It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposed Arizona Law Would Define Armed Minutemen As "Domestic Terrorists"

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Not sure if you were just repeating a previous post in an attempt to answer mine. If so, I will just point out that much more effort is put out in appprehending a serial killer (i.e. many murders) than for a a person committing just one.

True both are crimes and need to be dealt with, but the larger crime needs to take precedence. Same goes for the illegal's crimes vs. Minuteman "crimes".

[edit on 1/23/2007 by centurion1211]




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Murder is murder, and needs to be dealt with appropriately, and not through vigilantism. Illegal immigration is another crime all together. Sometimes they overlap, but ten again so does jaywalking and murder sometimes.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Easy to criticize, but seriously, do you have a better idea since the feds are doing nothing to control the border situation?

Remember the old saying, "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem". The Minutemen are at least attempting to be part of the solution. They're not just sitting at a keyboard and complaining.


[edit on 1/23/2007 by centurion1211]


I'm not complaining about the current immigration "issue" ... a lot of other people are. I have no problem with the # if illegals currently here ... and I live in California, so yes I do see and interact with a lot of immigrants, some who may be illegal.

My point is that the Minute Men are not just patrolling the border ... they are also "patrolling" the local Home Depot and Lowes and wherever day laborers gather to gain employment.

There is no way to "know" that just because someone is a day laborer, has limited English and is dark-skinned that they are here illegally. As a citizen we do have the right to make a citizens arrest when there is a crime that we witnessed. This doesn't mean we can ask for identification on any random citizen on the street. Even the police can't ask for identification without some shred of probable cause and standing in front of a business while causing no problems wouldn't exactly constitue grounds for further investigation.

The focus of illegal immigration is the Mexican population, partly because they are the largest portion of the current illegal residents. However I have known of Italians and other Europeans who have come here on student of visitor visas and stayed beyond their length ... illegally. Even with their limited English and having to change jobs constantly because of their legal status ... no one every questioned them in the open or talked down to them and assumed they were here illegally. What's the difference?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
None of you are even addressing the fact that labeling these people "Domestic Terrorists" is by definition wrong.... A "Domestic Terrorists" is someone who aims to harm one's own country...That is not the aim of the minutemen at all... This woman is moronic for even suggesting such an idea..



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Here you go,for those who think that open borders is such a "great" idea



Threat of Open Borders Concerns Conference
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Friday, Jan. 31, 2003
ARLINGTON, Va. – A wartime threat to Americans' safety has emerged as the dominant issue at an annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (C-PAC) near the nation's capital. Meanwhile, the thousands of attendees were divided on the issue of national security versus civil liberties.
C-PAC Chairman David Keene told NewsMax.com at the opening news conference Thursday of the three-day confab that conservatives of all persuasions were deeply troubled by the lax attitude toward national security demonstrated as recently as last week on Capitol Hill. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., in the dead of night quietly inserted in a spending bill an amendment to stop funding a program requiring male immigrants from two dozen terrorist countries to register with the INS.

"There is widespread concern with that move," Keene told NewsMax.

He recalled that when the program was enacted back in 1996, the Clinton administration made clear that it was not going to enforce it. Then INS Commissioner Doris Meissner actually stated publicly that her agency would use loopholes in the legislation to avoid its enforcement.

Source

It's funny to me that we are supposed to be fighting a "war on terrorism," yet, we have knuckle heads like Teddy "bear"
Kennedy and George Dubya Bush who think it's just fine to have unsecure borders. They aren't looking out for the U.S...They are looking out for political interests... Period.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Well, there is obviously now little or no security south of the border in Mexico.

Check out this article on what is happening to the police force in Tijuana. Of course, some may say they brought this on themselves. But still, law enforcement is like a circus down there. Another reason to beef up security on our side of the border rather than take it away.

Tijuana police issued slingshots to replace their guns


About 60 officers were issued slingshots yesterday for use on patrols in the tourist section of Avenida Revolucion and the business district of Zona Rio, according to a police department spokesman. Some of the officers bought bags of marbles for ammo.


What a tragically sad joke ...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Well, there is obviously now little or no security south of the border in Mexico.

Check out this article on what is happening to the police force in Tijuana. Of course, some may say they brought this on themselves. But still, law enforcement is like a circus down there. Another reason to beef up security on our side of the border rather than take it away.

Tijuana police issued slingshots to replace their guns


About 60 officers were issued slingshots yesterday for use on patrols in the tourist section of Avenida Revolucion and the business district of Zona Rio, according to a police department spokesman. Some of the officers bought bags of marbles for ammo.


What a tragically sad joke ...


Yeah,I heard about this on talk radio here in Waco... It's ridiculous.... No guns... freaking slingshots... It's true that the bearings that they fire from those slingshots probably hurt,but comeon!! "OOOH.... I better not do anything, one of these officers might pull out his slingshot on me!!"
Whatever...

You see, too many, on both sides of the border view all of this as being a "non -issue." It's a very important one... If someone doesn't get a hold of it... here in the states,because it's not going to come from Mexico or Canada, then we, as a nation, are going to be in dire straights indeed...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, are the people against using profiling apologists for all criminals or just the terrorists and the illegal aliens? Yes, what is their agenda here?

