to the problem, but Mexican society, their customs, and their problems, have exacerbated it. Their willingness to look the other way, not hold their leaders accountable, their poverty and class imbalance, and the culture of bribery and corruption that has predominated for decades (if not centuries) has put them in a situation where they have no one to trust or turn to. It's very sad.
It's more fun to sit on the porch and yell about the borders, but it's hardly any kind of solution in the grand scheme.
Simple history: prohibition didn't work. Drug wars, or even Bully wars, don't work.
Duh!
Drug wars don't work. What does that mean? That trying to enforce laws while people continue to break them doesn't work?
What about laws against speeding? Shoplifting? Murder? These violations/crimes continue despite law enforcement efforts, so... just fuck it?
I don't know either.
I do know I'm glad there are no crack houses in my neighborhood though.
Yep. Still drugs. Everywhere. Just say no, THANK YOU! (That's why just say no didn't do much...it wasn't very polite.) ;)
Prohibition made the Kennedys and the mob rich. The War on Drugs makes gang-bangers and the mob rich.
It's called decriminalization. I don't think crack houses would even be needed anymore. Perhaps you're thinking I'm saying "don't enforce the current laws."
No, the arguments for legalization have been around for a long time. I don't think I need to reiterate them, or explain the huge difference.
Simple enough.
Perhaps you're thinking I'm saying "don't enforce the current laws."
I don't know what you're saying, that's why I asked.
I still don't.
"secure the border"
very nice sound bite. very impossible to put into practice It's not so much about "illegals" as it is the bi-national nature of the border. Half of the people in my town have half their families on the other side, or work on the other side.
That is not an issue if they are here legally, if not? Tough shit, Pick a side.
I am opposed, in principal, to people living here illegally and working, going to school etc. But the problem is complex, and even more so now, when people are seeking sanctuary from violence.
Go home and fix your problems - coming here and spreading the violence and other issues into this country is not a viable solution.
Yes, we Americans contribute ...
We cannot afford to take the hit for the worlds ills anymore -
We have our own issues to deal with.
We help everyone everytime there is a problem and everyone wants our help. Time to deal with our own issues and let them deal with theirs. If we can curb the ease in which people AND/OR drugs flow into our country, we will all be the better for it.
Weren't the Soviets evil for building the Berlin Wall? Just asking.
That would depend upon who you are asking and why that wall was built.
Jus sayin
I agree with Spexxvit, in the main, except for the "tough shit, pick a side" part. I live here, and that's just not the way people live their lives. Closing the borders would separate families and hurt the US economically.
Closing the borders would separate families
Agree.
and hurt the US economically.
Disagree
Arizona is now a police state.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/obama.immigration/index.html?hpt=T1
What does the Arizona law do?
Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.
It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.
link
Slippery slopage. I wonder what "reasons to suspect they are in the country illegally" they will need? They don't look the same? Can we put arm bands on them?
Yep, very slippery.
That would depend upon who you are asking and why that wall was built.
Jus sayin
Well sure, if you ask the commies...
You're funny. ;)
and hurt the US economically
.
Disagree
It'll just increase the redistribution of wealth. Rich lawn owners will have to pay more for legals to do landscaping than they paid illegals.
well, I was thinking more of the manufacturing sector and the imports from the maquiladoras
I was being tongue-in-cheek :blush:
So Arizona can throw them in jail now, but AFAIK, states don't have the authority to deport. So Arizona is going to pay around 100K per person per year to jail illegal immigrants? I doubt it.
This is an empty law passed only to help an embattled governor secure a primary victory.
The fines against people who hire illegal immigrants will be enforced though. That's money for the coffers.
I think the average cost per prisoner is more like $50k but your point is till valid.
Rich lawn owners will have to pay more for legals to do landscaping than they paid illegals.
You mean a more realistic LEGAL wage instead of the artificially low one? You mean one that will generate tax dollars instead of under-the-table ones?
Good - I think that could be a positive.
What about laws against speeding? Shoplifting? Murder? These violations/crimes continue despite law enforcement efforts, so... just fuck it?
Speeding is different, it's revenue enhancement.
So Arizona is going to pay around 100K per person per year to jail illegal immigrants?
Only if you feed 'em.
President Barack Obama called anew for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, saying a failure to do so will lead to “misguided” efforts such as legislation passed in Arizona.
“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said at a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the U.S. military. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”
The state legislature passed a bill that would make it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and require local police to determine the immigration status of anyone an officer suspects of being in the country without proper documentation.
link
Wait a minute - Its legal to be here illegally?
oh and a
poll too.
I read the actual law for a few minutes yesterday. It's long and I didn't read it all. There's a lot of stuff in there aimed at people who hire illegal immigrants. Like you can't stop to pick up a day worker on a public street, and if you do, you can be charged with impeding traffic. There's also the tidbit that an illegal immigrant found on public property in Arizona is "trespassing" and can be charged with "trespassing" and thrown in jail.
The main point of the law seems to be that cops will have the power to check "suspicious" people and if they determine they are here illegally, they will have the power to drop them off at the INS. The Feds at INS don't have to do anything under the state law, so they may just release them at that point, or they may deport them. Arizona isn't deporting anyone.
I'd still like to see some verbiage on what constitutes "suspicion they're in the country illegally."
So a guy walking down the street could be "suspicious." On what grounds? Unless we're talking about the employment issues, I don't know how they will make that call unless it's on appearance. And, as we know, good cops, bad cops.
I'd still like to see some verbiage on what constitutes "suspicion they're in the country illegally."
Me too, specifically whether it's a primary offense or if it just gives cops the authority to further question someone who can't produce ID when questioned about something else.
Not sure Shaw. That verbiage has been used elsewhere for decades. Still, that is the issue. From what I read over the weekend it was mentioned that if they stop a car for speeding or whatever, they can check status. What they cannot do, again from what I read, is just pull anyone over for whatever reason they want.
unless it's "we suspect they are illegals."
Hey, the last time my mom got mistaken for an illegal mexican, someone just asked her how much she charges to walk dogs.
Next time she might get thrown in jail.
A PhD, two Master's degrees, a 30-year career, money in the bank... And she's Existing While Dark-Skinned.
She's glad to be leaving Arizona, and taking her money and taxes with her. Good riddance.
unless it's "we suspect they are illegals."
Seriously, do you know this for a fact? Do you have more information?
Just what's being reported; that the new law "requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/25/arizona.immigration.protest/index.htmlI've been mistaken for being "middle eastern" been pulled out of line at an airport, frisked, had all my shit gone through and almost missed my flight.... So what?
Take a border state wrestling with the effects of a surge of illegal immigrants. Add Sheriff Arpaio and his unorthodox, well-chronicled brand of law enforcement — he forces male and female inmates to wear pink underwear, among other often-questioned tactics. And watch the sparks fly.
"I have compassion for the Mexican people, but if you come here illegally you are going to jail," said Sheriff Arpaio, an elected Republican, whose county is the fourth most populous in the country and among the fastest growing.
To avoid suggestions that deputies practice racial profiling, the sheriff has ordered them to find probable cause, usually a minor traffic infraction, before pulling over suspect vehicles.
I can make up 10 probable causes right now. My word against the other guy.
To people who say round up more illegal immigrants, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County here has an answer: send out the posse.
On Wednesday, the posse, a civilian force of 300 volunteers, many of them retired deputies, are to fan out over desert backcountry, watching for smugglers and the people they guide into these parts.
That's the Night the Lights Went Out in Arizona, right?
The deputies, meanwhile, continue their patrols. Normally, Deputy Chris Scott spends his days kicking in doors and barreling through houses, serving search warrants and performing the other high-energy tasks of a special weapons and tactics officer. But before dawn one morning this week, on "illegal immigrant interdiction" patrol, Deputy Scott saw a pickup with a broken tail light drift over the center line of a desolate road near Gila Bend. He flicked on the emergency lights of his unmarked sport utility vehicle and pulled over the pickup.
Barely mentioning the reason for the stop — state law prohibits driving over the center line or with a broken light — he peppered the driver and five passengers with questions: "Licencias?" "You have identification?" "These guys work with you very long?"
After several backup deputies arrived, they determined that the men were not being smuggled, although some appeared to be here illegally and were turned over to the Border Patrol.
"I think word is getting out, and they are skirting around us," Deputy Scott said later as he cruised without finding much suspicious activity.
Hahahahahaaaa...I don't know what's funnier, this asshat saying "Ohhhh, now they're onto us" when it's probably just the way it always is (but which doesn't make for good publicity) or the fact that, if what he says is true, he's admitting that they've already thwarted the law! :lol:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.htmlI've been mistaken for being "middle eastern" been pulled out of line at an airport, frisked, had all my shit gone through and almost missed my flight.... So what?
Certainly your big red white and blue t-shirt reading "I AM AN AMERICAN GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY" should have been a clue for your attackers, right?
:cool:
That article is from 2006. :eyebrow:
Nothing will really change until we secure our borders.
Oh. Well, thanks for clearing me up.
Now leave me alone.
I can make up 10 probable causes right now. My word against the other guy.
Let's assume the worst. It's so much fun to be all pissed off all the time isn't it?! yay...
is it okay and/or legal to walk around outside without identification? I sure hope it is, in this country. Of course, if I were hispanic or hispanic looking, like my BD#1 and her children, maybe it isn't. How do you prove a negative?
Assuming the worst?
What am I pissed off about?
You've lost your touch.
Let me borrow a tactic from the Classic School of Discussion, too..."WHAT???"
:lol:
Yeah, xenophobes LOVE this law. Keep everyone away from our neighborhoods and our childrens, they might find themselves associating with [SIZE="5"]"[/SIZE]DIFFERENT[SIZE="5"]"[/SIZE] [SIZE="5"]"[/SIZE]OUTSIDERS[SIZE="5"]"[/SIZE] which will most certainly tear apart the very fabric of what this country was founded upon. :p:
Just what's being reported; that the new law "requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally."
I've been mistaken for being "middle eastern" been pulled out of line at an airport, frisked, had all my shit gone through and almost missed my flight.... So what?
is it okay and/or legal to walk around outside without identification? I sure hope it is, in this country. Of course, if I were hispanic or hispanic looking, like my BD#1 and her children, maybe it isn't. How do you prove a negative?
Let's not forget about the illegal Irish, ethiopians, Latvians, and Cambodians.
You're an illegal optician! I just KNOW it.
Yeah, xenophobes LOVE this law. Keep everyone away from our neighborhoods and our childrens, they might find themselves associating with [SIZE=5]"[/SIZE]DIFFERENT[SIZE=5]"[/SIZE] [SIZE=5]"[/SIZE]OUTSIDERS[SIZE=5]"[/SIZE] which will most certainly tear apart the very fabric of what this country was founded upon. :p:
Yup, xenophobes and racists... hate away shawnee.
You're really stretching. I'm not sure why you're all over my shit these days, but I've seen you pulling it on others lately.
Lots of people have noticed, but wouldn't say anything to you, out of fear I guess.
You've said nothing that even remotely discusses any of it, but you call me a hater for questioning this authority? How dare me, to question authority. I MUST be a hater, to not sit back and nod that those in charge have to be right, or they wouldn't be in charge, right?
Really stretching, hon. I won't cry and come back to apologize to you, like most. So, have fun with whatever you're trying to accomplish. I'm, frankly, bored with it already.
And, one last thing...some of you were bitching and moaning about the politics thread. You wanted the Cellar to be kinder and gentler: apparently those people were tired of political discussions. You said it was a hater's thread. You've told ME In the past to ignore threads I don't like. Yet you're worse, you don't say what your convictions are, but you will say nasty things to those who are talking about issues. I didn't think you cared. Maybe you don't care, you just like waiting around to piss people off.
Have fun with that. I don't get it, but have fun with it.
You've said nothing that even remotely discusses any of it
Yes, actually, I have. I'd like to know the details for real before I throw a fit though, if you don't mind.
