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.
Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by mike dangerously
Governor Brewer never really tackled this issue until she came up for relection.So in the end she gets what she clearly wants a national stage
It really surprises me that people believed the Arizona legislature was really working for the people.
It was all a show. Politicians are politicians.
Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by mryanbrown
So you would support a law that deported illegals and took all neccessary steps to prevent more from coming, as long as it didn't effect the rights of citizens?
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TaxpayersUnleashed
Good. Now stop sending the feds money Arizona.
Send that money to the sherrifs that arrest and prosecute the illegals.
No Sherrifs arrest and prosecute illegals...that is kind of the point of striking down this law.
If you cut off money to the feds...then how will they fund ICE and Border Patrol...the only two agencies that CAN and DO enforce immigration laws.
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
State and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers working in conjunction with ICE gain: necessary resources and authority to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering; and support in more remote geographical locations.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig ... I believe that there will be back lashes out against minority groups both legal and illegale in the united states and it will continue to escelate until the federal government is forced to act.
In this case the pressure got them to do something good.
Let's get it back in action and get this errant judge overturned or out of the way.
Originally posted by MikeNice81
...
Actually sherrifs, detectives, and correctional officers can and do handle immigration issues.
ICE.gov
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
State and local patrol officers, detectives, investigators and correctional officers working in conjunction with ICE gain: necessary resources and authority to pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering; and support in more remote geographical locations.
There are currently 80 jurisdicitons across the country participating in the 287(g) program.
Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by oniongrass
In this case the pressure got them to do something good.
Good? What's good about it? All it has done is cause Arizona a lot of problems. Politicians knew it would be overturned.
They should have just increase their participation with DHS under Section 287g.
Let's get it back in action and get this errant judge overturned or out of the way.
Funny how she is errant because she didn't uphold the law. I'm sure she would have been viewed as a hero if she had upheld it.
Originally posted by oniongrass
Yes, if the judge didn't make an error, I would not have called her errant. You think that's funny? It's obvious.
Originally posted by mryanbrown
Originally posted by oniongrass
Yes, if the judge didn't make an error, I would not have called her errant. You think that's funny? It's obvious.
Judges that uphold the Constitution are in error and should be fired!!! That's how America works right? We can simply fire judges who uphold the Constitution by striking down unconstitutional laws.
Originally posted by oniongrass
Originally posted by mryanbrown
Originally posted by oniongrass
Yes, if the judge didn't make an error, I would not have called her errant. You think that's funny? It's obvious.
Judges that uphold the Constitution are in error and should be fired!!! That's how America works right? We can simply fire judges who uphold the Constitution by striking down unconstitutional laws.
It's a real stretch for me to believe the Arizona law is unconstitutional. I mean frankly it's a ridiculous thought. Please find me the words in the Constitution that it violates.
Let me just double check here. It is against the law to reside in this country without proper identification and/or work permits. That's a federal law isn't it? Maybe not, but in any case it is a law. Last time I checked breaking the law makes you a criminal. Maybe not in the popular sense of the word, but technically yeah. If they weren't criminals, why are they sneaking over like there's something wrong with it? Why not give a friendly wave to the border patrol as you stroll through the checkpoint?
Originally posted by mryanbrown
Pretty much. As long as people learn what "crime" is. And that crossing the border is not a "crime". And that someone must be committing an actual "crime" to interfere with them period.
And if they aren't engaged in an actual CRIME then you have no lawful reason to even attempt to determine legal status.
Lawful is not legal. Illegal does not mean crime. But crimes are illegal and unlawful. Once you can get the basics of that, you'll know what I mean.
A crime involves an injured party.
And the asinine excuses of "They steal services my taxes paid for" does not create an injured party.
Judge Bolton based her reasoning entirely on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and the notion that Congress has pre-empted state regulation in the provisions struck down. The court rejected a commerce clause argument by the federal government, and did not rule on the racial profiling issue because it was not necessary.
When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.
