Misguided? Really??? Seriously???????

[AUChizad]

So it's unconstitutional to enact a law that upholds an existing law? 

I have no doubt that some activist judge will rule it unconstitutional, but I would just like to know how it is unconstitutional to protect our borders.

By all means, beef up border security (although any solution I've heard of thus far, i.e. border walls, etc. are a lost cause). That's not what's unconstitutional.

Unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause is prohibited by the fourth amendment. Since the majority of Hispanics, even in Arizona, are legal, their race is not probable cause. Furthermore, under the fourteenth amendment, all US citizens are to be treated equally by law. As mentioned, there are a shitload of legal Hispanic US Citizens whose rights would be violated by a law like this.

[jadennis]

"What is 'reasonable suspicion?' " protester Jose Acosta asked Sunday. "Are we going to get pulled over just because of a broken taillight or because of the color of our skin? ... If so, is everybody going to be pulled over?"

This is the kind of think that drives me crazy.  IF Jose Acosta IS pulled over for having a broken tail light, he is AUTOMATICALLY crying race.  I've been pulled over a couple times here in San Antonio (where, as a white guy, I'm a minority) for not having my front license plate on my wife's Audi (as required in Texas).  When I was pulled over, the cop asked for my driver's license.  

Had Jose been pulled over for the exact same thing, it would only be because he's Hispanic?  We're talking about Arizona, where over 30% of the population is of Hispanic origin....are we saying that nearly 1 in 3 people in Arizona are not allowed to be pulled over?  And if they are, do they not have to have a state issued driver's license (since they are driving)?  If they have no license, is it not appropriate to ask them for further ID or proof of legal presence in our country?  Is expecting a non-white American to live by the law racial profiling now?  

I can see one problem, as Token mentioned, about overcrowding and logistical issues.  But it's this very issue that I think would keep local law enforcement from abusing this law and going out of their way to act like Border Patrol officers.  If nothing else, this may create more cooperation between local law and Border Patrol.  

[jadennis]

Unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause is prohibited by the fourth amendment. Since the majority of Hispanics, even in Arizona, are legal, their race is not probable cause. Furthermore, under the fourteenth amendment, all US citizens are to be treated equally by law. As mentioned, there are a poopload of legal Hispanic US Citizens whose rights would be violated by a law like this.

Clarify this for me.  Does this law suggest or encourage "unreasonable search and seizure"?  If anyone, white, Hispanic, or other, is pulled over, is it a violation of their rights to ask them to show ID?  Isn't that pretty standard for any law officer in any situation?  

[jadennis]

To be very simplistic, Border Patrol/National Security/Immigration is a federal power.  1.  They do not have the authority to enact such a law and 2. State laws are preempted by federal laws.

I know you have me by about 1000% on the subject of law, so these are honest questions.

If you are a local law enforcement officer in Iowa, and you pull over someone who has no driver's license, no other form of ID, are you not legally allowed to pursue questioning about their citizenship just because they are breaking a federal law?  Don't local guys have a responsibility to assist in the upholding of federal laws? 

Also, I know federal law trumps state law, but is there anything in this law that actually conflicts with federal law?  Is this in any way contradictory to federal immigration laws? 

[wesfau2]

Also, I know federal law trumps state law, but is there anything in this law that actually conflicts with federal law?  Is this in any way contradictory to federal immigration laws? 

It doesn't have to contradict federal law.  The premise is essentially:  if the feds have a law covering the subject, then the state law is superfluous.

[jadennis]

It doesn't have to contradict federal law.  The premise is essentially:  if the feds have a law covering the subject, then the state law is superfluous.

But don't states have all kinds of laws that are in addition to federal law?  For example, there may be federal safety standards on gas distribution lines/pipes, etc, but in certain states, or even certain municipalities, those safety regulations may be more strict, extending beyond the federal "minimums" or federal law regarding that subject. 

Maybe that's not the case, but I just feel like I've seen such things (where a state law extends beyond federal "minimums" or standards on certain subjects.

[AUsweetheart]

Clarify this for me.  Does this law suggest or encourage "unreasonable search and seizure"?  If anyone, white, Hispanic, or other, is pulled over, is it a violation of their rights to ask them to show ID?  Isn't that pretty standard for any law officer in any situation?  