Lot's of people have noticed what?
What fit? What is wrong with you? :lol:
Eh, man, this is unreal.
I'm a goddam hatin' bitch for discussing current events in the current event thread.
Un. Real. Yet, amusing, and thought-provoking! :thumb:
Can you answer the question, or no?
I can't even figure out what the question is
Lots of people have noticed, but wouldn't say anything to you, out of fear I guess.
I have to call foul on that.
No one fears jinx and it is a manipulative way to get attention off the topic.
Yes, actually, I have. I'd like to know the details for real before I throw a fit though, if you don't mind.
Lot's of people have noticed what?
I think she deserves an answer since you brought up something vague aimed to hurt her character.
Jinx, Cloud, skysidhe, don't waste your time. :rolleyes:
I've been mistaken for being "middle eastern" been pulled out of line at an airport, frisked, had all my shit gone through and almost missed my flight.... So what?
We all undergo increased security in airports and for some reason it's tolerated. I don't like it, but it is a special heightened secure area. This new law applies to walking down the sidewalk, driving down the road. This is every day life. This isn't a couple times a year of standing in a line and being frisked in a place where you have the option to go.
Mine the borders with claymores. Come through normal gates, no problem. Come via any other means, not my problem.
Problem solved.
until someone has to pay for amputation and prosthetics.
This new law applies to walking down the sidewalk, driving down the road. This is every day life. This isn't a couple times a year of standing in a line and being frisked in a place where you have the option to go.
If true, that would make it a clear 4th amendment violation, right?
well, yeah. did you wonder why people were upset? (okay, maybe I'm confused . . . )
I think she said repeatedly that she wanted clarification on whether it is a PRIMARY (meaning.....that's the reason they stop you) offense to look like an immigrant.
It's fucking incredible in the classical meaning of the word. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths if they say they're going to do this and NOT profile. This is BY DEFINITION profiling.
well, yeah. did you wonder why people were upset? (okay, maybe I'm confused . . . )
Yeah but, the actual law says "
for any lawful contact by law enforcement" which, as far as I know, is not having a cop walk up to anyone they want on the street and demand ID. That's what I wanted to know about
before getting upset.
It's all about how the initial contact is made.
it is now, assuming they have "probable cause" to suspect someone is an illegal alien. How do they do that? I guess if they look poor and brown.
Vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.
I laughed. So sue me.
Yeah but, what are you basing that on? The law says lawful contact first, then suspicion. That the media says suspicion then contact doesn't mean that's what the law says.
Srsly, show me something official that says suspicion first and I'll be pissed right along with ya.
Yeah but, the actual law says "for any lawful contact by law enforcement" which, as far as I know, is not having a cop walk up to anyone they want on the street and demand ID. That's what I wanted to know about before getting upset.
It's all about how the initial contact is made.
In fact, the law does now allow a cop to walk up to anyone on the street and demand ID by criminalizing "trespassing" to a much higher level...to mean standing on any public or private property (assuming one is here illegally)...from a city park to a 7-11 store, you can now be charged with "trespassing"...if the cop thinks (no standard) that one is suspicious, he charges "trespassing" and the burden of proof is on the victim to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident.
The law is fraught with Constitutional issues, from the supremacy clause to 4th and 14th amendment issues.
I dont think it can stand up to the test...but time will tell.
added: a member of Congress, Brian Bilbray (R-CA) offered his perspective on determining "suspicion":
[INDENT]"They (cops) can look at the kind of dress you wear, there’s different type of attire, there’s different type of…right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes."[/INDENT]
One would hope the AZ law enforcement community has a tougher standard...but the fact is, there is no standard.
hmm. it's a chicken and egg question, really.
I looked at the law here, and it doesn't really go into that, except to say that they can stop a car if there's a traffic violation, and then ask about immigrant status.
The AZ law creates a new definition of trespassing:
[INDENT]A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
[/INDENT]
It gives law enforcement the legal cover to apprehend "suspicious" persons....with no legal standard of what constitutes suspicious.
Think about it...any person in AZ can now be charged with trespassing by simply standing on any public or private property IF (#2) they cannot prove (by carrying papers at all times) they are a citizen or legal resident.
I see what you're saying... but not quite. *Any* person cannot be charged, because the code is specific to aliens, presumably legal, but in violation of the trespassing law to some degree, either by being illegal or by not having their papers on them.
I see what you're saying... but not quite. *Any* person cannot be charged, because the code is specific to aliens, presumably legal, but in violation of the trespassing law to some degree, either by being illegal or by not having their papers on them.
Right...but the burden of proof is now on the person to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident and NOT on the cop to have reasonable doubt that the person isnt.
This goes way beyond stopping someone for a traffic violation or a civil disturbance and then, secondarily checking citizenship status. It is using the cover of trespassing to force a person to prove his legal status.
IMO, its highly questionable that this is constitutional.
until someone has to pay for amputation and prosthetics.
The Mexican Government?
any person in AZ can now be charged with trespassing by simply standing on any public or private property IF (#2) they cannot prove (by carrying papers at all times) they are a citizen or legal resident.
Sounds like a great plan. They need to either buy more buses or build bigger holding facilities..
Jinx, Cloud, skysidhe, don't waste your time. :rolleyes:
BTW, I think it would nice for a change if you (all) hold Merc to the same standard applied to others....most recently, Shawnee.
I'll leave it at that.
BTW, I think it would nice for a change if you (all) hold Merc to the same standard applied to others....most recently, Shawnee.
I'll leave it at that.
What are you talking about. I merely made a statement. Mine the borders, force people to use legal means of access and then address the issue of illegals who are here.
What is the problem?
We all undergo increased security in airports and for some reason it's tolerated. I don't like it, but it is a special heightened secure area. This new law applies to walking down the sidewalk, driving down the road. This is every day life. This isn't a couple times a year of standing in a line and being frisked in a place where you have the option to go.
That was the most blatant example - not the only one.
When Dazza was in the US last year he was inspected very thoroughly at every airport he had to pass through. The only thing he could put it down to was the fact that he had a pretty shaggy beard. He didn't care much except when it almost caused him to miss a connecting flight.
What are you talking about. I merely made a statement. Mine the borders, force people to use legal means of access and then address the issue of illegals who are here.
What is the problem?
I was not referencing this particular thread, but your posts throughout.
If one wants to comment on a poster being
"pissed off all the time" ... or
"hate away" (uh Nazi references, whores/cunts/scumbags....) or providing proof when questioned....one should be consistent.
Glatt has a point. But the reality is that we alreay face increased levels of security in many places where we neve did before.
But if you have never visited other countries, other than the US, it would be obvious that people would find it not natural. Even in the mid 1990's European security was much higher than ours, as well as that in the Orient. That was my experience anyway.
I was not referencing this particular thread, but your posts throughout.
If one wants to comment on a poster being "pissed off all the time" (uh Nazi references, whores/cunts/scumbags....) ... or "hate away" or providing proof when questioned....one should be consistent.
Sort of like the latest Demoncratic comments or those of the former head of ACORN?
whores/cunts/scumbags
Oh, you must mean Pelosi, Reid, and the Demoncrats currently in charge of Congress... I get it. Carry on. :)
Redux, I know you hate Merc. I don't care.
Redux, I know you hate Merc. I don't care.
I dont hate Merc...I think he and the double standards of some here are a joke.
If you want to accuse Shawnee of "hating away" and ignore Merc's hateful posts, that is your choice, just as it is mine to point out the double standard.
About this whole stopping people in the street, I personally can see both sides of the coin, but what it would come down to for me is that if you're in the country legally, you've got nothing to worry about.
I wouldn't have a problem with that happening over here, and it's not that I'm against immigration or refugees. It's simply because if people are here, they should be registered for healthcare and taxation etc so that they can contribute to our society.
People worry about too many refugees coming into Australia from or through Asia to the north lately, but I feel in all honesty that our nation - being pretty wealthy in comparison to most - that we could afford to help more. I am definitely against illegal immigration though. Not only for the reasons stated above, but also because of diseases both to our people but also our native flora and fauna which is precious.
I dont hate Merc...I think he and the double standards of some here are a joke.
Should we laugh now?
About this whole stopping people in the street, I personally can see both sides of the coin, but what it would come down to for me is that if you're in the country legally, you've got nothing to worry about.
I wouldn't have a problem with that happening over here, and it's not that I'm against immigration or refugees. It's simply because if people are here, they should be registered for healthcare and taxation etc so that they can contribute to our society.
People worry about too many refugees coming into Australia from or through Asia to the north lately, but I feel in all honesty that our nation - being pretty wealthy in comparison to most - that we could afford to help more. I am definitely against illegal immigration though. Not only for the reasons stated above, but also because of diseases both to our people but also our native flora and fauna which is precious.
I can't agree more.
But first we need to snap the borders shut.
Then we deal with those who are already here.
About this whole stopping people in the street, I personally can see both sides of the coin, but what it would come down to for me is that if you're in the country legally, you've got nothing to worry about.
You can say the same thing about wiretapping...:if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Except for the Constitution.
I dont hate Merc...I think he and the double standards of some here are a joke.
If you want to accuse Shawnee of "hating away" and ignore Merc's hateful posts, that is your choice, just as it is mine to point out the double standard.
Knock yourself out, really, I don't care. I'll write my posts, thx.
You can say the same thing about wiretapping...:if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Except for the Constitution.
The Constitution deals with American Citizens. Not people from Poland, not people from Russia, not people from Mexico.
Knock yourself out, really, I don't care. I'll write my posts, thx.
You're welcome. :)
The Constitution deals with American Citizens. Not people from Poland, not people from Russia, not people from Mexico.
Since when?
You can say the same thing about wiretapping...:if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Except for the Constitution.
My views on wiretapping are basically the same. Unless you're plotting something they're going to have a pretty boring old time listening to most people's private conversations.
Our constitution is a bit different to yours, and most people here don't have the same sort of views about it as people in the US. In fact, most people just want to live their life and do their thing and not worry about too much at all. People mostly don't even bother getting involved unless it affects them directly.
BTW, I think it would nice for a change if you (all) hold Merc to the same standard applied to others....most recently, Shawnee.
I'll leave it at that.
Just what the fuck is your problem?
Since when?
Since the Fourteenth Amendment in July 9, 1868.
Just what the fuck is your problem?
Double standards.....you're pissed that I pointed it out?
Is that strike two?
Since the Fourteenth Amendment in July 9, 1868.
uh, NO.
holy moley Cloud. Now look what you've done! lol
uh, NO.
Well, yea. States rights.
Show me anywhere that the US Constitution, Preamble, or Bill of Rights extends Rights to any person outside of the borders of the US that is not a US Citizen... Have at it. Legal scholars have been debating this for over 100 years. No one has proven it to be a fact to date. A Russian from Russian does not have the same rights to our Constitution as a US citizen.
The Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2008 that detainees in Gitmo have the enshrined right to habeas corpus......just the latest example of rights guaranteed to non-citizens.
The Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2008 that detainees in Gitmo have the enshrined right to habeas corpus......just the latest example of rights guaranteed to non-citizens.
Detainees in Gitmo are not illegal aliens, who entered this country illegally, against our current laws. Fail.
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
Detainees in Gitmo are not illegal aliens, who entered this country illegally, against our current laws. Fail.
Right...the detainees were charged with a crime against the US that were far worse than unlawful entry into the US.
Non-citizens have protected rights...it is not a states rights issue.
Right...the detainees were charged with a crime against the US that were far worse than unlawful entry into the US.
Non-citizens have protected rights...it is not a states rights issue.
Enemy Combatants. Apples and Oranges. You really are a political idiot.
Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code had nothing to do with the Enemy Combantant of Gitmo.
Wait.... wait for it....
Obama Promised to close Gitmo... Why the fuck has your President not closed it yet? As he promised? He fails as well. Again.
Non-citizens have protected rights...it is not a states rights issue.