So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.
For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.
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.
OK so how about this: a guy is driving down the road, and a bee flies into the car and the guy swerves a little as he trying to shoo it out the window. A cop see's this swerve.
Originally posted by mryanbrown
If you didn't violate someones right to privacy, how would you know if they're illegal or not? Oh you wouldn't! You simply assumed and happened to be correct if you were.
Originally posted by Gigatronix
Is the mans rights violated? Would his right be violated if he was asked to take a sobriety test? Most people would be annoyed that they had to do it, but would ultimately understand because drunk driving is dangerous and we want those people off the road if at all possible. It's an incovenience, but on the other hand it's nice to see cops out actually doing what we pay them to do.
We see alot of talk about how cops should be going about it, but how many of us are cops or have experience in law enforcement? It's not cops just cruisin around eating donuts looking for mexicans to harass. It's cops on the edge of their seat wondering if this innocent traffic stop is going to get them shot by some desperate illegal. It's cops knowing from first hand experience that alot of gangbangers are among the illegal population and they are dangerous. Cops know what the situation really is on the ground, we do not.
When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.
So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.
I can;t even being to address your own misguided assumptions. But since you are obviously psychic I don't have to tell you anyway.
Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Gigatronix
ROFL that's exactly my point.
Being here illegally is illegal. It is not unlawful. Nor is it a crime. It is merely illegal.
And public perception has been bent using propaganda to make you ignorantly assume and reiterate that breaking the law is a crime.
When in fact the legal definition of crime, and that determined by the US Supreme Court is that for a crime to exist there must be an injured party.
- - - - - - - -
Not to belittle your frustration....
When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.
But obviously I can see how you're an injured party here :/ *rolls eyes*. So you must have invaded their privacy to determine his legal status, tax status etc.
Or did they happen to one day go, "Hey neighbor! I'm illegal and work under the table. Enjoy paying taxes sucker."
No you just drew assumptions.
So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.
You really are an injured party aren't you!
And no you don't have to wait for them to commit a second crime.
You have to wait for them to commit their first crime, or violation of statutory law that doesn't apply to them that we then ignorantly skew into some legal relation to charge them with breaking statutes which are unlawful to begin with.
MAKES SENSE.
For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.
Sheer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
"Illegals don't have constitutional rights".
Yes... they do...
Because the Constitution never GRANTED us rights. It PROTECTS the rights we were INHERENTLY BORN with. Basic HUMAN RIGHTS.
You want to see how SB1070 treats people?
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.
So essentially you can steal from illegals who have RIGHTFULLY earned their property. And we won't offer them any protection in court.
"Improper" entry? So if they come across the border for a day through the border crossing, they're protected. But if not then eff em?
And how do we know if they walked across the border, or legally came across the checkpoint?
We don't.
So we now have broad legislation making it okay to target non-US citizens w/o Visas.
ITS OKAY TO STEAL FROM THEM. But murder and assault is still illegal. We still protect their right to not be injured. I guess we shouldn't do that either since they aren't here "legally", probably.
I like the assumption that I had to be stalking somebody to find this out. Ever notice how women like to talk alot, especially to each other? SO let me see if I can clear this up, my wife+ his wife+ plus a couple drinks equals a loose tongue. And no, I didn't set it up, i fact I thought they were alright until my wife tells me the next day what she heard.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Gigatronix
When I lived in Arizona, my wife and I worked very hard to afford a place on the nice side of town. Well wouldn't ya know, here's this cute hispanic couple living next door. The girl was illegal, with her obligatory anchor baby and welfare. Her boyfriend , also illegal, worked under the table at a construction job making nice money.
So they're here illegally, not paying taxes, and receiving welfare.
I would really like to know how you found out all this information about your neighbor...sounds stalkerish.
In general...illegal immigrants really don't go over to their neighbor and just tells them "HI..I'm illegal...and I'm on welfare...and I get paid under the table and don't pay taxes....nice to meet you".