[edit on 1/23/2007 by centurion1211]

[edit on 1/23/2007 by centurion1211]


What a comparison ... terrorists and illegal aliens.

Why not mass murderers and illegal aliens ... or ... pedophiles and illegal aliens.

The truth is more like jaywalker and illegal aliens ... or ... illegal parker and illegal aliens.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
kind of a running theme i see among some is "not all illegal aliens are criminals...."

think about the term. ILLEGAL alien. they broke the law the second their foot touched US soil without clearning the border legally.

i totally see grovers point about how many of them just want a better life. and ive conceded id probably do the same in their situation.

but none of that changes the fact that they are here illegally and by law need to be deported. why are we picking and choosing which laws to enforce?


if the govt doesnt enforce ALL of the laws, they really cant enforce ANY of the laws.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
12 murders a day caused by illegal aliens



Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.


And that's 'just' murders. Doesn't talk about the other types of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens. Also doesn't talk about our tax money wasted on caring for them either.

[edit on 1/23/2007 by centurion1211]


This article can not be backed up by any real-world statistics and doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. If illegal immigrants committed this number of murders that would mean 25% of all murders in the nation would be committed by an illegal.

Based of incidents I know of that number is way out of proporation. Also since most murders are committed by someone you know ... how many victims of murder by an illegal immigrant are truly "American" in your eyes.



Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, as a rule, immigrants to enter the United States illegally are loath to commit crimes — they know that the quickest way to deportation is to get arrested. But let’s put that aside and consider the merit of King’s apparent belief that there’s a rash of homicidal immigrants rampaging through the country.

As this elected member of Congress sees it, there are 12 murders a day committed by illegal immigrants. He’s not talking about car accidents; King is specifically referring to literal murder. He admits that there’s no actual data from law enforcement sources on this, but King insists his report is accurate.

The numbers just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

.... ....

In fact, the FBI does not categorize Hispanics as a separate racial group in its statistics, but instead includes them with Caucasians. Even so, the numbers demonstrate rather clearly that King and WND are talking out of their hats. Of all the people arrested for murders in 2005 (10,083), only 4,955 were white/Hispanic, and that includes all arrests in that racial category. In order to believe King and WND, every single one of these people would have to be illegal aliens.


Source for above quote

[edit on 1/23/2007 by SmallMindsBigIdeas]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   


If the source of my post - a member of congress - "does not stand up to scrutiny", then how can you claim that the liberal "web-rag" carpetbagger.com you used as a source does? Answer: you can't. But I also wonder what does rense or world nut daily have to say on the issue since IMO they stand up to about the same level of scrutiny as carpetbagger.com? But thanks for the comedy read.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
kind of a running theme i see among some is "not all illegal aliens are criminals...."

think about the term. ILLEGAL alien. they broke the law the second their foot touched US soil without clearning the border legally.



Not to be a wet rag here but are things different on the southern border than they are on the northern border? I mean I went to Detroit a couple of years ago and I didn't even have to provide documents. Just answered a few questions.

I'm sure I got into the States legally. I went over that bridge. Through the Customs gates and boom, there. BTW, that's a huge frickin bridge. I took the tunnel back.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


Not to be a wet rag here but are things different on the southern border than they are on the northern border? I mean I went to Detroit a couple of years ago and I didn't even have to provide documents. Just answered a few questions.

I'm sure I got into the States legally. I went over that bridge. Through the Customs gates and boom, there. BTW, that's a huge frickin bridge. I took the tunnel back.

I went that same route to Windsor in the 90's. But that was yesterday; as of today, air travel to Canada or Mexico requires a passport.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211


If the source of my post - a member of congress - "does not stand up to scrutiny", then how can you claim that the liberal "web-rag" carpetbagger.com you used as a source does? Answer: you can't. But I also wonder what does rense or world nut daily have to say on the issue since IMO they stand up to about the same level of scrutiny as carpetbagger.com? But thanks for the comedy read.


It is the numbers that back up the rhetoric and not neccessarily the source that matter. But I will contend the site I provided was not the most "fact worthy". However, your member of congress doesn't automatically stand up to scrutiny when he has no proven source of data. Just a number that has been "estimated" at best.

Here is a source from a more reputable place, the FBI UCR statistics for Homicide offender data (please note that the FBI includes Hispanics in the White category):

FBI UCR - Offender Table for 2005 Homicides

According to the FBI there were 17,029 murders in 2005 ... they have Whites listed as responsible for 5,452 ... so if Hispanics are responsible for 4,380 of those that is an awful high number.

The point is that the congressman took his data from a GAO report on the number of criminal aliens that are incarcerated in prison systems. From this he extrapolated that the 164,000 incarcerated aliens were somehow responsible for over 25% of murders in the US. Nevermind the fact that they make up less than 10% of the total prison population (2.2 mil).

GAO Report in Incarcerated Aliens



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Hey what a great idea!!! After we arrest them for diligantly patroling our boarders since our government wont do it we can put them in jail and give thier houses to the illegals!
Dummies.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   
The bill is poorly worded. It needs a great many amendments to even arguably be considered viable law.