Non-citizens have no rights and should have none. They should be deported to their country of origin. All of them. Including those at Gitmo. Immediately. Close Gitmo NOW. And send them all back to their country of origin immediately. You agree right?
Right of Non-citizens is to abide by our laws or go home.
Non-citizens have no rights and should have none. They should be deported to their country of origin//.
The Bill of Rights applies to "all persons"....the same for subsequent amendments unless specifically limited.
Period...end of story.
Ya, I agree with that.
It's not for the state to decide who it will extend constitutional rights to.
The Bill of Rights applies to "all persons" unless specifically specified otherwise.
Period...end of story.
Fail again.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).
We the People of the United States..
Not we the people of every swinging dick country in the world; not we the people of the US and Russia; not we the people of the US and Mexico; no, we the people of the United States...
Yick Wo v Hopkins, 1886
....Even though the Chinese laundry owners were usually not American citizens, the court ruled they were still entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[INDENT]“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”[/INDENT]
The rights of non-citizens have been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions since then....when the rights are limited to citizens (ie right to vote or hold office), the Constitution makes a clear distinction between citizens and "the people".
Sorry, 1886 is a total fail.
See recent laws in AZ. :lol2:
The popular nature of the Constitution
The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social compact, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution.
Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, citizenship of the United States. The requirements have become more explicit since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with the most recent changes to statutory law having been made by the United States Congress in 2001.
Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states have the right to participate in the political system of the United States, as well as their state and local governments (with most states having restrictions on voting by persons convicted of felonies, and a federal constitutional prohibition on naturalized persons running for President and Vice President of the United States), to be represented and protected abroad by the United States (through U.S. embassies and consulates), and to reside in the United States and certain territories without any immigration requirements.
Not "Citizens of Russia"; Not "Citizens of Mexico"; Not "Citizens of Albania"; Not " Citizens of Canada"...
Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution
expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Right...the US Congress has the sole power....not the states.
Thanks for pointing that out. :)
This, along with the
Supremacy Clause and the 4th and 14th amendment issues all come into play on the constitutionality of the AZ law.
It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity. If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?
eta: by people I mean ordinary people who post on forums online. Scholars who study the constitution, and even judges who award rulings different to those in the past even though they may be referencing the same section of the constitution.
It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity. If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?
There are some issues that are not that ambiguous based on overwhelming Supreme Court precedents, including guaranteed rights to non-citizens.
But, ultimately, the Court will decide.
If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how. Even if it gets the Demoncrats more illegal voters.:)
None of your cites makes any swinging dick who falls across the border a "CITIZEN OF the United States of America". Go back to High School and learn some Gobbernment 101. :lol:
eta: by people I mean ordinary people who post on forums online. Scholars who study the constitution, and even judges who award rulings different to those in the past even though they may be referencing the same section of the constitution.
And even they disagree.
If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how. Even if it gets the Demoncrats more illegal voters.:)
None of your cites makes any swinging dick who falls across the border a "CITIZEN OF the United States of America". Go back to High School and learn some Gobbernment 101. :lol:
Please point out where I stated that they would have the rights of citizens or it makes them citizens?
I said the Constitution distinguishes between the rights of "the people" including non-citizens, as the Court has affirmed on numerous occasions over the last 200 years, and rights of citizens.
Yes that seems to be the case.
The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.
Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.
eta: of course, the onus really is on the court to prove guilt rather than the prisoner needing to prove their innocence, but that doesn't seem to be the case in gitmo either.
Please point out where I stated that they would have the rights of citizens?
I said the Constitution distinguishes between the rights of the people and rights of citizens.
The Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, not for the Citizens of Canada, not for the Citizens of Poland, not for the Citzens of Mexico.
People here
Illegally are not Citizens, therefore our Constitution does not apply. Period.
Yes that seems to be the case.
The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.
The Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent which limits the interpretation of any one justice.
Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.
It took the Supreme Court awhile, but it did affirm the prisoners at Gitmo do have constitutional rights, albeit limited because of their status as prisoners of war.
Yes I understand that.
It doesn't stop the average joe from trying to make an unmakable point though does it?
The Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent which limits the interpretation of any one justice.
It took the Supreme Court awhile, but it did affirm the prisoners at Gitmo do have constitutional rights, albeit limited because of their status as prisoners of war.
Nor does it make Enemy Combatants in Gitmo "Citzens" who have all the Rights afforded under our Constitution. That is not what the Supreme Court said. Nice try....
Yes I understand that.
It doesn't stop the average joe from trying to make an unmakable point though does it?
Nope...it sure doesnt.
The fact remains that the US, like the constitutions in nearly every democratic country in the world treat "the people" as meaning more than just citizens.
That is probably the case in Australia; if not, it would be the exception.
Nope...it sure doesnt.
The fact remains that the US, like the constitutions in nearly every democratic country in the world treat "the people" as meaning more than just citizens.
That is probably the case in Australia; if not, it would be the exception.
But yet it does not make them "Citizens" now does it? Nor does our Constitution provide for such.
Nor does it make Enemy Combatants in Gitmo "Citzens" who have all the Rights afforded under our Constitution. That is not what the Supreme Court said. Nice try....
Again, I never said that prisoners in Gitmo have the same rights as citizens.
I said the Court affirmed that they have some basic rights of "the people", including habeus corpus.
Why has Obama failed to close Gitmo as he promised?
Again, I never said that prisoners in Gitmo have the same rights as citizens.
I said the Court affirmed that they have some basic rights of "the people", including habeus corpus.
They have "limited" Rights, nothing more nothing less. I would agree they should just close Gitmo. But Obama has failed to follow through on this promise.
But yet it does not make them "Citizens" now does it? Nor does our Constitution provide for such.
You keep raising a point that I never made.
I never said anything about making them citizens or suggested that the Constitution provides the same rights as citizens.
I guess you are just unwilling to accept the basic Constitutional rights of "the people" as opposed to the specified rights of citizens.
You keep raising a point that I never made. I never said anything about making them citizens.
I guess you are just unwilling to accept the basic Constitutional rights of "the people" as opposed to the specified rights of citizens.
And you raised the parallel between Enemy Combatants in Gitmo and illegal aliens. Apples and Oranges. There is no comparison.
Constitutional scholars have not supported your notions.
Constitutional scholars have not supported your notions.
In fact, 200 years of precedent support my notions regarding the application of the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments, unless otherwise specified) to non-citizens.
I never said anything about making them citizens or suggested that the Constitution provides the same rights as citizens.
I did. Our Constitution only provides Rights to Citizens.
I guess you are just unwilling to accept the basic Constitutional rights of "the people" as opposed to the specified rights of citizens.
"The People" has been established to pertain to "Citizens"... :lol:
In fact, 200 years of precedent support my notions regarding the application of the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments, unless otherwise specified) to non-citizens.
Ok, show me where in the words of the Constitution does it state that it pertains to let's say, Citizens of Turkey.
Go!
I did. Our Constitution only provides Rights to Citizens.
"The People" has been established to pertain to "Citizens"... :lol:
As I cited earlier, The Supreme Court, starting with
Vick Wo v Hopkins says otherwise.
[INDENT]Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[/INDENT]
And there have been numerous affirmations since then.
Please cite ONE case where the Supreme Court said that the term "the people" as expressed in the Constitution only applies to citizens.
As I cited earlier, The Supreme Court, starting with Vick Wo v Hopkins says otherwise.
[INDENT]Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[/INDENT]
And there have been numerous affirmations since then.
None of those state that the US Constitution applies to non-citizens. Sorry.
So if I come to the US and allegedly commit a crime, do I not have the right to innocence until proven guilt?
None of those state that the US Constitution applies to non-citizens. Sorry.
It sure does.
Read the words directly from the Court's decision:
[INDENT]
“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”[/INDENT]
So if I come to the US and allegedly commit a crime, do I not have the right to innocence until proven guilt?
Sure you do, and you have the Right to go to jail, and then be deported. Limited Rights.
So if I come to the US and allegedly commit a crime, do I not have the right to innocence until proven guilt?
You have a right to free speech, a right to be protected from search and seizure, the right to habeus corpus, the right to equal protection under the law, etc.
Sure you do, and you have the Right to go to jail, and then be deported. Limited Rights.
Well, provided I was proven guilty of course.
You have a right to free speech, a right to be protected from search and seizure, the right to habeus corpus, etc.
Yes but only if there's no evidence to suggest I've committed a crime, otherwise the police have the right to search as much as they like, just like a US citizen.
the sexual tension between merc and redux is alarming.
when they finally have sex, there will be earthquakes a plenty.
Yes but only if there's no evidence to suggest I've committed a crime, otherwise the police have the right to search as much as they like, just like a US citizen.
The right to search and seizure is limited in the same manner for non-citizens and citizens.....probable cause.
Yep, that's pretty much what I said. They need evidence to suggest I've committed the crime in order to collect more evidence. :)
Yep, that's pretty much what I said. They need evidence to suggest I've committed the crime in order to collect more evidence. :)
And, with a few exceptions (not related to citizenship status), they need a warrant as well. Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause.
It sure does.
Read the words directly from the Court's decision:
[INDENT]“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”[/INDENT]
As I stated the law of the late 1880's is no longer valid, nor does it make all persons in the US "Citizens" under our Constitution.
http://www.law.illinois.edu/lrev/publications/2000s/2008/2008_5/Bernstein.pdfAnd, with a few exceptions (not related to citizenship status), they need a warrant as well. Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause.
But it would be very easy to set up a road block and stop all persons. Pretty easy get around IMHO. I will send them an email as a suggestion.
the sexual tension between merc and redux is alarming.
when they finally have sex, there will be earthquakes a plenty.
Only if he wears his Burka. :lol2:
Well, provided I was proven guilty of course.
Of course. And if you were detained and found to be here illegally you should be deported, as I would if I was in found to be in Aus illegally. And we should support our police to do the same.
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the nation's busiest border crossing point. Its remote desert expanses serve as the illegal gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
The state's new sweeping measure requires police officers to determine the status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are illegal immigrants, and to arrest those who are unable to provide documents proving they are in the country legally.
Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent in the 2008 presidential race, said Mr Obama should sanction 6,000 additional security forces for the border if he wanted Arizona to avoid laws he disapproved of.
Speaking in Phoenix, Arizona, Sen McCain said: "That way the Arizona legislature would not have to enact the legislation they have had to do because of the federal government's failure to carry out its responsibility, which is to secure the border." Sen McCain has called the proposed law a "good tool" without offering a strong endorsement.
Republican Senator Russell Pearce, who sponsored the Arizona law, said it would remove "political handcuffs" from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.
Arizona is in crisis. I think this article sums up a really hard position Arizona has had to take but one that is needed.
And, with a few exceptions (not related to citizenship status), they need a warrant as well. Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause.
Yes, I've seen that on law and order. :D
Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause
The wording here made me laugh. It almost suggests that cops aren't very smart and 'just need a little help sometimes'. lol
As I stated the law of the late 1880's is no longer valid, nor does it make all persons in the US "Citizens" under our Constitution.
http://www.law.illinois.edu/lrev/publications/2000s/2008/2008_5/Bernstein.pdf
Why do you keep insisting on raise the false issue of making persons in the US "citizens"
I never said that and the Court never said that.
And the view of one attorney has not prevented the Court from citing Wo and other similar cases as precedent to affirm equal protection under the law for non-citizens.
I'm done.
Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause.
:lol2:
You don't know very many cops do you.
Of course. And if you were detained and found to be here illegally you should be deported, as I would if I was in found to be in Aus illegally. And we should support our police to do the same.
Well if you were here illegally and declared yourself a refugee, you'd have to spend a fair amount of time in a refugee camp before anything would happen to you.
Supporters say SB1070 helps secure the border, at least indirectly, by making it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny in Arizona. "When the federal government failed to act, Arizonans did," says J.D. Hayworth, a former Representative who is challenging Senator John McCain in the Republican primary. "[Arizonans] have been asking for years to have the federal government secure that border."
