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 border control issue! Help me find a work around to the SCOTUS ruling on illegal immigration.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Oops ::shk: One moment pls.
edit on 26-6-2012 by OmegaLogos because: eidted to oops



Explanation: So after reading 2 threads on the issue of AZ illegal immigration and border control I was quiet disturbed by the scotus ruling!

I propose a work around!

I propose that AZ give up a 1meter wide strip of land the entire length of the border with mexico and give it to the Fed government.

After doing such a thing [its less than 1km sqr of land btw] the AZ border would be DECOUPLED from both the Fed border and the Mexican border.

Then AZ can turn to the Fed Governemnet and say ... "We dont care what you do with your land! However we will protect our STATE border under the Freedom of Movement provisions provided to and for the STATES in the USA constitution.

Freedom of movement under United States law [wiki]


Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).


Now freedom to move within and between states ONLY applies to citizens!

Personal Disclosure: Would this proposal, if enacted, return full control to AZ over all its borders?



edit on 26-6-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to add content.




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Since your disturbed by the ruling, are you saying that your ok with police officers being able to pull somebody over because they "think" they might be illegal? Seems a bit like profiling to me. Why didn't other states do the same thing? Such as Minnesota? They could pull over people they "think" are Canadian and are here illegally. Oh wait, Mexican's are a different color. RACIAL PROFILING IS WRONG!!!!

I like the fact that Arizona tried to do this on their own, but it's not their job. It's the job of the federal government to deal with immigration and they are doing a piss poor job of it. But this law in Arizona wasn't the answer. It's just a way to legally profile someone based on the color of their skin. That's all.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Explanation: Thanks for the reply!

Now how about the proposal put forth in the OP?


Personal Disclosure: Is it doable and would it be worthwhile doing?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
SB 1070 is unconstitutional. The supreme court ruling proves this and hopefully the remaining part of the bill that was upheld will also be challenged in the near future. Immigration is a FEDERAL ISSUE. If states can make Police officers enforce immigration which is a federal issue, what's stopping them from also asking you if you filed your tax returns on time?

If each state had it's own immigration laws then it would funnel illegal immigrants into another state and the problem would just get worse and worse.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


How can the state give up what it doesn't own?

The supreme court ruling clearly stated that Arizona over stepped its authority, plus the law included racial profiling, thus illegal.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


&

reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Explanation: St*rred! [for both of you]

1stly this thread is not about the immigration laws and there are at least 2 other threads focusing on such issues.

FOR CLARITY ... This thread is about "Finding a work around!" to the scotus ruling!

IF ...

1] AZ, which by default of being a state, OWNS the land the land along the border with Mexico.

THEN ...

2] AZ GIFT the Fed Government a 1 meter wide strip of land along the ENTIRE length of that border [565km long (aprox) totalling less than 1km sqr in land total] and by doing so make that strip Federal Property and RETRACTING the AZ border back from the Mexican border thereby DECOUPLING from it.

ALLOWING ...

3] AZ to enforce its OWN state laws on freedom of movement, which in no affects any usa citizen at all, and criminalize the movement of illegals across and within its own borders.

Now here is how it would work.

An illegal immigrant steps over the border from mexico onto Federal Property of the USA.

Result = little or no action taken by the feds.

Then the illegal immigrant steps over the border into AZ and is immediately arrested not for breaching immigration rules ...but for illegally moving as an illegal immigrant through AZ which would be agaisnt AZ STATE laws on freedom of movement.

So they get detained not for being illegal immigrants, which IS a federal issue, but instead get detained because they are MOVING as an illegal immigrant through AZ!


Personal Disclosure: Would that be a workable [if evil] work around to the scotus ruling?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Ok I'll bite. First, now I'm no expert, but I don't think that the State of Arizona actually owns it's land and borders like you would think. The United States of America would be the owners of the actual land, no? I'm purely guessing on this, no evidence (i.e. too tired to look it up
). So it wouldn't work with that respect. Second, IF Arizona did own the physical land and gave a border like you said to the federal government, then it wouldn't matter in the slightest. The law you bring up is a law that gives it's citizens the right to enter and exit any state in the Union, correct? So how would this have an effect on immigration? I remember when their used to be checkpoints between states set up when we drove from one state to another. I can't think of a place now that would have them.

However, it's an interesting theory you bring up. Still, I don't think it would help much in this case.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Immigration is a FEDERAL ISSUE. If states can make Police officers enforce immigration which is a federal issue, what's stopping them from also asking you if you filed your tax returns on time?

If each state had it's own immigration laws then it would funnel illegal immigrants into another state and the problem would just get worse and worse.


You have this totally backwards.

If each state were free to enact it's own immigration laws it would solve the immigration problem, not make it worse. Each state would be competing against the other. If a state wanted cheap labor it could relax the laws. If a state wanted to crack down on people draining their resources it could tighten the laws.