Showing ID is not really the problem. If I get pulled over because they want to make sure I'm legal and it just happens to be the night that I had three glasses of wine with dinner...I'm gonna be pissed.

[AWK]

It doesn't have to contradict federal law.  The premise is essentially:  if the feds have a law covering the subject, then the state law is superfluous.

Yep.

Here is the thing, you can make a more strict law than the federal law as long as it's within constitutional bounds.  However, in this case, the Federal Government has a specific Bureau that handles these matters...by Federal Legislation. 

[AUChizad]

Clarify this for me.  Does this law suggest or encourage "unreasonable search and seizure"?  If anyone, white, Hispanic, or other, is pulled over, is it a violation of their rights to ask them to show ID?  Isn't that pretty standard for any law officer in any situation?  

Do you really think they're going to be equally pulling over white, black, or Asian people as they are Hispanics, to randomly check to make sure they didn't illegally immigrate from the Mexican border?

[GarMan]

Unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause is prohibited by the fourth amendment. Since the majority of Hispanics, even in Arizona, are legal, their race is not probable cause. Furthermore, under the fourteenth amendment, all US citizens are to be treated equally by law. As mentioned, there are a poopload of legal Hispanic US Citizens whose rights would be violated by a law like this.  

Complete bastardization of our Constitution...  So, how is this any different than getting pulled over for speeding or a broken tail light and subsequently being charged with DUI?  It's the same damn tactic.  The officer doesn't have to say he looked Mexican, Cuban or Canadian.  All they have to do is ask everyone for proof that they're here legally.  

Is it racial profiling when you see them floating into Biscayne Bay in a make-shift raft? 

[CCTAU]

Yeah. Here ya go.

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

This kid may be legal, but are his parents? If so, don't you think they would appreciate the "PIGS" keeping society safer than if there were no "PIGS"? I wonder if the "PIGS" were nicer back in old Mexico?

Illegal immigrants are invaders and spies in a foreign land. What should we do with spies?

And I didn't see where the law gave the officers the right to pull someone over just for looking illegal. It sounds like it made it OK to question someone if you needed to. Many states do not allow the officers to even ask for papers, even for rape or murder. Maybe this will help get rid of the rapist or murderer before they can commit the act in our country.

[GarMan]

Meanwhile, back in Washington, DC, the enlightened ones...

April 26, 2010 1:32 PM

Obama Security Adviser Apologizes for Jewish Joke
By Michael McAuliff

President Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones, is apologizing for opening a speech to a pro-Israeli think tank with a joke about greedy Jewish merchants.

The opening quip to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, first reported by The Forward, went over reasonably well with the heavily Jewish crowd, but not everyone was amused.

The Anti-Defamation League, for one, complained, and today, Jones says he’s sorry.

“I wish that I had not made this off the cuff joke at the top of my remarks, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by it,” Jones said in a statement. “It also distracted from the larger message I carried that day: that the United States commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”

The Forward’s blog, The Schmooze, notes that the joke is not in the White House’s transcript of the event, or in the institute’s video, available here.

So it offered the recounting, here:
A Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water. The Jewish vendor tells him he doesn’t have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban, the jokes goes on, begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea: Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant; they can sell you water. The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later he’s back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: “Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/04/obama-security-adviser-apologi.html

Tough crowd.  He should have told a Mexican joke...

[Saniflush]

It doesn't have to contradict federal law.  The premise is essentially:  if the feds have a law covering the subject, then the state law is superfluous.

Unless such state law has higher standards than the federal one. 

ie. Federal OSHA regulations vs.  State OSHA regulations say like in the state of California.

[CCTAU]

Unless such state law has higher standards than the federal one. 

ie. Federal OSHA regulations vs.  State OSHA regulations say like in the state of California.

We already caused a war over this very thing. Except that now it's being taught as being ONLY about slavery.

Are states' rights something that we will have a war over every 100 years or so?

[GarMan]

I have an idea...

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:ifilm:video:spike.com:2677619

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

This thread is a perfect example of what's so fucked up about all this.

First, it's a crisis situation on the Arizona border.  This isn't everyday immigration issues type problems.  This isn't migrant workers trying to take jobs in the fields.  This is about Americans being in danger, and not shit has been done about it.  Or at least not until it becomes politically prudent.  Meanwhile, there's murder, drive by's and intentional harm being done on the streets of Phoenix and Tuscan.  Not fucking Mexico City, Mexico....US soil. 