Largely because of that frustration, polls showed that a wide majority of Arizona's voters backed SB1070. And although Hispanics are thought to be about 30% of the general population, they are only 12% of the electorate,
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1984432,00.html#ixzz0mGq2vyFAWhy do you keep insisting on raise the false issue of making persons in the US "citizens"
I never said that and the Court never said that.
And the view of one attorney has not prevented the Court from citing Wo and other similar cases as precedent to affirm equal protection under the law for non-citizens.
I'm done.
"Non-Citizens" do not have the same rights as "Citizens" under our Constitution. That is the only point. They have limited Rights.
Well if you were here illegally and declared yourself a refugee, you'd have to spend a fair amount of time in a refugee camp before anything would happen to you.
See now that is what we need!
Refugee Camps. Just like in Hong Kong. And I have been to two of them.
Do you think the Bleeding Hearts on here would support that idea? :D
I don't know, but all of ours are full and K rudd wants to close our borders to refugees which is causing an uproar.
I think they should get moving and process the current refugees and either grant them citizenship or send them home. Some of them have to stay in these camps for years which I think is insupportable. Mind you, they do have access to all the mod cons, but still, they are in a prison, and that's not right for lengthy periods.
Every country has its own problems with this issue. Our major one is that most of the people come through Indonesia, and the Indonesian government really isn't that interested in halting their progress there because Ind is not their final destination. Australia is.
They're better off being caught by Australian authorities than Australian fishermen though. They have a much higher chance of survival that's for sure.
Cops cant determine on their own that they have probable cause.
One of my friends, whose dad is a cop, told me he was driving with his dad in Brooklyn near their house when his dad spotted a couple of kids walking down the street wearing baggy pants, long chain wallets, new flat ball caps (they prolly have a name) etc. That kind of outfit.
His dad says to him, "Ya see that? That's probable cause! I could search them."
My friend just cracked up.
The 1886 Supreme Court case Yick Wo v. Hopkins is often viewed as a precursor of the racial civil rights era represented by Brown v. Board of Education. In fact, the case was primarily about economic rights. In a new article, Unexplainable on Grounds of Race: Doubts About Yick Wo,* forthcoming in the Illinois Law Review, Professor Gabriel Chin argues that Yick Wo "is not a race case at all." I argue that it is a "race case" because the Court's use of the Fourteenth Amendment to vindicate economic rights necessarily entangled economic rights with race - in an ultimately pernicious way. While issues of "race" in American law tend to focus on nonwhiteness, the "race" of the Chinese plaintiffs in Yick Wo was legally significant in its nonblackness. The Reconstruction Court had previously refused to apply the Amendment to whites or to economic rights in The Slaughter-House Cases. But Yick Wo both revived the literal meaning of the Amendment's phrase "all persons" and applied it to economic rights. It thus ushered in a two-pronged civil rights counter-revolution symbolized by Lochner v. New York's protection of economic "substantive due process" for white persons and corporations and Plessy v. Ferguson's denial of civil rights protection to blacks. The counter-revolution also turned against the nonblack nonwhites who had helped create it, allowing the exclusion of Asians from immigration and naturalization, state laws prohibiting Asians from owning land, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
"Non-Citizens" do not have the same rights as "Citizens" under our Constitution. That is the only point. They have limited Rights.
And earlier in the discussion, you said that the
Constitution only applies to citizens. and the
Constitution deals with American citizens.
And that is factually and legally incorrect.
And earlier in the discussion, you said that the Constitution only applies to citizens.
And that is factually and legally incorrect.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Denying your own posts now?
You changed your argument in midstream...from the Constitution "only applies to citizens" and "only deals with citizens" to there are different rights for non-citizens and citizens.
Your first argument failed by any legal standard, so I understand why you changed in midstream. :)
Denying your own posts now?
You changed your argument in midstream...from the Constitution "only applies to citizens" and "only deals with citizens" to there are different rights for non-citizens and citizens.
Your first argument is wrong and I understand why you changed in midstream.
All your reference stated was that they could not deny the individual the right to run a laundry and collect funds because he happened to be Chinese. It did not, however, state that the US Constitution applies to all persons who are non-citizens. That was not a finding of the Court.
And why did you try to apply the findings of the Gitmo Combatants to the Rights under our Constitution? There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges.
All your reference stated was that they could not deny the individual the right to run a laundry and collect funds because he happened to be Chinese. It did not, however, state that the US Constitution applies to all persons who are non-citizens. That was not a finding of the Court.
What part of the Court's finding (that is still cited as precedent) dont you understand:
[INDENT]“T
he rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.
It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction , without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”[/INDENT]
And why did you try to apply the findings of the Gitmo Combatants to the Rights under our Constitution? There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges.
Both are non-residents and the
Court referenced substantive guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in Wo in the Gitmo case.
Thatssss all for now, Justice Merc.
Well-known Douglas-area rancher is found slain
A longtime rancher was killed on his Douglas-area property over the weekend, and neighbors worried that his homicide was connected to increasing border-related crime in the area.
The Cochise County Sheriff's Office offered little information into the late-Saturday shooting death of 58-year-old Robert Krentz, whose family began the Krentz Ranch more than 100 years ago.
Krentz's body was found on his land, which is about 35 miles northeast of Douglas, just before midnight Saturday, said Carol Capas, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Office.
The Sheriff's Office, aided by the U.S. Border Patrol, had no suspects Sunday and continued to follow leads, Capas said. She declined to comment on reports from neighbors and border activists that Krentz's death was related to smuggling in the area.
Area residents said Krentz had no enemies, and they could think of no motive for his death other than the possibility it was related to what they called the growing level of crime in the area related to illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.
Tom Tancredo, a former U.S. representative from Colorado, was visiting ranchers near Douglas to discuss border issues when he heard of Krentz's death.
Tancredo said he and Krentz were friends and that he was "a mild-mannered guy" who was known for providing illegal immigrants with food and water.
Tancredo and Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said Krentz phoned a family member Saturday afternoon to say he was out near his watering hole, providing one or more illegal immigrants with aid.
That's the last his family heard from him, Simcox and Tancredo said.
"He looked the other way so often," Tancredo said. "It's so ironic that he, of all people, got murdered."
If Krentz's killing was caused by an illegal immigrant or a drug smuggler, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Omar Candelaria said, it would be a first for the area, to his recollection.
"We haven't seen any instances of illegal immigrants or drug smugglers attacking U.S. citizens," Candelaria said.
Others who live nearby were unwilling to disclose their names when they spoke about the homicide Sunday because, they said, they were afraid of possible repercussions. A person at the Krentz home also declined to comment.
In a 1999 PBS interview, Robert Krentz and his wife, Susan, said illegal immigrants once stole property from their ranch, but that incident didn't stop him from aiding other trespassers.
"You know, we've personally been broke in once. And they took about $700 worth of stuff. And you know, if they come in and ask for water, I'll still give them water. I, you know, that's just my nature," Krentz was quoted as saying in written transcripts of the interview.
The longtime rancher's homicide already has caught U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' attention.
Sometime this week, the Arizona Democrat will travel to Douglas for a briefing on the homicide, said Giffords' spokesman, C.J. Karamargin.
"Rob Krentz was a pillar of the Cochise County ranching community," Giffords said in a press release. "He will be greatly missed."
The Krentz family's cattle ranch was inducted into the Arizona Farming and Ranching Hall of Fame in 2008. The family started the ranch in 1907.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_bfac06dd-7495-5750-9ed2-d590c7bc913c.htmlBoth are non-residents and the in the Gitmo case.
No where did they state that the Enemy Combatants were citzens and afforded all the Rights under our Constitution, only limited Rights.
What part of the Court's finding (that is still cited as precedent) dont you understand...
What part of the fact do you not understand that it only deals with economic renumeration? A limited Right.
Thatssss all for now, Justice Merc.
:lol2: If I were a Justice we would not have to discuss this case...
It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity.
Not really. Most people interpret the constitution correctly. Retarded people, like merc, on the other hand, say that the constitution says what
they want it to say, regardless of reality.
If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?
...
Conservative brain washing/damage.
If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how...
But it
does give them rights. Hey, didn't you already post that it
doesn't give them rights? Which is it, moron?
The Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, not for the Citizens of Canada, not for the Citizens of Poland, not for the Citzens of Mexico.
...
Let me get this straight. If a Canadian citizen is in the United States, s/he can be arrested merely if s/he criticizes the governent? This person has no right to free speech?
Only if he wears his Burka. :lol2:
It's about time you came out of the closet. Although getting it in the butt by a guy who wears a burka is a really kinky fetish.
:turd:
But it does give them rights. Hey, didn't you already post that it doesn't give them rights? Which is it, moron?
Limited.
:turd:Let me get this straight. If a Canadian citizen is in the United States, s/he can be arrested merely if s/he criticizes the governent? This person has no right to free speech?
When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?
and meanwhile, I'm just sitting on my porch watching The Most Dangerous City on Earth . . . from a distance (and frowning at thread drift)
...When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?
According to you, illegal immigrants could be, since they have no constitutional rights. You've lost this one in a big way, moron. I suggest you go back under the rock you came from.
According to you, illegal immigrants could be, since they have no constitutional rights. You've lost this one in a big way, moron. I suggest you go back under the rock you came from.
...When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?
Bottom line, no one is getting arrested in the US for criticizing the gobberment.
Bottom line, no one is getting arrested in the US for criticizing the gobberment.
Because the constitution gives that right to EVERYBODY, whether they are citizens or not. Case closed, thank you for that proof, I accept your apology.
and meanwhile, I'm just sitting on my porch watching The Most Dangerous City on Earth . . . from a distance (and frowning at thread drift)
I know,
Before I read your post I was thinking maybe they could make their own constitutional issues thread.
It is a very important current event happening and we have to listen to people argue the constitution. I mean one dig or two ok but hogging the whole subject with one upmanship is annoying.
lol @ hogging. Yes I really talk like a tard. :P
Well perhaps this will help to get back on track. . .
The crux of opponents' arguments is that only the federal government has the authority to regulate immigration.
"If every state had its own laws, we wouldn't be one country; we'd be 50 different countries," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Wait ... what? Every state has its own laws now.
Kevin Johnson, dean of the law school at the University of California-Davis and an immigration law professor, said such a lawsuit would have a very good chance of success. He said the state law gets into legal trouble by giving local law enforcement officers the authority to enforce immigration laws.
"States can't give them that power," Johnson said. "The federal government could if it wanted to, but it hasn't."
However, Gerald Neuman, a Harvard Law School professor, said Arizona could make a compelling legal argument that it has overlapping authority to protect its residents.
Johnson said opponents could also argue that the law could violate their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure because it gives police officers broad authority to determine who should be questioned.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the Arizona legislation, said he anticipated legal challenges and carefully drafted the language. He said the state law is only prohibiting conduct already illegal under federal law.
...or not.
LinkBecause the constitution gives that right to EVERYBODY, whether they are citizens or not. Case closed, thank you for that proof, I accept your apology.
:lol2:
20 people were gunned down in the streets in Juarez yesterday. Some are calling it "Black Wednesday."
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14980973That sounds frightful, Cloud. I am sorry you have to be so close to that.
well, I don't feel as safe as I used to around here
Because the constitution gives that right to EVERYBODY, whether they are citizens or not. Case closed, thank you for that proof, I accept your apology.
So you still fail to answer the question.
Why do you support Human Trafficing of people across our borders?
American and European leftists share the conviction that the immigrant, legal or illegal, is always right -- and the native-born citizen's always wrong.
This bigotry toward the law-abiding American, Brit, Frenchman or Italian doesn't help the immigrant in the end. Instead, it's a powerful engine driving divisiveness.
There are deep differences between Europe's experience with legal immigrants intent on importing intolerant lifestyles and our problem with illegals responsible for social friction and violent criminality.