I happen to believe that it is unacceptable for the border to be left to independent groups. I believe that the job is too big and too dangerous for the minute men. The security of the border is a federal responsibility which needs to be embraced by the federal government.

I note that by both ignoring the border AND allowing private groups to enforce that law, the government would open up an equal protection under the law defense for immigrants which under some courts (especially the 9th, which has jurisdiction in Arizona) would find that the government had created circumstances which cause a law to be enforced only against certain methods of crossing certain sections of the border, with potential discriminatory implications, particularly when viewed as a contrast between Mexicans and Canadians or Mexicans and other foreigners who overstay visas.


Even still this law just isn't well crafted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the wording, seems to even outlaw private armed guards. Depending on your definition of "patrol" it could even apply to a private citizen who takes out his shotgun before going downstairs to investigate the sound of breaking glass, or any attempt at a citizens arrest or self defense in which a weapon is used.

Wouldn't that be something? Your grandma pulls a can of pepper spray on a purse snatcher and is accused of "patrolling" with a weapon, just by virtue of being prepared to protect herself from a crime should it occur.

Or perhaps for some reason that I can't explain I might find myself in Arizona, witness the same purse snatching, and brandish the mag light I keep in my truck while making a citizen's arrest. Again, just by having something that could be used as a weapon in my possession, I might be guilty of patrolling if I happened to use it to do the right thing.


I absolutely believe that the legislature has the ability to forbid weapons from being carried in such a way as might make the unreasonable use of force a likelihood, and even more so that the legislature can and should prevent weapons from being carried in a way that represents a threat to initiate violence against any group of people.

Let the bill be constructed in that way though. Let the bill say that you can't brandish a weapon in prevention of non-violent crime. Let the bill acknowledge either a state of federal responsibility for border security, an intent to meet that responsibility, and a ban on private enforcement of that particular law for the purpose of preventing potential escalation of non-violent crime (which could come either from border crossers as a reaction or from the minutemen- I'm not singling one side out as dangerous and the other as benign).

Legislators must always be conscious of the scope of the policies they intend to implement. We can ill afford reckless government in the face of the issues confronting us presently, at the border or elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The bill is poorly worded. It needs a great many amendments to even arguably be considered viable law.


I happen to believe that it is unacceptable for the border to be left to independent groups.


Yes it is poorly worded, but the thing is the government both state and federal are NOT adequately patrolling or guarding the border. Volunteers taking up some of the slack where the government is not is a temporary fix and as see it, does also send a message to the government. Although be it in this case made some sorry individual write and try to push through some stupid law.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Morkoc96
Hey what a great idea!!! After we arrest them for diligantly patroling our boarders since our government wont do it we can put them in jail and give thier houses to the illegals!
Dummies.


Wait! Didn't the government already do that to some people in New Mexico or Arizona. Some illegals sued the people and won their property, I believe.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I tend to agree with the sentiments on the list. All that it would do is encourage the Minutemen to dump their guns. It is bad PR for them to carry them, anyways. If people want to spend their declining years sitting in lawn chairs watching the border and reporting people coming across illegally, that is not illegal so long as they don't commit vigilantism.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I note that by both ignoring the border AND allowing private groups to enforce that law, the government would open up an equal protection under the law defense for immigrants which under some courts (especially the 9th, which has jurisdiction in Arizona) would find that the government had created circumstances which cause a law to be enforced only against certain methods of crossing certain sections of the border, with potential discriminatory implications, particularly when viewed as a contrast between Mexicans and Canadians or Mexicans and other foreigners who overstay visas.

The gov't is not allowing private groups to enforce the laws. The Minutemen are not enforcing the law on their own. And a discrimination lawsuit is frivolous on it's face. How can it be discrimination unless the elements necessary to create that atmosphere exist, i.e., Poles, Germans, Irish, etc., also sneaking across?

I wouldn't worry about the 9th anyway. They are the most overturned Circuit Court in the land (over 70% of their decisions that are appealed).


I absolutely believe that the legislature has the ability to forbid weapons from being carried in such a way as might make the unreasonable use of force a likelihood, and even more so that the legislature can and should prevent weapons from being carried in a way that represents a threat to initiate violence against any group of people.

I cannot disagree more. You are proposing anticipatory legislation. Forbidding the legal carrying of weapons because they might be used in the commission of a crime.


Let the bill be constructed in that way though. Let the bill say that you can't brandish a weapon in prevention of non-violent crime.

So, if I am investigating a noise in my house that I suspect is a break-in, I must leave my weapon beside my bed?


Let the bill acknowledge either a state of federal responsibility for border security, an intent to meet that responsibility, and a ban on private enforcement of that particular law for the purpose of preventing potential escalation of non-violent crime (which could come either from border crossers as a reaction or from the minutemen- I'm not singling one side out as dangerous and the other as benign).

The proper way to accomplish this would be to sue the state for non-performance. And once again, since these groups are not currently enforcing the laws, including them in the legislation is at the least logically wrong, and at the worst discriminatory.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join