IF YOU THOUGHT THE TEA PARTY WAS BIG...

[Bob Campbell]

More people turned out nationwide yesterday to protest the AZ immigration bill than have been at every tea party rally combined in its short history.

[CoolBreeze]

That's because we have more illegals and nutcases here now than legal sane people. When I travel almost anywhere in Europe, I must carry documentation. When I drive here in the U.S by car, I must carry documentation. If caught without it, I must face the law. Why should illegal lawbreakers get any special treatment?

[jag]

I'm certainly no attorney, but my understanding of the concept of American law is that one is innocent until proven guilty. And, the onus of proving guilt is on the accuser, not the accused. It seems that with 1070, the onus is on the accused to prove his/her innocence.

If I'm wrong on this, I ask that it be clarified for me.

[Bob Campbell]

That's because we have more illegals and nutcases here now than legal sane people. When I travel almost anywhere in Europe, I must carry documentation. When I drive here in the U.S by car, I must carry documentation. If caught without it, I must face the law. Why should illegal lawbreakers get any special treatment?

And what documentation do you carry that proves you're a US citizen?
I can't think of anything I carry that proves it.

and ps. The point of the post was that if you think the Tea Baggers are a political force...just wait.
Arizona may be singly responsible for keeping the Dems in control of both Houses of Congress in November.

Oh yeah, and the odds of the law surviving a court challenge are slim. Something about that darned "precedence" clause in the US Constitution, which states that Federal laws take precedence over state and local laws. Thus the ability of the Fed to sue California over legal marijuana.

[Tom Taggart]

This issue clearly demonstrates why the tea party is flourishing.

Just about everyone in the media is distorting the Arizona law. The law requires some other intervening event to give the police probable cause to make a stop. For drivers, this would be a traffic violation; for pedestrians, some other indicia of criminal activity. The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 -19 (1968).
In Terry, a Cleveland police officer observed Terry and several others "casing" a storefront. Confronting Terry, he discovered a gun during a pat-down search. Terry moved to exclude the gun as the result of an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment.

The essence of Terry and subsequent cases involving investigatory stops is the "totality of circumstances" involved in the stop--the brief detention, and any subsequent investigation and search. The issue comes up quite frequently in drug cases, for example, United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980). There DEA agents detained Mendenhall who had just arrived at the Detroit airport, and was acting very nervous. The DEA agents explained that she fit a pattern for drug smugglers. The Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence to support a stop,--and the subsequent search which discovered smuggled narcotics. The Supreme Court found that Mendenhall had consented to the search, and that the brief detention that lead to the search was reasonable under the totality of circumstances incident to the stop.

Granted, police cannot justify a stop just on the basis that the persons looked like illegal aliens, see Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266(1973) and Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). In the Almeida-Sanchez case, the Court held that border patrol officers cannot use roving patrols to stop and search cars away from the border, based merely upon a suspicion that the occupants are illegals. The court held that the Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a vehicle, even for the limited purpose of questioning its occupants, unless the officers have a "founded suspicion" that the occupants are aliens illegally in the country.

In Brignoni, the border patrol had established a checkpoint on a main California highway. They noticed a car they considered suspicious because the occupants appeared Mexican, and, after a brief pursuit, stopped the car and arrested the driver (Brignoni) for illegally transporting aliens. The Court of appeals found this was not sufficient probably cause for the stop, and found that the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence (i.e.--the illegal passengers)obtained by the stop.
The Supreme Court agreed that the fleeting glance of several Mexicans in a car was not sufficient "indicia" of criminal activity.

However, in United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002), Arvizu was stopped by a border patrol agent while driving along an unpaved road in a remote area of Arizona. When his car was searched, 100 pounds of marijuana was found. Arvizu moved the trial court to exclude the evidence, arguing that the Border Patrol officer lacked reasonable basis for the stop.
His motion denied, upon conviction he appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed, finding lack of probable cause for the stop. The Supreme Court, in a brief opinion, upheld Arvizu's conviction, noting that:

"...it was reasonable for Stoddard [Border Patrolman] to infer from his observations, his vehicle registration check, and his border patrol experience that respondent had set out on a route used by drug smugglers and that he intended to pass through the area during a border patrol shift change; and Stoddard's assessment of the reactions of respondent and his passengers was entitled to some weight. Although each of the factors alone is susceptible to innocent explanation, and some factors are more probative than others, taken together, they sufficed to form a particularized and objective basis for stopping the vehicle."

There is a vast body of law relating to investigatory or traffic stops. Police officers are trained in this area. Under the Arizona law, remember, there must be probable cause for the traffic stop or detention before the officer may investigate to see if the individual is legally in the country. U.S. citizens, --particularly drivers, will have "proof of citizenship" on them--their driver's license. Under Federal law, all states are to eventually set up standards for issuing licenses that insure the bearer is a citizen. Resident aliens, under Federal law, are required to have identification papers on their person at all times. Lacking either forms of identification would give probable cause for an arrest, once the totality of circumstances exist for the initial traffic stop.