But the left's blame-game is identical: Anyone who doesn't elevate the "rights" of the immigrant over the rights, safety and desires of the citizen is a bigot. No exceptions. Could there be a formula better designed to excite anti-immigrant sentiment?
continues:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/blaming_the_citizen_RXEVoCdMKmfm5mPSxqBWfL
But the left's blame-game is identical: Anyone who doesn't elevate the "rights" of the immigrant [SIZE="4"]over [/SIZE]the rights, safety and desires of the citizen is a bigot. No exceptions.
I disagree with that word - I think "the left" (whoever that is) wants them to be
equal to, not
over.
Could there be a formula better designed to excite anti-immigrant sentiment?
Yeh keep publishing opinion pieces like this from "the right"
So you still fail to answer the question.
Why do you support Human Trafficing of people across our borders?
[CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="Red"][FONT="Impact"]FAIL![/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER]
Move along loser. You proved my point, don't try putting words in my mouth.
American and European leftists share the conviction that the immigrant, legal or illegal, is always right -- and the native-born citizen's always wrong.
This bigotry toward the law-abiding American, Brit, Frenchman or Italian doesn't help the immigrant in the end. Instead, it's a powerful engine driving divisiveness.
There are deep differences between Europe's experience with legal immigrants intent on importing intolerant lifestyles and our problem with illegals responsible for social friction and violent criminality.
But the left's blame-game is identical: Anyone who doesn't elevate the "rights" of the immigrant over the rights, safety and desires of the citizen is a bigot. No exceptions. Could there be a formula better designed to excite anti-immigrant sentiment?
F A I L
Given that there are deep differences, I have no idea why Europe has even been mentioned.
Our current immigration problems are also due to
illegal immigration (mostly Chinese and African workers being smuggled in and controlled by traffickers), or legal working immigrants from the EU that people fear are taking all the low paid jobs.
Very occasionally you might hear about fears of terrorism from Muslims, but even then it is British born Muslims. Mostly, people complain about the white Christian Europeans undercutting British builders/ plumbers/ cleaners etc.
This doesn't add anything to the previous discussion, but where the situation in this country is misrepresented I think it's worth correcting. And no, we don't have any reasonable answers. Except the BNP. Who want to see British citizens of foreign descent shipped back to where they came from. That's Grandad back to Ireland for sure. I'll keep you up to date on whether that filters down to Mum, my siblings & niece & nephew.
wow. this is a new low--kidnapped from your own wedding right out of the church:
A groom kidnapped by gunmen during a wedding at a Juárez church is reportedly from a small community in New Mexico.
The kidnapped groom, Rafael Morales, is from La Mesa, located between El Paso and Las Cruces, Channel 9-KTSM (cable Channel 10) reported on Sunday.
Morales, his brother Jaime Morales and their uncle Guadalupe Morales were taken away after gunmen burst into the wedding ceremony on Friday evening at El Señor de la Misericordia Catholic church. The men remain missing.
. . .
Moments after the brazen kidnapping, family members were outraged at the inability of law enforcement to curb the city's crime wave and the lack of respect shown by criminals in breaching a religious service, according to numerous news accounts out of Juárez.
"The police don't do anything, the (expletive) soldiers don't do anything. They spend all day going in circles and where are they now," a woman at the ceremony complained to reporters. "... People are tired of this Juárez."
A family member told reporters the wedding took place in Juárez because that is where the bride wanted it . . .
poor choice, girl.
Vt. farmer draws a line at US bid to bolster border
Homeland Security threatens to seize 4.9 acres
FRANKLIN, Vt. — The red brick house sits unassumingly on a sleepy back road where the lush farmlands of northern Vermont roll quietly into Canada. This is the Morses Line border crossing, a point of entry into the United States where more than three cars an hour constitute heavy traffic.
It intends to acquire 4.9 acres of border land on a dairy farm owned for three generations by the Rainville family. Last month, the Rainvilles learned that if they refuse to sell the land for $39,500, the government intends to seize it by eminent domain.
The Rainvilles call this an unjustified land-grab by federal bullies.
* Home /
* News /
* Local /
* Vt.
The Boston Globe
Vt. farmer draws a line at US bid to bolster border
Homeland Security threatens to seize 4.9 acres
Clement Rainville (right) and his family at Morses Line, part of Franklin, Vt. They say they need to keep the land to grow hay for their farm’s dairy herd. Clement Rainville (right) and his family at Morses Line, part of Franklin, Vt. They say they need to keep the land to grow hay for their farm’s dairy herd. (Herb Swanson for The Boston Globe)
By David Filipov
Globe Staff / May 17, 2010
E-mail this article
To:
Invalid E-mail address
Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail:
Invalid E-mail address
Sending your article
Your article has been sent.
* E-mail|
* Print|
* Reprints|
* Yahoo! Buzz|
* ShareThis
Text size – +
FRANKLIN, Vt. — The red brick house sits unassumingly on a sleepy back road where the lush farmlands of northern Vermont roll quietly into Canada. This is the Morses Line border crossing, a point of entry into the United States where more than three cars an hour constitute heavy traffic.
Discuss
COMMENTS (529)
The bucolic setting of silos and sugar maples has become the focus of a bitter dispute that pits one of America’s most revered traditions — the family-owned farm — against the post-9/11 reality of terror attacks on US soil.
The Department of Homeland Security sees Morses Line as a weak link in the nation’s borders, attractive to terrorists trying to smuggle in lethal materials. The government is planning an estimated $8 million renovation here as part of a nationwide effort to secure border crossings.
It intends to acquire 4.9 acres of border land on a dairy farm owned for three generations by the Rainville family. Last month, the Rainvilles learned that if they refuse to sell the land for $39,500, the government intends to seize it by eminent domain.
The Rainvilles call this an unjustified land-grab by federal bullies.
“They are trying to steamroll us,’’ said Brian Rainville, 36, a high school government and civics teacher whose grandfather bought the farm in 1946 and whose parents and two brothers run it now. “We have a buyer holding a gun to our head saying you have to sell or else.’’
The Rainvilles say the land, where they grow a portion of the feed for 150 head of cattle, is worth far more than the offer, and is critical at a time when the low price of milk has dairy farmers struggling to cover the cost of production.
“It’s like taking a leg off a stool. If you reduce the hay, you reduce the herd; if you reduce the herd, you immediately affect the viability of the farm,’’ Brian Rainville said. “Last year, the farm lost money. Right now, we are hanging on by our fingernails.’’
The family’s many supporters in the area do not dispute that the Morses Line facility, some 50 miles southeast of Montreal, is outdated. But they do not understand why the government needs to spend millions on it.
“The whole thing is a perfect example of waste,’’ said Glen Gurwit of Swanton, a customs inspector for 31 years who frequently worked at Morses Line before retiring in 2004.
Link
Instead of dealing with the issue in AZ where [COLOR="Red"]MANY [/COLOR]of illegal aliens come thru, they decide to pick off this little farm in the middle-of-nowhere VT.
What does the Dept of Homeland Security know about this place that the public doesn't? This makes no sense.
well, we don't know the gov'ts reasoning (if they have any), but they certainly have the power to take the land for the public good, if they deem it so. The landowners can dispute the valuation, because the Constitution requires just compensation, but if the Feds want it, they can take it.
I'm not sure you are correct that Arizona is the location where the "vast majority" of illegal aliens come through. Not sure you're wrong, either, but I think California, New Mexico, and Texas have a good share, too.
Thanks Cloud - I edited my post.
I cannot find any corroboration in a quick search, but I vaguely remember reading that the number coming thru AZ has increased because of additional security on the CA border. TX . . . <shrug> Just don't know.
This is a positive move but we really need the other border states to do what Arizona has done.
North Carolina now becomes the 18th state that ALIPAC has documented moving forward with a version of Arizona's controversial, yet popular immigration law. Numerous scientific and certified polls indicate 60-81% public support for local police enforcing immigration law as the Arizona bill does.
http://www.alipac.us/What about California? Will it s
scientific and certified polls...
I have to laugh at this. It's like naming a place "The Sanitary Fish Market."
California is too far gone, better to just s
Maybe Calif will slip into the ocean, problem gone!
nooooooooo! then we would all be forced to watch Canadian TV and Bollywood musicals.
in the news today, a shift from guns and helicopter type aid to Mexico, to aid to encourage the rule of law and non-corrupt government and police. That's a step in the right direction, to me.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_15166460Thats great news! I hope it isn't because we've been finding that the past guns and stuff went to the drug dealers.
Any solution must begin with 1. Locking down the pourous borders tight. Normal channels of travel would remain open. All others would be subject to arrest or death.
Then and only then can we address reform.
All other solutions are doom to failure.
the definition of ironic:
The Sun City is holding it's spot as the second safest large city in United States. See the Top 5...
The FBI released their 2009 Preliminary Crime Statistics, and *based on the numbers El Paso has the second lowest number of violent crimes per capita of the top **25 most populated cities.
San Diego, California beat out the Sun City for the number one spot.
Top 5 City Rankings
1) San Diego, CA
2) El Paso, TX
3) Austin, TX
4) Phoenix, AZ
5) New York City, NY
Obama's border plan looks similar to Bush's
PHOENIX – President Barack Obama's plan to send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border appears to be a scaled-down version of the border security approach championed by his predecessor.
The 6,000 troops who were sent by President George W. Bush to the border from June 2006 to July 2008 were generally credited within law enforcement circles as having helped improve border security, but restrictions placed on the soldiers were denounced by advocates for tougher enforcement who are now leveling similar objections at Obama's plan.
Some law enforcement officials along the border said they worry that Obama will repeat Bush's mistake by limiting the troops to support roles, such as conducting surveillance and installing lighting, rather than letting them make arrests and confront smugglers. They also believe the scale of the force — one-fifth of the size of the one sent by Bush — is too small to make a difference along the length of the 2,000-mile border.
Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, whose jurisdiction includes about 80 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border, said 1,200 soldiers might make a difference in a smaller portion of the border. "But if you spread it across the border, it's like spitting into the wind," Dever said.
Under the Obama plan, the troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border. Obama also will request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who has prosecuted rings of drug and immigrant smugglers, said the planned deployment was a good first step, but believes that the president's plan should evolve to include more troops and more authority for the soldiers.
"I'll take what we can get," Goddard said. "Again, I don't think this is the final response."
The Mexican government issued a statement saying it hoped the troops would be used to fight drug cartels and not enforce immigration laws. Mexico has traditionally objected to the use of the military to control illegal immigration.
more the definition of ironic:
The Sun City is holding it's spot as the second safest large city in United States. See the Top 5...
The FBI released their 2009 Preliminary Crime Statistics, and *based on the numbers El Paso has the second lowest number of violent crimes per capita of the top **25 most populated cities.
San Diego, California beat out the Sun City for the number one spot.
Top 5 City Rankings
1) San Diego, CA
2) El Paso, TX
3) Austin, TX
4) Phoenix, AZ
5) New York City, NY
Indeed...the top two are border cities and two other large cities in AZ and TX make the top four.
All the more reason for the other border states to adopt the legislation that AZ has adopted. Force the whores in Congress to take action.
All the more reason for the other border states to adopt the legislation that AZ has adopted. Force the whores in Congress to take action.
The AZ law does not go into effect until later this summer.
These are 2009 crime stats.
Just pointing out the obvious. :eek:
So--I live in a border town. El Paso/Cd. Juarez is essentially one big city, with an international border in the middle. Lots of commerce between the two. But let's just say--tourism is way down. People used to go to visit, to shop, to eat, to drink--not so much any more.
Over 200 people have been killed this year alone--many of them police officers--in a war to control drug smuggling routes into the US. The violence is horrendous: executions, drive-by shootings are the least of it. People's heads cut off, kidnappings, multiple graves unearthed in suburban houses, (Houses of Death);
--and that's not even mentioning the mysterious and still unsolved rape-murders of perhaps 400 hundred women over the last decade, which may or may not be connected.