If Obama, or the the federal body wanted to secure the border, they could, and they could in a heart beat.  However, they're not.  They're too focused on Goldman Sachs, and Healthcare and how do they recover from the horseshit policies they've forced through over the past six months.  Why is Arizona FORCED to do this in the face of a government that has for all intentions, abandoned them to deal with it with their hands tied?

Those that ignore the crisis angle are the ones that are crying foul, and only focusing on the civil rights aspect of this.

Take off the fucking blinders and if it's so unconstitutional, find ways to get the fucking morons in Washington to get their dicks out of the fucking political mule and do something about it.  It's their jobs.

This isn't about being racist, it's about keeping drug cartels and all the major violence out of Arizona as it's now out of fucking control.  that's something Repulicans, Democrats, and everyone else should agree on.

[wesfau2]

This isn't about being racist, it's about keeping drug cartels and all the major violence out of Arizona as it's now out of fucking control.  that's something Repulicans, Democrats, and everyone else should agree on.

Rather than treating the symptom, let's treat the cause:

Legalize it.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Rather than treating the symptom, let's treat the cause:

Legalize it.

I hear ya.  Don't have a problem with that whole debate. 

I do however think that it's still a long term solution (if a solution in total for that matter).  In the short term, there needs to be definintive action by our federal government, and we're not seeing it.  Arizona has been put in a situation where they are forced to act, and the only response by the President thus far is a suggested inquiry into the legality of it all?  Really?  Okay, so what else Mr. President?  Kill this effort and people continue to die.  So what do you tell the people of Arizona that continue to suffer?  I hear nothing.

I have to, sorry, but I have to believe that the innaction on the government side, is politically motivated.   How else can you explain virtually no action in light of the recent violence?

[GarMan]

Rather than treating the symptom, let's treat the cause:

Legalize it.

It?  Are we seriously calling for legalization of everything now, or are we under the fantasy-land impression that these drug cartels only smuggle fruit, sugar cane, frozen pizzas and occasionaly Marijuana (aka that-safer-than-alcohol-drug)?

Thursday, April 22, 2010

DEA nabs 4 Mexican drug cartel leaders
Men plead guilty to coordinating distribution, sales in Texas
By Jerry Seper

The leadership of a Mexican drug cartel operating in Dallas has been dismantled by a Drug Enforcement Administration-led task force with guilty pleas from four U.S.-based cell leaders and two associates tied to La Familia, a violent Mexico-based gang that killed 20 Mexican federal police and military officers in attacks last year.

Cell leaders Ricardo Hernandez-Cruz, 37; Edgar Gomez-Huerta, 31; Balmer Valencia Bernabe, 34; and Martin Alvarado-Cruz, 33, have pleaded guilty as part of a continuing law enforcement initiative known as Project Coronado, in which nearly 100 La Familia members tied to a drug smuggling and distribution operation in Dallas were arrested. All four await sentencing in U.S. District Court.

La Familia, or "the Family," is one of the Mexican government's highest priorities in its often deadly war against drug-trafficking gangs. Formerly allied with the infamous Gulf cartel, it split off on its own in 2006. Its boss, Nazario Moreno Gonzalez, has preached his gang's divine right to strike its enemies.

The DEA-led task force penetrated the Dallas organization, according to court records, documenting the receipt and distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine from associates in La Familia's home territory of Michoacan in southwestern Mexico.

"Project Coronado, our massive assault on the La Familia cartel, is part of our continued fight against all of the powerful Mexico-based drug cartels," DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart said Wednesday. "This organization, the newest of Mexican cartels, is directly responsible for a vast majority of the methamphetamine pouring into our country across our southwest border and has had a hand in fueling the cycle of violence that is wracking Mexico today."
<snip>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/22/mexican-drug-cartel-loses-4-leaders-to-dea/

[AUTailgatingRules]

I have no problem with racial profiling.  If they are here illegally and we are trying to round them up and ship them back, it only makes sense to check the Mexican looking people to find illegal Mexicans.

If we had a Murder fhere in BHam and we know it was committed by a white guy, I have no problem when the cops set up a road block and check out all the whit guys.  I seriously doubt they would catch a white murderer by making sure they stopped just as many black people while looking for the white guy.

If you are here legally and have nothing to hide, show your ID and move on.