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.

 

AZ. All hispanics... Why not all be criminals?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I am personally against the NEW Arizona laws based upon several factors-

First and foremost, I believe this violates the 4th amendment and creates
a slippery slope increasing the power of governments scope. I cannot see apearence as being a legal basis for probably cause or evidence of criminal activity, thus warenting detainment.


Niether is it REASONABLE to subject our brownish citizens to extra scrutiny by law enforcement
because it suits our goals.

The constitution, its principles and rights are NOT yours TO take.

next...

This proposal also violates the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"

it is the opposite of the credo

translation is;

GUILTY until proven INNOCENT, for some, innocence to be determined



In such a climate of constitutional awareness and fear of government it is very troubling
to see that so many are willing to violate one and augment the other. Politically speaking it is
bi polar, logically speaking it is sub simian.

In my typical style;

Yesterday it was
Kiss your mother and punch your enemy in the nose.

Today it is
Punch your mother in the mouth and invite the enemy for tea.

I have a simple way to determine the basis of this enforcement in a very illustrative way and make its enforcement virtually impossible

Hispanics and whoever else -

Don't carry your IDs, none of you

Then shut your mouth

civil disobedience,

feed the beast to death

You may get some hell, but at least you won't feel like a perpetual criminal in the long run.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."




[edit on 24-4-2010 by Janky Red]




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I agree 100% and I believe that this has nothing to do with the immigrants but them grabbing more control over all of us. If they wanted to stop the illegal aliens they would hold the employers accountable but they dont WHY?


Its because they dont care and only want more power otherwise they would stop the employment and they would go home its that simple.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I agree 100% and I believe that this has nothing to do with the immigrants but them grabbing more control over all of us. If they wanted to stop the illegal aliens they would hold the employers accountable but they dont WHY?


Its because they dont care and only want more power otherwise they would stop the employment and they would go home its that simple.


Well I am very glad you see it that way, this kind of thing tends to mutate as we all have witnessed with the "terrorism" fixes.

It is the foundation (or lack of) of this law that bothers me, all it takes is some lawyers and politicians to transfer this concept to other things...

thanks



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 




We all have common ground if we look hard enough. Just because I may disagree on some issues with you does not mean I will disagree on all of them.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
www.azleg.gov...

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
...
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
...
"SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE EMPLOYED.

Janky please don't embellish this thing where in the above document does it say anything you assert about picking on "Brown" people? Were gonna be very lucky if this thing doesn't turn into a complete firestorm without anyone mis-interpreting it.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by WWJFKD]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
If they wanted to stop the illegal aliens they would hold the employers accountable but they dont WHY?


The new law DOES hold the employers accountable in major ways. It is sad that people can't read a bill, and then find themselves commenting like they know what's going on.


But hey, that's our motto here:

DENY IGNORANCE.

Now how about going and reading the bill, and then we'll talk. Bill 1070 in a google search should do just fine. And then you can search for the executive order Jan Brewer signed to go along with the bill.

Why didn't I make it easy for you and provide the links? Cause I've already done my homework in my own threads, sorry.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWJFKD
www.azleg.gov...

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
...
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
...
"SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE EMPLOYED.

Janky please don't embellish this thing where in the above document does it say anything you assert about picking on "Brown" people? Were gonna be very lucky if this thing turn into a firestorm without anyone misquoting it.


Well I am the last person to be PC and I will not start now...

It would be nice if we could all call a spade a spade

We are looking for illegal Mexicans, Salvi's, Columbians, etc...

not Canadians, Africans, Indians, Kiwi's or Koreans who reside here illegally

I read it and I believe it is in good faith

however I don't think it is commensurate with the 4th or innocent until proven guilty


On this basis ALONE I think it needs to go in the bin.

Believe it or not, I REALLY think illegal immigration needs to be quelled, but this is
a very poor solution IMO.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
There is almost always a better way and hindsight is always 20/20. I think Arizona found themselves in a desperate situation and quite frankly acted desperately. I believe action was required and I do agree with your viewpoint on how this could feed TPTB's agenda and we will have to watch that very closely to make sure this action was in fact in good faith.

It's a real shame that it had to come to this day where a State had to do what the Government refused to do or was certainly inept at.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by WWJFKD]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by Janky Red
 




We all have common ground if we look hard enough. Just because I may disagree on some issues with you does not mean I will disagree on all of them.