All this is happening a stone's throw from my very door. Is this on anyone's radar but El Pasoans?
Very, very scary.
your purpose in quoting my first post is . . . . ? None of that has changed. On THIS side of the border, it's the second safest city in the nation. On the OTHER side of the border, it's the most dangerous city in the world.
What caught my eye in the list of safest cities was the high proportion of latinos in each (although I'm not sure about NYC).
repeating posts for Posterity, or being a Posterior. who Knows?
your purpose in quoting my first post is . . . . ? None of that has changed. On THIS side of the border, it's the second safest city in the nation. On the OTHER side of the border, it's the most dangerous city in the world.
What caught my eye in the list of safest cities was the high proportion of latinos in each (although I'm not sure about NYC).
I just read an article about that today. The link between high immigrant populations and high crime levels is not necessarily true.
In a peer-reviewed paper appearing in the June 2010 issue of Social Science Quarterly, Wadsworth argues not only that “cities with the largest increases in immigration between 1990 and 2000 experienced the largest decreases in homicide and robbery,” which we knew, but that after considering all the other explanations, rising immigration “was partially responsible.”
This is not an ideological question, although some of the law’s supporters, including some cops, would like to turn it into one. Experience has shown that when immigrants think they’ll be nailed for immigration offenses, they stop cooperating with law enforcement. The intelligence needed to find and fight hard-core criminals, whatever their immigration status, will be harder to get. People who feel themselves singled out for discrimination will withdraw more and more into ghettos, increasingly marginalized from American life instead of integrated into it. Smart cops understand all this perfectly well.
But of course if you’re using frog puppets as part of a know-nothing campaign to convince people that immigrants bring crime to the United States like rats carrying the plague, you’re not going to want to listen to reason, and you’ll ignore facts like the just-released preliminary statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report, which appear to line up with Wadsworth’s research. What’s so striking about them, he told me in an e-mail, is not just that the FBI numbers provide anecdotal support for his analysis, but that they are “entirely inconsistent with the claims of politicians and the general public sentiment.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.htmlyes, that's one of the arguments against the AZ law--that local people will simply stop cooperating with the cops, thus making their jobs much harder.
oh, here's the answer to the NYC question, from the same article:
Most of the immigrants are headed deeper into the country, of course, including New York City, which has seen its Mexican population rise by an astounding rate of almost 58 percent since 2000, for a total of almost 300,000 by 2007. And crime rates? New York City, with a population of 8.5 million, some 40 percent of whom were born outside the United States, is one of those jurisdictions that prohibit police officers from questioning people about their immigration status. Its murder rate plunged from 2,245 in 1990 to 471 in 2009.
Stop cooperating what way?
If 70+% of AZ residents support the law, how solid is that argument? Sounds as rational an argument as "cops might abuse the law".
I think the article explains it better than I can.
your purpose in quoting my first post is . . . . ? None of that has changed. On THIS side of the border, it's the second safest city in the nation. On the OTHER side of the border, it's the most dangerous city in the world.
Isn't that one of the reasons they are coming here? Perhaps addressing that issue will stem the tide of criminals crossing the border. Perhaps those cities are staging grounds for those coming here which increases the transient population. Perhaps those are the areas where the drugs are packaged/prepared whatever to come over here. Perhaps addressing that will change the situation. Perhaps we would do better to spend the money on aid to Mexico to address those issues in those areas as it appears Obama is doing.. .. .. Perhaps
historically, they are not coming to the US for safety, but rather for economic reasons. Most recently, of course, many people living in Mexican border cities have come here for safety.
I think the article explains it better than I can.
Can you copy/paste the part that does?
I can't believe anyone would think that was a good article, worth linking to and quoting, to be honest - even if you agree with the authors opinion (which is what really? that illegal immigration is GOOD for us? For any country? What the hell?). Aside from completely failing to distinguish between immigrants and illegal aliens, it was so full of opinion and snark I found myself skimming despite actually wanting to find the part you must be talking about.
News. Yeah. :right:
(shrugs) it's an opinion piece. It talks of populations who are being targeted by immigration police ceasing to cooperate in this way:
The intelligence needed to find and fight hard-core criminals, whatever their immigration status, will be harder to get. People who feel themselves singled out for discrimination will withdraw more and more into ghettos, increasingly marginalized from American life instead of integrated into it. Smart cops understand all this perfectly well.
Do I agree with this? Dunno, but that's what the article describes, in answer to your request.
(shrugs) It talks of populations who are being targeted by immigration police ceasing to cooperate in this way:
the definition of ironic:
And here's another way....
Those statistics are based upon violent crimes
REPORTED.
Do you think the
illegal immigrants report all crimes to the police or FBI? I certainly don't. That would kinda skew the numbers, wouldn't it.
well, nobody has to report murders, do they? ('cause dead bodies laying around are self-evident). According to the FBI's statistics from last year (as reported by the story) El Paso had 12 murders; Detroit, 361.
I mean -- you don't think these statistics are ironic? (puzzled)
What is the populations of the two cities and their densities? Income levels and so on. Statistics are variable upon so many factors that a comparison of 360-12 doesn't mean a lot without the context.
For example - Significantly more people who own washing machines get into car accidents. What does that relationship really mean? Are the two relevant?
yeah, and one of the variables is the number of immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
I'm not making apologies for the article piercedhawkeye posted though--you can read it and make your own opinion.
Stop cooperating what way?
If 70+% of AZ residents support the law, how solid is that argument? Sounds as rational an argument as "cops might abuse the law".
There is a difference between the two arguments. The "cops might abuse the law" argument is irrational because most cops are not going to go out of their way to be extremely racist. It is not worth a cop's time to go out checking random person's ID to see if they are an illegal immigrant or not.
Many minorities populations have very bad communication skills with the police. Whether their logic is correct or not, I honestly don't really care, they claim that they don't talk to police because they are sick of being interrogated if they try to give any information to police. Also, there is a big stigma against talking to cops and can result in retaliation. The reasons why minority populations do not always communicate with police exist, so it would be logical that the threat of deportation would cause less communication between police and populations where many illegal immigrants live. I don't know if that is true or not but it seems logical
Basically, the argument is that an illegal immigrant or someone who has connections with illegal immigrants (I'm guessing a large portion of the Hispanic population) will be less likely to talk to police about rapes, murders, etc, because of this law.
I can't believe anyone would think that was a good article, worth linking to and quoting
I quoted what I did for a reason. Cloud made a statement that many of the safest cities in the US have a higher Latino population and I read an article that somewhat backed it up with a scholarly article and FBI data so I posted it. The article is reactionary, hence biased and makes logical flaws, but I didn't see how the article point's was "immigration is good"?
And here's another way....
Those statistics are based upon violent crimes REPORTED.
Do you think the illegal immigrants report all crimes to the police or FBI? I certainly don't. That would kinda skew the numbers, wouldn't it.
Seems like an odd way to frame it to me.
The question is not crimes reported BY illegal immigrants, but crimes committed by illegals and reported BY legal residents.
But your point does address one of the concerns expressed by many police chiefs. That the law may have an adverse impact on community policing in Hispanic communities. That is undermines trust....people less willing to cooperate with the cops if their own residency is subject to more scrutiny...or have experienced a friend or family member being approached by the cops and asked to provide proof of residency... and having done nothing wrong....particularly legal residents in the Hispanic community.
What is the populations of the two cities and their densities? Income levels and so on. Statistics are variable upon so many factors that a comparison of 360-12 doesn't mean a lot without the context.
For example - Significantly more people who own washing machines get into car accidents. What does that relationship really mean? Are the two relevant?
That doesnt account for the fact that in cities like El Paso and border cities in AZ, violent crime has not increased.
Not comparing city-to-city, but comparing a city's violent crime rate over the period of recent years.
in answer to your request.
Thanks Cloud.
The "article" is crap. Speaks more to lack of journalistic integrity than it does to immigration of any kind.
The AZ law will make it more difficult for illegal aliens to exist in AZ. Period. People that don't like that (ie. illegal aliens and those that profit from them) have come up with countless arguments against the law, all based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding or ignorance of the law, or hyperbole. This crap is more of the same.
I am neither an illegal alien, nor do I profit from them. Your brush is too broad.
Sorry Cloud, I didn't really think you were arguing against the law, just questioning/considering the arguments brought up by others. My mistake.
What is your argument against it? Or, what is your argument for unregulated immigration, whichever.
I think I've made the points I care to about the AZ law issue in the neimroller thread. In the immediate sense, I'm not really as concerned about illegal immigration as I am with the impact of the violence across the border.
Not trying to cop out, just don't like to argue about stuff like this.
....The AZ law will make it more difficult for illegal aliens to exist in AZ. Period. People that don't like that (ie. illegal aliens and those that profit from them) have come up with countless arguments against the law, all based on misrepresentation, misunderstanding or ignorance of the law, or hyperbole. This crap is more of the same.
Hey, I think its great that you, like classic, know what is in the hearts and minds of all of those constitutional experts, local elected officials and police chiefs who have expressed what many believe are legitimate concerns about the law.
The Cellar mind :cop:s?
This is what I would like to see to try to solve the violence and related problems:
1) a generous immigration and naturalization policy which demonstrates compassion for the humans involved (meaning the US policy, but Mexico and other countries, too)
2) but also tighter controls on abuse of our resources by undocumented people
3) decriminalization of personal use of marijuana
4) while still maintaining a strong stance against organized drug crime and street drugs
5) a reduction in hysterical and bigoted ranting by pundits and political grandstanding over the issues
6) for the Mexican people to get their shit together and make their own country a decent place to live
naive? well . . . yeah. but I prefer hopeful!
There are some issues that are not that ambiguous based on overwhelming Supreme Court precedents, including guaranteed rights to non-citizens.
But, ultimately, the Court will decide.
IMO, its highly questionable that this is constitutional.
Strong Supreme Court precedent in support of Arizona immigration law
On Monday, the ACLU announced a lawsuit challenging the Arizona illegal immigration law on the basis of the “prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments.”
The ACLU, however, might have a difficult time making that case. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muehler v. Mena that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights - provided that person is already lawfully detained.
In the wake of a drive-by shooting, Officer Muehler and other members of local law enforcement handcuffed and questioned Iris Mena in connection to the shooting. They did so while executing a search warrant for a safe house which she and members of West Side Locos gang would gather at, most of whom were illegal immigrants. Small wonder, then, that they asked if she was in the country illegally.
Muehler v Mena establishes that “officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.”
Even though this was a gang-related case, “no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required.” If that’s true in California, it’s true in Arizona. This is a strong precedent, with six justices from that unanimous decision remaining on the bench.
Certainly, Arizona law enforcement must take care not to be heavy handed, but the choice between heavy-handed local police action and wide open borders was forced upon the states by past administrations and congresses which punted on illegal immigration rather than do the hard work of governing.
Link
Since I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, I'm not sure what this means, but it seems to counter your opinion.
From your opinion piece:
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muehler v. Mena that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights - provided that person is already lawfully detained.
...provided that person is already lawfully detained.
That is the difference between the Court's decision in Muehler v. Mena and the AZ law....and IMO, a significant difference.
Given that difference, I certainly dont think it is a "a strong precedent" as the columnists suggests.
But just like you and Gehrke, I'm no constitutional expert either, but that is why I think it is important for the law to go through a formal legal review.
Added:
And even taking illegal immigrants out the picture, under the AZ law, a citizen or legal resident,
not being lawfully detained for questioning in connection to any other crime, can be asked by the cops to prove their citizenship or immigration status if the cop thinks the citizen/resident looks "suspicious of being an illegal immigrant" (whatever that means)...and those citizens or legal residents are far more likely to be Hispanic than Anglo.
I'm glad we have a constitutional scholar leading our country, then
good thing we have a constitutional scholar leading our country, isn't it?