Re the OP, I think you're theory has merit. AZ could simply drop illegals off across the border in California and would be in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling, and would not be infringing on the Executive branch's enforcement of immigration.
edit on 26-6-2012 by UltimateSkeptic1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


Exactly.
States rights. Too bad the federal government has a death grip on border protection. They are obviously doing a lousy job of it. Democrat or Republican=administrations .. all have failed. I'm sure Arizona could take care of itself much better than the feds. Ditto California. They'd know what they need to do and they could do it.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


But ultimitaly the issue of immigration is a federal issue. If other states were to pass laws like arizona's they would be taken to the supreme court and ultimately shot down like most of SB1070.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1
 


But ultimitaly the issue of immigration is a federal issue. If other states were to pass laws like arizona's they would be taken to the supreme court and ultimately shot down like most of SB1070.


Ultimately, when it's proven to the Supreme Court that the Feds are willfully not enforcing their duty to defend the U.S. from enemies, foreign and domestic, the 2nd Amendment's right to a a state's well-regulated militia will take precedent.

Further, if a state decided to funnel illegals into a bordering state, it's no longer an immigration issue and the Feds would not have standing to sue.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Explanation: St*rred!


The United States of America would be the owners of the actual land, no? I'm purely guessing on this, no evidence (i.e. too tired to look it up ). So it wouldn't work with that respect.


I was also too tired to look it up! :shk:

Some pictures saves thousands of words ...









So with the military in the way its just not going to work the way I originally invisioned! :shk:

But I will still keep looking for a work around!


I will start with the AZ constitution ... Caution PDF file ... autoloads in adobe so @yourownriskok.

Arizona Constitution (.pdf) [azleg.gov]

Personal Disclosure:
Only 12.7% land control.
AZ is scroomed!



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by boomer135
Since your disturbed by the ruling, are you saying that your ok with police officers being able to pull somebody over because they "think" they might be illegal? Seems a bit like profiling to me. Why didn't other states do the same thing? Such as Minnesota? They could pull over people they "think" are Canadian and are here illegally. Oh wait, Mexican's are a different color. RACIAL PROFILING IS WRONG!!!!

I like the fact that Arizona tried to do this on their own, but it's not their job. It's the job of the federal government to deal with immigration and they are doing a piss poor job of it. But this law in Arizona wasn't the answer. It's just a way to legally profile someone based on the color of their skin. That's all.


Why is everyone blowing this so far out of proportion? I dont think for one second the spirit of that law was meant to give the police cart blanch to just ask anyone and everyone for papers. They are required to have probable cause and with something that has been this visible and this controversial I would bet they would be crossing the T's and dotting the I's on this one. I can drive around my own town and make a pretty good guess on a few areas of town that are pretty infested. It wouldnt take a lot for them to ask a few questions, pull someone over that was breaking the speed limit and ask a few questions. Grab someone with an expired tag. Like someone in another post said. Hang out in front of the hardware store and ask a few questions of the group waiting to be picked up in a truck. Remember also this this is party just a deterrent. When they past the laws here in Oklahoma we had a large portion of them leave overnight. They went to other states. These people don't have roots here. If enough states pass strict laws then they have no where to go. But as long as they know they have presidential support backing them they have nothing to fear.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos


So with the military in the way its just not going to work the way I originally invisioned! :shk:

But I will still keep looking for a work around!





That map seems off, with regard to military establishment. South of Tuscon is Ft. Huachuca with lots of land with mountain ranges that border Mexico. At least I thought the ranges bordered Mexico. If not, it is very close. Between Aqua Prieta and Sierra Vista is pretty desolate, private ownership...I think. Sierra Vista is the civilian side of Ft. Huachuca.

That whole area, through to Nogales is desert with little more than ranches. Nogales is very small, on the U.S. side and so is Sierra Vista. From Yuma east to New Mexico is very rural and Yuma to Calexico(?) is death-type desert.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTardis
 


You bring up a good point about probable cause. What exactly is it? I'll give you an example that happened to me. I was driving from st Louis to Kansas city in a brand new truck that I bought. I got pulled over for speeding. 4 mph over the limit. I'm not complaining about that. I broke the law. The cop proceeded to tell me he smelt weed in the truck. I've never even touched a joint in my life and this truck still had the new car smell. But to him that was probable cause and he searched my truck. Didn't find anything of course. I filed a complaint against the Missouri dot and they confirmed that since the cop smelt weed it gave him probable cause. Now that's a crock of sh!t in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Explanation: I took the time to read the entire AZ constitution.

Note: Caution! .pdf opens in adobe etc @yourownriskok.

Arizona Constitution (.pdf) [azleg.gov]


Article II

35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited

Section 35. 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.


Is there a loophole there that can be exploited?


Personal Disclosure: Pls remember this thread is about disallowing illegal immigrants freedom of movement [within the state of AZ] and not on immigration [i.e. movement into the usa] which I do see as a federal issue.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
our police oficers ,local , state , and federal , all are paid to and have sworn an oath to ENFORCE the LAWS of the nation . we are all subject to our laws and if we break them we are all subject to the penalties in doing so .yes , no? Illegally entering the united states is against the law . there is no exemptions . FACT, the vast majority of illigal aliens in this country just so happen to be from Mexico and south america . what is wrong in our officers aproach in there attempt to enforce our laws by arresting and deporting illegal aliens . why all the kid glove special treatment , they broke the law. were just supposed to be ok with that? Why would any of us demand anything less than justice for all , equally.




top topics



 
1

log in

join