I know

Its a good thing and I am thrilled to see you did not ditch the constitution in a case where it might benefit your personal desires. Many here seem to be doing just that...



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Pretty disturbing that people can't see where this could lead. They allow their hatred of illegals to blur the fact that many of their fellow Americans(brown) will be part of this hunt.

Politicians use this issue for their own benefit. Oh look, the illegals are bankrupting our country, illegals are destroying our healthcare, illegals are stealing our jobs, illegals are bankrupting us. People get ticked and demand an all out war on illegals.

Meanwhile the politician goes about his/her business trying to figure where else to waste taxpayers money. Go back to the good old days when the economy was booming and state and federal budgets were healthy and see how much of a stink was made about illegals.

Do illegals cost us money? Sure, but I don't believe it is to the extent politicians want you to believe.

13 trillion dollar debt wasn't accumulated by illegals.

Yep, illegals are bankrupting our government
and while your focused on that our government is streaming along doing what it does best.

I got to give give politicians credit. If I were them I would never end illegal immigration. It is probably the best scapegoat they got.

Should illegals be here? No.

But the anger shouldn't be taken out on the illegals. It should be focused on the politician who have allowed this problem to persist in the first place. You know, them politicians that many of us keep reelecting time and time again.

Many of the same politicians who are jockeying for reelection this year.

reply to post by WWJFKD
 




Janky please don't embellish this thing where in the above document does it say anything you assert about picking on "Brown" people?


It doesn't have to say it. Like all the other posts similar to this thread say, most illegals are Hispanic. Most Hispanics are brown and most Americans of Hispanic origin are brown.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWJFKD
There is almost always a better way and hindsight is always 20/20. I think Arizona found themselves in a desperate situation and quite frankly acted desperately. I believe action was required and I do agree with your viewpoint on how this could feed TPTB's agenda and we will have to watch that very closely to make sure this action was in fact in good faith.

It's a real shame that it had to come to this day where a State had to do what the Government refused to do or was certainly inept at.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by WWJFKD]


Unfortunately my liberal compatriots are fearful to take a REAL stand on this issue
at a federal level. We all know why

In the same way I am opposed to this bill; I believe my rightish friends have valid concern and I will advocate for them and their proposal when a solution comes forth that does not violate such basic principles.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

ALL jockey ALL the time

You know I don't mind illegals myself, but I do think those that do have a right to
resolve the problem they perceive. I cannot find any internal justification to hinder or
scuttle the attempt to seal borders, etc... Fervent anti illegal folks pay taxes and they
are my countrymen, at the same time I am not about to see any of my darker countrymen screwed in pursuit of this goal.

Simple as that for me




[edit on 24-4-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
The 4th Amendment may serve as a useful tool for those who refuse to produce any I.D. failing any proper jurisdiction, but there is a state constitution in Arizona that is far more useful to such a person. This state constitution comes with a Declaration of Rights that are powerful indeed. Consider Article II, Section 2:




2. Political power; purpose of government

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.


Which makes clear from the get go that one need not be a citizen of the U.S. or that state in order to assert their rights. Now, consider Section 3:




3. Supreme law of the land

Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.


Well look at that Janky, you are absolutely right! The 4th Amendment most certainly does apply, but do you see how powerful knowing what that state constitution can be? And we've only just begun. Consider Section 4:




4. Due process of law

Section 4. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.


Well look at that! Next verse just like the last verse, Section 4 of the Arizona constitution is right in line with the 4th Amendment. Now, consider Section 7:




7. Oaths and affirmations

Section 7. The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation, shall be such as shall be most consistent with and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath, or affirmation, may be administered.


Oh my, my, my! One could easily infer from this declaration that all one has to do is swear a verified oath that they are who they say they are, and are in their legal right to do so. No need for civil disobedience at all, unless your an LEO ignoring declarations of rights in favor of dubious legislation, that would be civil disobedience. Let's see what Section 10 has to say:




10. Self-incrimination; double jeopardy

Section 10. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.


Here it is quite clear that if an immigrant is in Arizona and undocumented, that person does not have to admit this, and as such, keeping silent would not be any form of civil disobedience. It would be an exercise of right. What does Section 13 has to say:




13. Equal privileges and immunities

Section 13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.