It is a better thing we have a system that provides for separation of powers and checks and balances.
and a country which actually runs on the rule of law, unlike Mexico
and a country which actually runs on the rule of law, unlike Mexico
As Churchill once said...."It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
When we accept controversial laws or actions of the government (federal or state) without question, even those that may have popular support, we start down that slippery slope.
I have a friend who is a Zuni Indian who got caught up in a sweep by la migra. Now there's some irony for you. :rolleyes:
When we accept controversial laws or actions of the government (federal or state) without question, even those that may have popular support, we start down that slippery slope.
[YOUTUBE]I6PT8nFrw38[/YOUTUBE]
UT...I honestly dont understand why some dont feel a need to ensure that controversial laws can pass a constitutional test.
And when a law can adversely impact one race over another...not just illegals, but citizens and legal residents...yes, I think it is controversial.
Point is slippery slope is a
logical fallacy and must not be used. That is all
From your opinion piece:
...provided that person is already lawfully detained.
That is the difference between the Court's decision in Muehler v. Mena and the AZ law....and IMO, a significant difference.
Given that difference...
Significant difference? The AZ law states "After lawful contact".
Significant difference? The AZ law states "After lawful contact".
Right....and the law makes illegal immigration a state crime, and, in and of itself, a "lawful contact"...and that is the issue.
It is not asking about immigration status after other lawful contact.
If one is already being lawfully detained for questioning in connection to any other crime, I dont think there is an issue of potential discrimination.
If one is solely being detained for questioning based on immigration status as a "lawful contact", I do think there is an issue of potential discrimination. Anglos are not likely be be detained solely on the basis of immigration status being a lawful contact.
And that is the difference the Court should determine.
and lawful contact is quite different from lawful detention. On such semantic differences turn Supreme Court cases.
and I kind of wish you would all go away and start your own immigration thread, or post about this in the neimroller thread, and leave this thread for discussion of drug wars on the border. Related issues, but not quite the same. I acknowledge my powerlessness on this point though.
I think you're confused.
Sorry Cloud.
No, no, I think redux is confused - in that asking about immigration status comes after lawful contact for another reason. Sorry to muck up your thread.
No, no, I think redux is confused - in that asking about immigration status comes after lawful contact for another reason. Sorry to muck up your thread.
"shrug"
I could say the same about you being confused...and neither of us is an expert on the subject.
And I could add, that I didnt make sweeping generalizations. or use a broad brush, questioning the motives and integrity of experts with whom you do not agree.
Sorry for the muck up as well, cloud.
Illegal immigration is a crime already. It matters not that a state also makes it a crime.
(Cloud lafs at her powerlessness.ness)
post about this (Immigration) in the neimroller thread, and leave this thread for discussion of drug wars on the border. Related issues, but not quite the same. I acknowledge my powerlessness on this point though.
Immigration problems and issues have been hot topics long before the current drug violence in Cd. Juarez, which isn't very close to Arizona. Maybe we just need a new thread?
And of course I got jumped on for even making a comment about this. But thread drift is apparently just dandy.
Drug gangs steal oil in Mexico
They sell the fuel through their own gasoline stations; sell it to unscrupulous manufacturers or trucking firms in Mexico; use it to pump up profits at front companies owned by the cartels; or sell it to foreign refiners on the international black market.
Last year, thieves stole an average of 8,432 barrels of petroleum products each day, enough to fill 39 tanker trucks. The thieves are leaving a trail of environmental devastation, with broken pipelines poisoning farm fields and leaking into Mexican rivers.
The number of illegal pipeline taps has more than quadrupled since 2004, from 102 then to 462 last year, despite renewed anti-theft efforts by Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil monopoly better known as Pemex. In 2008 alone, authorities arrested 528 people and seized 517 vehicles, Pemex said. Losses that year were $715 million; it has not released an estimate for 2009.
"It's a big problem and a continual thorn in their side," said David Shields, editor of Energia a Debate, an oil-industry magazine. "And the states that have drug trafficking have more problems with their pipelines."
The thieves use powerful drills and sophisticated valves to prevent any drop in pipeline pressure that might be detected by Pemex. They use hoses to fill fuel trucks with the stolen liquids. Sometimes they even take a more direct approach: hijacking tanker trucks full of fuel.
Since October, five American businessmen have pleaded guilty to importing stolen petroleum condensate, a raw ingredient for fuels.
Read more:
So they're diversifying as well. Very capitalist of them.
Drug Cops Bust Cancun's Mayor
(Newser) – Mexico's drug war just got messier: Police have arrested Cancun's mayor for his alleged ties to organized crime. Gregorio Sánchez is a high-profile gubernatorial candidate whose arrest signals growing concern about the influence drug kingpins have on politicians, notes the Wall Street Journal. "Voters in Mexico are asking 'am I looking at a slate of candidates or a most-wanted list?'" a security expert says.
But Sánchez maintains he's innocent: "I've been illegally detained," he told his Twitter followers after his Tuesday arrest. "This is a blatant attempt to prevent Greg from being candidate and eventually governor," added his party's president.
Link Immigration problems and issues have been hot topics long before the current drug violence in Cd. Juarez, which isn't very close to Arizona. Maybe we just need a new thread?
And of course I got jumped on for even making a comment about this. But thread drift is apparently just dandy.
I just don't see how you can look at the two issues as different, they are all quite connected. This was but the most minor of thread drift.
Any whoooo...
the New Yorker has a great article on the Drug Wars across the border in the latest issue, but it is not available on-line.
And the Atlantic did a really good one a few issues ago:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-fall-of-mexico/7760/
There is another one about the people who function as the drug war executioners that gives a great view from inside the fight on the ground, but I can't seem to find it.
Immigration has always been a contentious issue, long, long before the War On Drugs. The violence in Cd. Juarez has almost nothing to do with Arizona's law. It's not immigrants who are shooting people in the streets and torturing and beheading people. It's not even happening in the US.
I will acknowledge some interrelatedness, but you can't just lump the two issues into a "Mexican problem." To you Northerners who don't own an atlas, Arizona is two states away.
I have been hearing some news that illegal immigrants are shooting people and worse.
http://www.examiner.com/x-24740-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d25-AZ-law-is-far-from-sufficient-to-fight-against-drug-cartels-and-human-trafficking-in-the-state
This morning, a news article reported that an FBI expert specializing human trafficking in the U.S. says that 20 percent of the victims were Mexican women and Mexico is the number one foreign country sending victims of human trafficking to the U.S. One might have heard of Arizona's new immigration law and its outrageous racial profiling at least once by now. But, you may not have heard of the report on the "rape trees" in Arizona dessert border towns. Or, you might have heard of human trafficking by the Mexican drug cartels, but you don't know how nerve wrecking it is to live in a place like Phoenix, Arizona. As a matter of fact, unless you live in the state, you do not know what one has to face living in a state, where Mexican drug cartel is kidnapping everyone including U.S. citizens, in his or her neighborhood in Phoenix.
Mexican drug cartel and human trafficking in Arizona
According to one report, the trees on the U.S. side of Mexico and U.S. border are littered with women's undergarments. Mexican drug cartels and coyotes are believed to rape women and children once they entered the U.S. territory to control and intimidate them. After acquiring control over the victims, the drug cartels are forcing these women and children into prostitution. As the economic downturn in the U.S. is causing high unemployment rate, less number of people are trying to cross the border. Also, as Mexican authority pushes back against drug trafficking, drug cartel finds human trafficking and kidnapping more lucrative than drug trafficking. Rape trees are the trophies of coyotes and the drug cartels to mark their brutal conquests by exploiting women. What is worse, law enforcement officials testify that it was becoming more visual and common in the Arizona soil.
Phoenix the world's number two kidnapping city
Thanks to the Mexican drug cartel and coyotes. Phoenix, as of 2009, became the world's number two city of kidnapping while the world's number one city was, of course, Mexico city. And the drug cartels were increasing its turfs by victimizing U.S. citizens. Coyotes and drug cartels have kidnapped U.S. citizens for ransom and tortured or raped them. Though opponents of the new Arizona bill argue that the general crime rate in Arizona actually decreased between 2006 and 2009, crimes committed by Mexican drug cartels actually increased during the same period. One report stated that the police received 366 kidnapping in 2008, which was an increase from 359 in 2007. But, the police estimates that twice that number go unreported.
This was just after a very quick search...
Here is another one about the relationship between the issues.
http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com/addiction-news/drug-crimes/phoenix-number-two-kidnapping-capital-as-drug-cartel-wars-intensify/
I think they have just done a better job of walling off the issue at the points where the major US cities reach out and touch major Mexican towns along the border and the more unpopulated areas of no man lands become the superhighways for drugs and illegal immigration.
Are they related? sure. But I feel immigration is a much broader issue. And my concern is primarily on the border violence a stone's throw away from my home and the repercussions for my town.
All the immigrants are causing all the drug problems.
I have been hearing some news that illegal immigrants are shooting people and worse.
...
Fail.
I have been hearing some news that legal citizens are shooting people and worse.
I have been hearing that outer space aliens have been shooting people with lazer rays and worse! I did! I heard it! I've been hearing it! We need tough legislation! :eek:
Are they related? sure. But I feel immigration is a much broader issue. And my concern is primarily on the border violence a stone's throw away from my home and the repercussions for my town.
Understood.
H
I did! I heard it! I've been hearing it! We need tough legislation! :eek:
This makes me laff. :)
Disclaimer: Completely detached from current thread topic, or how it may evolve.
Warnings set up in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
(KFYI News) The situation with cross-border violence and drug smuggling has gotten so bad along Arizona's southern border with Mexico, that the U.S. Government has set up warnings in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge miles from the border, in effect, closing that part of the park to tourists.
Opponents have said the action has, in effect, ceded that part of Arizona back to Mexico.
Proponents say the level of violence from drug cartels has gotten so bad, that the barricades are necessary to protect American citizens.
One New Mexico congressional candidate had earlier proposed placing land mines along the border, but he now says he wasn't serious.
[QUOTE]The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has closed a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge south of the Garcia Road to public use. Garcia Road runs east/west parallel to the international boundary about one mile north of the line. This area is about 3500 acres in size. Our concern for public safety is paramount. The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent.
The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely
affected by border-related activities. The international border
with Mexico has also become increasingly violent.
Assaults on law enforcement officers and violence against
migrants have escalated. Violence on the Refuge associated
with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented.
Many of these activities are concentrated at, or near, the
border. The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law
enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous.
[/QUOTE]
Link
Not a large area, but not a good direction either.
Warnings set up in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
Link
Not a large area, but not a good direction either.
So, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (federal government -the one you say is not doing enough) is doing its job at the Wildlife Refuge. Perhaps an over-reaction on the side of safety, but good for the feds.
Look, mine the Goddam borders and be done with it. Until the Mexicans get the picture that we are serious there is no hope.
Adopt the same policy they have for all illegals and the issue will be on neutral ground.
I'm torn on discussing the MS-13, but a couple more of them were recently sentenced for murder. They are apparently well entrenched here in the US, heavily involved in the illegal drug trade and their numbers are growing quite rapidly IN THE US.
From the
FBI statement ...
ALEXANDRIA, VA—MS-13 member Eris Ramon Arguera, 21, of Alexandria, Va., was sentenced today to 324 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, for his role in the murder of a pimp while robbing the pimp and a prostitute in Alexandria on July 29, 2009.
Arguera fled the area after the murder and was hiding in Texas until his arrest by law enforcement. A citizen of El Salvador, Arguera is in the United States illegally and will be turned over to immigration authorities following his release from prison for deportation proceedings.
This all happened in Alexandria Virginia - this isn't just a border state issue.
Clinton: It's all our fault Mexico is so fucked up.
The hell? Is she high???
a) Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world - as a result, only the criminals are well armed. And at this point they are running the country.
b) If US drug addicts have a disease, and aren't responsible for the destruction of their own lives, how the crap can they be responsible for the destruction of another country?
c) Were chinese users responsible for all the opium the Brits shoved up their ass?