You speak of "precedence"--you mean preemption. There are any number of criminal acts that can be violations of either state and Federal laws; the preemption doctrine does not normally prevent this overlapping of jurisdiction. For example, the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals recently upheld Arizona's right to make it a crime for employers to hire illegal aliens.

The bottom line here is that the Federal Government started to secure the southern border, but stopped after fencing the California border. Thereby forcing the drug traffickers and "coyotes" farther east to the mostly unsecured Arizona border.
Rather than attacking the root problem, East Coast politicians have decided to use the controversy to advance their goal of amnesty and completely unsecured borders in order to lock in the Hispanic vote.

[CoolBreeze]

And what documentation do you carry that proves you're a US citizen?
I can't think of anything I carry that proves it.

I would guess my drivers license for one. Can illegals LEGALLY get a state drivers license? How about my voters registration card? Can they get one of those too?

The answer TODAY is most likely "yes".

[Tom Taggart]

Undoubtedly so. Hence an illegal alien with a Virginia drivers license (one of the states that have not upgraded their systems yet) might skate by when stopped for an illegal left turn in Tucson. That's why the Federal government is pressuring states to improve their systems to insure they issue licenses only to citizens.

And that's why the Democrats, and the loud-mouths constantly oppose measures that require voters to provide identification when voting. Might prevent those illegals from voting, don't you know?

An article to read from a legal resident alien:

http://article.nationalreview.com/43316 ... mark-steyn

[Mike]

Illegals are lucky I am not President.

I'd arm the Border Patrol with sniper rifles and shoot to kill orders.

I'd cut costs by setting up automated machine gun towers armed with Browning .50's with infrared targeting devices.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

[quote="Tom Taggart"]This issue clearly demonstrates why the tea party is flourishing.


Flourishing??

Umm... They have been getting a lot of publicity, and they have served as a uniting force for the far right extreme in America..

But I would be careful calling any party that boasts Barabara Bachman and Sarah Palin as their "Leaders," as flourishing..

Regardless of what u think of the AZ law, it matters not..

Its gonna have a very short shelf life..

It will be overturned as unconstitutional...

[Bob Campbell]

This issue clearly demonstrates why the tea party is flourishing.


Flourishing??

Umm... They have been getting a lot of publicity, and they have served as a uniting force for the far right extreme in America..

But I would be careful calling any party that boasts Barabara Bachman and Sarah Palin as their "Leaders," as flourishing..

Regardless of what u think of the AZ law, it matters not..

Its gonna have a very short shelf life..

It will be overturned as unconstitutional...

Tea Party... see ...shark, jumping the.
More people attended rallies against the AZ law Saturday then have attended all tea bag rallies combined in its history.

Immigration has a pretty long legal history of being under Federal jurisdiction. The AZ bill looks to be in serious constitutional jeopardy.
I sat in the sauna at the Y yesterday with a Latino business owner, naturalized 14 years ago, who is in the process of cancelling a business trip to Phoenix.
AZ will lose a few bucks also.
And to drag in another thread.
You're willing to pay 4 bucks a shrimp so we can drill offshore right?
Are you willing to pay 5 bucks a head for lettuce?
And an extra 20 percent for your next home?

[Tom Taggart]

When in trouble, change the topic and obfuscate.

The issue is not immigration. Immigration is a legal activity. The issue is the security of the border.
I am all in favor of opening up and increasing legal immigration, as well as tightening the law on employment of illegal immigrants. Then economic conditions will limit the flow of immigrants--as is actually happening now. And we will know with more certainty who is coming into the country.

Until the borders are secure there is no real point in trying to reform the immigration laws. Which is what the activists on the left really want.

[Lester]

and ps. The point of the post was that if you think the Tea Baggers are a political force...just wait.

Yeah... just like the Muslim immigrants were a "political force" in France about 2 years ago.

Arizona may be singly responsible for keeping the Dems in control of both Houses of Congress in November.

Only in as much as President Obama will now press through "Immigration Reform" which allows him to replace all of his alienated (ha!) base with illegal immigrant voters.

Oh yeah, and the odds of the law surviving a court challenge are slim. Something about that darned "precedence" clause in the US Constitution, which states that Federal laws take precedence over state and local laws. Thus the ability of the Fed to sue California over legal marijuana.

Too bad the AZ law mirrors the federal law, that's not being enforced. How do you think that will go down in court, or will the other border states then be forced to follow AZ's lead?

[DJSHOCKLEY]

and ps. The point of the post was that if you think the Tea Baggers are a political force...just wait.

Yeah... just like the Muslim immigrants were a "political force" in France about 2 years ago.

HUH???

Arizona may be singly responsible for keeping the Dems in control of both Houses of Congress in November.

Only in as much as President Obama will now press through "Immigration Reform" which allows him to replace all of his alienated (ha!) base with illegal immigrant voters.

Yeah right..

Oh yeah, and the odds of the law surviving a court challenge are slim. Something about that darned "precedence" clause in the US Constitution, which states that Federal laws take precedence over state and local laws. Thus the ability of the Fed to sue California over legal marijuana.

Too bad the AZ law mirrors the federal law, that's not being enforced. How do you think that will go down in court, or will the other border states then be forced to follow AZ's lead?