Heavens to Betsy! It is clear that any racial profiling is out of the question. But just to be clear on the matter, let's take a look at what Section 29 states:




29. Hereditary emoluments, privileges or powers; perpetuities or entailments

Section 29. No hereditary emoluments, privileges, or powers shall be granted or conferred, and no law shall be enacted permitting any perpetuity or entailment in this state.


Yep! If this recent legislation in Arizona holds any legal muster at all, it ain't because it authorized any racial profiling, that's for sure. I wonder if that state constitution has anything to say about illegal aliens. Perhaps Section 35 can offer some instructions on the matter:




35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action in any court in this state.


Hmmmm. So, while an illegal alien has rights, if an LEO abrogates or derogates that right, no criminal or civil action can be taken by that immigrant. Ruh roh!

So, here is the problem as I see it. Immigration is a problem in this country and must be dealt with, but the O.P.'s legal reasoning is sound and should be respected. However, in spite of the clear restrictions placed upon government this recent legislative act can be and most likely will be used against people, until one smart enough to get this bill up to a higher court so that it may be struck down as unconstitutional, and if it is appealed and taken to a federal court of appeals, it in all likelihood will be struck down.

In legislating law, any legislation that abrogates and derogates the rights of person is not law, and the legislation merely serves as evidence of law, but not law. The answer is not in expanding governmental force, the answer is in limiting governmental welfare to all people, and limiting dubious laws such as the drug laws that serve to create a black market industry where chaos, violence rule instead of the rule of law.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

The new law DOES hold the employers accountable in major ways.


Too bad the rest of it is based upon an unconstitutional foundation -



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

The new law DOES hold the employers accountable in major ways.


Too bad the rest of it is based upon an unconstitutional foundation -



I would suggest that holding employers "accountable" would also be unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
www.azgovernor.gov...

The Governors accompanying statement.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


As you always say; "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (is that a fair paraphrase?)

But I must admit my position is not based upon textual knowledge, but the distillate
of being immersed in its attempted execution. Fortunately in this case I checked the "gospel", only to find my compass is operating in step with the word.

To be more candid, I feared you (in particular) might waltz in and lance me in the gut due to my lack of due diligence. Therefore I am very glad to have jumped the shark as they say...

I cannot add anything substantive to your expansion, as you have delivered a Ferrari to a used Toyota dealership, outshined would be a verbal felony ...

I must ask JPZ

Do you think the immigration situation is a problem considering this current embodiment of government?

If so how would you address it, once again considering the current state of the state?






[edit on 24-4-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWJFKD
www.azgovernor.gov...

The Governors accompanying statement.


I read it

As I have said, I do not believe this is in bad faith in any intentionally insidious manner,
however, it falls short by the national standard and apparently Arizona's standard as well. I don't believe any amending to the bill will change the actual method
of its execution or its legitimacy in this country.

Trial by eye and presumption of guilt is the antithesis of the America I have come to understand, although it is human to do so, this society has purposefully moved beyond such instinctual tendencies. On an intellectual level I don't know how to condense it more.

What do you think of the law, beyond your previous comments?



[edit on 24-4-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





As you always say; "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (is that a fair paraphrase?)


You have not paraphrased at all but translated directly the Latin phrase:

Ignorantia juris non excusat




To be more candid, I feared you (in particular) might waltz in and lance me in the gut do to my lack of due diligence. Therefore I am very glad to have jumped the shark as they say...


It seems many have assumed I would be for this legislation. I am all for law, and I am not all for legislation that pretends to function as law. This has always been my stance and it will never change. Your O.P. was as sound legal reasoning as one can get, and honestly Janky, if it is law it is self evident, and textual knowledge need not be required. Legislation that needs explanation is, in all likelihood, not law.




Do you think the immigration situation is a problem considering this current embodiment of government?


I grew up in New Mexico in a town where "whites" were the minority. I did not date a "white" woman until I was well in college and grew up around a Mexican American culture that I adore. I admire much about the Mexican people as well, and wish no ill will to any Mexican national seeking refuge in this country, but to answer your question honestly, yes Janky, I do think under this current embodiment of government we have a serious problem with immigration.