I think that is pretty much what this administration believes. The next thing is to send another 66 MILLION to them. Them being corrupt as hell. Perhaps we could use that money to help secure the borders and increase prevention. Nah - what we've been doing hasn't worked - she admitted that. So her plan is to do more of what hasn't worked at our expense. Great idea.
Clinton: It's all our fault Mexico is so fucked up.
The hell? Is she high???
a) Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world - as a result, only the criminals are well armed. And at this point they are running the country.
b) If US drug addicts have a disease, and aren't responsible for the destruction of their own lives, how the crap can they be responsible for the destruction of another country?
c) Were chinese users responsible for all the opium the Brits shoved up their ass?
I dont think its quite that simple, despite the lapdog's jumping in and nodding like a bobblehead doll.
Most would agree that the so-called war on drugs for the last 30 years has been a failure.
And the issue of well armed criminals and drug lords in Mexico is due in large part to the illicit export of weapons from the US, aided and abetted by corrupt border agents on both sides.
I give Bush credit for pushing through the drug interdiction Merida Initiative at the end of his term, despite some misgivings I have about the program.
He did so because, for the first time in years, Mexico has a president in Calderon who is not corrupt (or far less corrupt that his predecessors) and committed to taking on the drug lords. But he certainly cant do it alone and both Bush and Obama recognized that fact.
At the same time, we cant keep throwing money at it if Calderon is unwilling or unable to act more aggressively and it seems like he cant or wont because I suspect he fears for his own life.
I think Clinton's remarks were diplomaticspeak to give him a little cover and some level of assurances that we wont abandon him completely and will continue to fund the Merida Intiative
And if you look at policies and funding levels, we have committed more in the last few years to focus on preventing the worst of the criminal types (as opposed to the common workers) from crossing into the US and focus on catching, detaining and deporting the criminal types (as opposed to the common worker) as well as stopping or slowing the flow of weapons from the US to Mexico.
It is easy to criticize, particularly at a superficial level. It is harder to offer construction solutions.
As to the suggestion for more "money to help secure the borders and increase prevention" that is exactly what has occurred over the last two budget cycles.
And the issue of well armed criminals and drug lords in Mexico is due in large part to the illicit export of weapons from the US, aided and abetted by corrupt border agents on both sides.
I don't think so, most of the pictures of seized cartel caches are eastern European or Chinese weapons. They would be cheaper and larger caliber then US weapons, also. Most of the US weapons pictured are fancy (gold plated, engraved) hand guns, for the big shots (no pun).
Oh, and it believe it's Clinton she, not he.
You do understand that the gratuitous slap at classic will stop the very people you'd like to convince from reading the rest of your post which was actually quite good. Please take this comment in the spirit I intend. I want more lucid cogent commentary, which you can bring and less team play which is hard to avoid but quite destructive of our goals. Be bigger than the other team.
Illegal cross border traffic is the big thing I see which we can reduce to assist Mexico and ourselves. The three trafficked items are people, drugs, and guns. I think we have the political will to change the immigration policy. We need to make it easier to enter the country legally than illegally. That means more work visas for unskilled seasonal agriculture and improved enforcement of visa rules. We can decriminalize pot and start the discussion about how we move from a prison-based to a treatment-based model for less acceptable drugs. Guns are part of the tightened border issue as there is little that can be done without an amendment to the Constitution which there is no consensus for.
Guns are part of the tightened border issue as there is little that can be done without an amendment to the Constitution which there is no consensus for.
Our constitution, or theirs?
I have a hard time reconciling throwing a bunch more money at Mexico to do what we could just do ourselves. Why give them them helicopters when we could use them on our side of the border. Not that our government is a model of efficiency, but large percentages of money vanishes when it changes hands like this...
I completely agree with fortifying our border, working to make sure guns and money aren't going south, people and drugs coming north. I also agree with sweeping immigration reform - a combo of making it easier to enter legally, amnesty for illegals already here, stricter enforcement of visas (we will have to ask to see papers to do this) and tougher penalties for new illegals. All at the same time.
Why did the drug trafficking from Columbia shift to Mexico, away from the Caribbean?
I don't think so, most of the pictures of seized cartel caches are eastern European or Chinese weapons. They would be cheaper and larger caliber then US weapons, also. Most of the US weapons pictured are fancy (gold plated, engraved) hand guns, for the big shots (no pun).
Oh, and it believe it's Clinton she, not he.
A significant number of the weapons are exported from the US:
Reportedly, 90% of confiscated guns that could be traced, originated in the United States.The ATF has reportedly traced 22,848 guns smuggled into Mexico from the United States since 2005, and it showed that between 2005 and 2008, Texas, Arizona and California are the three most prolific source states, respectively, for firearms illegally trafficked to Mexico. About 55% of guns smuggled from the U.S. are assault rifles. Mexican officials only submitted 32% of the guns they seized to the ATF for tracing, and less than half of those weapons had serial numbers. Overall, 83% of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced.
Mexican cartels often pay U.S. citizens to purchase assault rifles or other guns at gun shops or gun shows, then sell them to a cartel representative. This exchange is known as a straw purchase. Because there is no computerized national gun registry, tracking guns relies on a paper trail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
Granted this only represents those weapons seized by the Mexicans and submitted to ATF...but it is not a small number.
Oh, and the "he" to whom I referrred was Bush, who created the
Merida Initiative in 2007-08. Obama/Clinton have continued with the program, with minor tweaks.
I dont want to throw good money after, and as I said, I have concerns about the Initiative, particularly as it funded right wing thugs like President Uribe (recently left office) and his para-military in Colombia.....but it is certainly in our interest to work with the Mexicans (and others) to take on the drug cartels.
IMO, Calderon is sincere in his interests in doing so, but too weak to make it happen, particularly w/o our assistance. The next president of Mexico could very go back to the old ways of corruption and turning their eyes from the problem.
Our constitution, or theirs?
Ours. There is no broad-based support for gun control, rural America can't afford it. Belief that there is broad-based support is the far left living in a cocoon much as the far right does on so many issues. I don't know anything about Mexican gun control. I figure as a left-libertarian living among right-wingers and working among left-wingers, I see a broader picture than most but still have blinders... that the cellar occasionally removes.
Do you believe further limiting access to firearms to US citizens is an effective way stop cross border crime? I'm not sure I follow.
No. What we need are positive pro-freedom ways of limiting cross-border black market trafficking. To me that means de-criminalizing drugs and increasing and simplifying legal immigration which can be done on this side of the border. That would reduce violence here and in Mexico. The Mexican gun violence problem is a result of the drug and human trafficking.
I absolutely agree with you. Those are all things I've suggested here before, of course they are labelled as evil conservative ideas designed to make the rich white guy richer when I post them.
I absolutely agree with you. Those are all things I've suggested here before, of course they are labeled as evil conservative ideas designed to make the rich white guy richer when I post them.
I agree as well.
And I dont see these as "evil conservative ideas."
I would only add that comprehensive immigration reforms should also include a path to citizenship (not amnesty) with penalties for most illegals already here. There is no other practical or achievable solution to that part of the immigration problem. It is the essential "third leg" of any reform stool, along of border security and simplified immigration.
Beyond that, while there is significant overlap of the illegal immigration issue and the illegal drug issue, and can and should be addressed together to some degree, they also require separate solutions. And, IMO, part of the solution to the drug problem rests not just with diminishing demand, but working towards eliminating the easy supply.
If not something comparable to the
Merida Initiative, then what?
About 55% of guns smuggled from the U.S. are assault rifles.
Since assault rifles aren't available to civilians in the US, without a $300 per year permit from the feds,
for each rifle, any assault rifle smuggling is being done on a wholesale basis. The feds know what's being produced, and arms export is closely monitored, so are the feds allowing it? Or they are being shipped to an acceptable source, who's selling them to the Mexicans. That would make them even more expensive, and doesn't make sense, when Chinese/European assault rifles are cheaper and more powerful.
I think non gun people classify any black gun as an assault rifle. The AR-15(or similar model) you can buy off the shelf is semi-auto (one shot per trigger pull) so no license is needed to own it. it's black and ugly but far from the assault rifle from the war movies.
That's true, but the ATF knows better, and if they were honest they wouldn't make that mistake. Same for the cops. Of course politicians, and assholes that purport know what's best for you, will lie through their teeth anyway.
Same goes as with every arrest of someone with an SKS, which even the cops call AK-47's, which they are not. But that really is another discussion.
Nothing can be changed until first we clamp the border shut tight, ala Berlin wall, at least for a temp period as we fix our immigration policy. Once that happens we can open the borders again, slowly and in a controlled fashion, as we id all those who are current illegal immigrants. The key is a comprehensive reform. But if we don't control the borders first the rest of the efforts will be futile.
Mexico is in a death spiral.
Obama will be here tomorrow marking the return of soldiers to Ft. Bliss. (and if you don't know, El Paso will be getting/has been getting a gigantic influx of soldiers to be permanently stationed here. Convenient, eh?)
Should be interesting to see if he refers to the border troubles.
To me that means de-criminalizing drugs and increasing and simplifying legal immigration which can be done on this side of the border.
I absolutely agree with you. Those are all things I've suggested here before, of course they are labelled as evil conservative ideas designed to make the rich white guy richer when I post them.
Huh? That seems... unlikely.
His statement is basically something I've said dozens of times in the cellar.
I think there is actually a lot of agreement on the issue but people emphasize the parts that appeal to them. If only you could get everything into an omnibus package, because piecemeal probably won't get it done.
Well hey, we've already got financial reform and healthcare through (and even the biggest detractors have to admit, hate the legislation or love it, it got through which is a hell of a lot more than anyone else has accomplished on any major issue.) I bet they're just waiting until after the 2010 elections, then immigration reform will be next on the list. Or maybe they'll even push it beforehand to regain Democratic support, emphasizing the parts that appeal to the people who are ticked off at them. But I'd lay money on a very serious federal effort at immigration policy reform before Obama's first term is up.
But I'd lay money on a very serious federal effort at immigration policy reform before Obama's first term is up.
I think it will only happen if the democrats hold on to both the senate and house. If not, there will be gridlock and nothing will happen on anything.
I vote for gridlock over what we currently have.
Actually I don't support gridlock, but I also can't support the "Rham it through" method that Pelosi and Reid have used. To many failed programs have already been passed.
I think it will only happen if the democrats hold on to both the senate and house. If not, there will be gridlock and nothing will happen on anything.
You're right. It's funny in a sickening way. The Democrats will present immigration reform and the party who is screaming it for it will block it because it's initiated by the other side.:greenface
It's very scary and very sad. I recently saw a tv ad for Mexican tourism. I'm thinking --not!
tomorrow is Mexico's bicentennial, and they are calling off most of the celebrations for fear of civilian casualties.
I agree Cloud, I have family members who have gone to Mexico every year for their vacations because of the cost, but no more, they are all going somewhere else for the for seeable future.
This is just bizarre. People are literally being slaughtered indiscriminately in the streets and in their homes, just a stone's throw away:
El Paso is the safest city for in the nation for a city its size, according to the just-released CQ Press Safest Cities rankings. Since 1997, El Paso had ranked as second or third safest city by the independent study.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_16670537Yeh - Since our last discussions on this I have been periodically visiting that site.
I have no explanation for that other than a grand conspiracy that even I cannot believe.
Seems like utter BS, but ????????????
Ok, since the start of Obama's stupid decision to go into Libya I can't help but think about a war much closer to home. Why not say screw it, let the EU deal with it and put our resources into issues closer to effecting our own lives. It really pisses me off that Obama would drag us into such bullshit of a police action while everyone sits around like this is an acceptable use of the military. How about we use the same resources on our own border? Shut the damm thing down and stem the tide of illegal immigration and drug smuggling with the same resources we are willing to commit to the failed state of Libya?