Links? Sources for this assertion??

[fearpeddler]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ot-for-me/

written by an immigrant.... "As I write, I have my papers on me - and not just because I'm in Arizona. I'm an immigrant, and it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I carry documentary proof of my residency status with me at all times and be prepared to produce it to law enforcement officials, whether on a business trip to Tucson or taking a 20-minute stroll in the woods back at my pad in New Hampshire."

[Bob Campbell]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ot-for-me/

written by an immigrant.... "As I write, I have my papers on me - and not just because I'm in Arizona. I'm an immigrant, and it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I carry documentary proof of my residency status with me at all times and be prepared to produce it to law enforcement officials, whether on a business trip to Tucson or taking a 20-minute stroll in the woods back at my pad in New Hampshire."

Unfortunately, the AZ law applies to everybody, not just immigrants. Thus, native born Americans will have to prove citizenship if asked.

The good news is this law may spur real reform. A path to citizenship for everybody already here (unrealistic to think we can round them up and send them back) and some type of guest worker visas for those coming for jobs.
It's obvious we depend on illegal immigrants for the work they do. The vast majority are hard working families.

[Bob Campbell]

When in trouble, change the topic and obfuscate.

The issue is not immigration. Immigration is a legal activity. The issue is the security of the border.
I am all in favor of opening up and increasing legal immigration, as well as tightening the law on employment of illegal immigrants. Then economic conditions will limit the flow of immigrants--as is actually happening now. And we will know with more certainty who is coming into the country.

Until the borders are secure there is no real point in trying to reform the immigration laws. Which is what the activists on the left really want.

Tom, how do you propose to pay for sealing our borders? Raise taxes? It sounds cute, but it's unrealistic.
And neither political party has any interest in it. They realize how much we depend on illegal labor.

[Lester]

Links? Sources for this assertion??

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 54374.html

• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.

Oh yeah, and the odds of the law surviving a court challenge are slim. Something about that darned "precedence" clause in the US Constitution, which states that Federal laws take precedence over state and local laws.

• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of "pre-emption," which means a state can't adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.

[Jay Nunley]

This whole thing is nonsense. Take out all the horseshit from the left and all the bullshit from the right. Leave out the xenophobia and bigotry from which the anti-immigration fervor in our country is born.

There has to be a predicate offense to be "asked for your papers." That is protection (even for non citizens) written into the law already.

It seems reasonable and sensible to me that if you commit a crime, large or small, you are going to have your papers, history, information, etc. checked by law enforcement. This is true of citizens, non citizens, all genders, races, and everyone.

If this was the police going around arresting brown people because they are brown it would be a different matter.

I realize there is a real discussion, debate, and decision we need to have on and about immigration, but this particular bag of shit shouldn't be a big deal.

I remember something about tired, hungry, poor, huddled masses, and yearning to be free. I hope we are still that country and not the one we appear to be. That's my contribution to the aforementioned real discussion.

[Lester]

That's written on the Statue of Liberty, Jay... on Ellis Island, where immigrants LEGALLY entered the United States.

And hundred still LEGALLY enter the U.S. every day. This isn't about immigration, it's about ILLEGAL immigration... breaking the law just to get your way. (Or in quite a few cases, breaking the law to enter the U.S. so you can break some more laws.)

Dude, I know a Cuban that immigrated to the U.S.... LEGALLY! Not on a boat... he didn't swim to Mexico and cross the Rio Grande. He filed papers with his state department, who filed papers with our state department, and over about a year he became a legal immigrant to the United States. He didn't even have a job when he got here, but has since started his own business.

If he can play by the rules, ANYONE can.

And let's talk "amnesty", is it going to apply to anyone? If a member of the Taliban sneaks into the U.S., will he be granted legal immigrant status? How about the Russians? Kenyan's? All the countries that we automatically deport when we catch them? (Immediate deportation doesn't apply to illegal MEXICAN immigrants, just the rest of the world.)

Won't only allowing Mexican's amnesty be profiling (or is that racist), the hate-baiting leftists have me confused.

[Bob Campbell]

You're right Lester. Amnesty will apply to everyone. No way around it.

The anger at the AZ bill from the Latino population is precisely because of the way it's worded Jay, and the possibility of abuse, the old " hmm...you have a headlight out...bang...". Legal, immigrants and native born (I spoke to a naturalized citizen last night who expressed this fear to me) both worry about the opportunities for abuse based on their race. Will it be the prevalent action of law enforcement? Hell no. Will it happen? Hell yes.

Have any of you actually been adversely affected by an illegal immigrant? I know here in NC we have a very large number of immigrants, legal and otherwise. Yet, violent crime is down even though the economy has been in the dumper. I have yet to find anybody who has lost a job to an illegal immigrant. I have spoken to home builders (2, not hundreds) who have said that if they were to check immigration status of their laborers, homes would cost 10-20 percent more.
Is there a large illegal population threatening Wild and Wonderful?

Sorry, reading this I realise this is probably the first time in my life I've ever said a sheriff is a friend of mine. My how times change.