If so how would you address it, once again considering the current state of the state?


First and foremost, the federal government has a responsibility to protect our borders and it should be clear they have failed miserably in accepting this responsibility. If I might digress for a second, I believe many who oppose my political views assume things about me incorrectly because of the problem with labels and false paradigms, but I think you know my feelings on the health care legislation recently passed, and I would love to take this opportunity to point out that if the federal government can't handle a simple task such as protecting borders, what makes anyone think they can handle more complex problems like health care?

A government spread too thin is an ineffective government. This is why the federal government is failing so miserably on many issues, they are, quite simply, spread too thin. Some believe the answer to that is to expand government so it is not spread so thin, where I believe the answer is to limit government so they are only handling the problems they have been mandated to do. It is such a complex issue, my friend, as I have no doubt you all ready know.

Being raised Catholic, coming from a loving family, I firmly believe in charity. I think we must all look out for each other as best we can, and when you need my help, I would feel horrible if you never asked for it. That said, this charity is not the responsibility of government, it is a personal responsibility and delegating that responsibility to government is hardly charitable. Instead it becomes a form of legal plunder where government robs from one set of people to give to another. Indeed, government has been mandated with looking out for the general welfare of the people but legal plunder is not general welfare, it is plunder.

What I am suggesting is that our welfare programs have been used not just for citizens but have been used to help non citizens as well. This has encouraged some of the illegal immigration that exists in this country and the answer to that has always been obvious to me. Reduce or eliminate the amount of plunder used to promote the general welfare and you will reduce the amount of illegal immigration into this country. Sort of like going on a diet. Reduce the calories and you reduce the weight.

Further, I have long been against this so called "war on drugs" and have always seen this blatant propaganda as nothing more than a power grab by government. The black market that this "war on drugs" has created has directly led to the horrific violence and chaos happening in Mexico, mostly in its border towns. Congress does have a certain amount of authority to regulate drugs so Constitutional issues about this "war on drugs" are sticky at best, but I have long held the belief that a sane and rational society would never advocate the draconian legislation regarding drug use, currently in place. Repeal these laws and you cut off the head of the dragon that is a huge source of the massive exodus from Mexico.

People are not leaving Mexico because they admire America, at least not all people, and many are fleeing a desperate situation. The best we can do to help that situation is to eliminate the source of the problem. The problem today is not that people use drugs, the problem is that government has used this behavior as an excuse to make criminals out of people who otherwise wouldn't be, and is just one more example of the colossal failure of government. The war on drugs is a failure that never needed to be a success, where the failure of protecting our borders must be successful.

My suggestions don't come with easy answers, and will take much time to implement given that the first thing that must happen is winning my case in the court of public opinion. Hence my efforts here. Thanks for this great thread Janky, it is more than greatly appreciated.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 


Folks, that very same governor, could have passed a law whereby any employer, corporate or private, if hiring an illegal, would get such and such time in jail and fines, and close the business, should they dared hire illegals.

All financial aid from the government would stop. Food stamps, Welfare, housing, EVERYTHING including (harsh) medical help.

They would go back so fast it would make your head spin!!!

Now, she chose an alternate way, a way that takes everyone's personal freedoms, a way that would have tons of Black uniformed police in the streets, the drama of the stops they will be making, chaosl, fear, not just by Mexican illegals, but by all who have to go outside.....
And think for a moment...what's to keep these cops from knocking on doors asking for papers? NOTHING. She is not to be trusted. She's a mere politician, trying to boldly enforce something, and going about it in the wrong way.

She is a NWO hack, that's what she is.

As i said before, if you were to close life in the US and make it impossible to live if you are not LEGAL, they would all go back where they came from.

Whenever this government handles anything, if you will notice, they handle it in such a way that will cause the MOST PAIN, the MOST CHAOS, the most inhumane way possible. That's a fact.

Now having said all that, i agree, those who want to be here, HAVE to be here legally, like everyone else. There should be no exception.

George screwed up, Obama screwed up, and then they have this wet hen politician


handle it this way. Its a shame and its an embarrasment.

Now watch the ball roll, next stop, California, New Mexico, Texas, Florida and then the entire country. This is how they wil handle it because its the most chaotic and it seems more the police state they want, rather than do something reasonable.

/



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join