April 24, 2010
Two Troubling Aspects of President Obama's Reaction to the New Arizona Illegal Immigration Law
... and all the more troubling because, as the Arizona law is a carbon copy of federal law, they reflect his views on the issue of illegal immigration.
The first is the basis of his objection.
Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. ... And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans ...
Illegal immigration pertains to the critical matter of sovereignty as tangibly manifest in the integrity of the border. It is also a matter of compliance with law (the enforcement of which constitutes genuine fairness). That the president chooses to frame this, instead, as a vague, emotional appeal to "fairness" indicates that sovereignty and the integrity of the border are secondary priorities to him. This is a problematic and disturbing mind-set for the occupier of the highest elected office in the country.
Also troubling is the solution that President Obama proposes in place of simply enforcing current federal immigration law. Far from being a responsible action by the federal government, "comprehensive immigration reform'', more accurately described as amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in the United States, would only exacerbate and accelerate illegal immigration to the United States.
Indeed, Mr. President,
... we can all agree that when 11 million people are living here illegally, that's unacceptable.
But contrary to what you propose, the solution is not to flip a switch and simply make legal what was illegal. This would only guarantee the permanent breach of our sovereignty by encouraging millions more to come here to wait for our misguided officials to pass yet another mass amnesty after this one. The answer is to enforce existing immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to employment and social benefits. Our immigration laws are not "broken", as you wrongly assert. They merely lack for a sufficient number of elected officials with the will to enforce them.
This is a really complicated issue.The Constitution assigns to the Federal government the primary jurisdiction over immigration("power to naturalize aliens")but the Federal government has de facto abdicated a major part of this responsibility going back to Jimmy Carter.Obama doesn't own this any more than everyone since Gerald Ford,who DID try to handle it.
Okay,Arizona can't hand over to the police the authority to enforce administrative(deportation law) immigration violations.Criminal violations of the immigration laws have always been subject to police enforcement just like bank robbery.
Arizona has done something new.They have made a deportation law violation(administrative law)a state crime.This poses an entirely new question.They are not co-opting a Federal function,technically speaking.They are defining a new type of crime.
I don't know if this will pass a legal challenge.
I'm not giving an opinion here,just an observation.I'm not a lawyer,so what do I really know anyway?
One thing for sure-if the Feds DID THEIR F**KIN' JOB WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION!!Sorry for shouting.
Now ask yourselves a question my fellow Rhode Islanders. Why would the pols in a state where 1/4 the population is of Hispanic/Latino descent be pursuing the toughest illegal alien laws in America?
Why does this same state not only tolerate but strongly suppport the tremendous in-your-face law enforcement tactics of legendary sheriff Joe Arpaio?
(How cool is Sheriff Joe?? He puts animal abusers in his world famous outdoor tent prisons and puts the abused animals in air conditioned buildings)
Why??
Because the dirty little secret East Coast liberal media elites will never tell you (or the rest of the nation) is just how much support there is for tough illegal alien laws among Americans of Mexican/Central and South American descent.
Don't think for one second the local pukes found in Progresso Latino et al represent anything other than their own pathetic little worlds. They don't!
Have relatives in Arizona and I can tell you that place is the opposite of Rhode Island in EVERY way you can think of.
No unions
No eminent domain
Yes land rights
Yes voter initiative
Yes tough illegal alien laws
A beautiful state in so many ways. If it weren't so damn hot 9 months of the year I'd move there in a minute.
Posted by: Tim at April 24, 2010 5:44 PMYeah, Arizona is really great - their entire economy is falling apart, real estate is in the pits, and their unemployment rate is at the national levels and actually going higher. Their educational system sucks - actually, they had the honor of #50 among 50 states. Their Senator is John McCain, who could get beat by a guy even worse than he is!
Give me a break, folks.
Here's the deal. If the law is unconstitutional I would expect any honest rightie should want it repealed? Am I wrong?
I hear righties jump up and down about the US Constitution being followed. I'm not qualified to say whether this law is Constitutional. Is anyone here a Supreme Court Justice?
So, let it play out and see what happens....
But, in the Big Hypocrite Department, please tell me - the GOP controlled our Government for at least 12 years from 1994 to now.....pray tell, what did they do that solved this problem? Answer: Lip Service.
Even Bush has a bill...along with McCain and Kennedy. But you (the rank and file) yelled and screamed and they dropped it.
So, if you want real reform on a national level, petition your congress to do so.
I won't even offer an opinion on this AZ. bill except to say that if it constitutional and within states rights, more power to them. If not, then bye-bye.
Pretty simple, really! Sometimes it seems as if the right only believes in their talking points when things benefit them. As soon as the constitution is used against their authoritarian desires, they jump up and down. That is hypocritical.
Posted by: Stuart at April 24, 2010 6:37 PM Congrats, Arizona.
You've just given police the power to stop anyone if they, basically, don't like the cut of your jib. This is basically a Juan Crow law, and I agree with Joe that it's vulnerable to a court challenge.
What's next, Arizona, apartheid and pass laws?
And how about John McCain's flip-flop? The Viet Cong didn't intimidate him, but that blowhard friend of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff running against him in the primary sure does.
" emotional appeal to "fairness" Americans have some odd ideas of "fairness". Why is it fair that a "progressive income tax" should soak the rich and everyone applauds?
Seriously, we have never made a serious attempt at immigration enforcement. When the "problem gets too big" we simply "cave". This goes back to the "Chinese Confession Cases" of the 1950's. We had 100's of thousands of illegal Chinese and we "couldn't tell them apart". So we just agreed that every Chinese who would admit to being illegal we would "adjust their status", then we would start again looking for illegals.
I think the "Chinese Exclusion" included Koreans, Japanese and Filipinos.
Let's not forget we used Census records to round up the Niesi Japanese for internment.
Anyway, let's not blame it on Bush.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 24, 2010 7:52 PMSorry, Rhody, McCain broke to the Vietnamese - he signed and taped a confession of his crimes......against N. Vietnam.
Just making sure history does not get rewritten. McCain ain't Rambo.
Anyway, Faust, I give credit to Bush for his attempt, however lame, to start a process. But without the votes in Congress, they could not do it.
One can only imagine how the current congress would spin any attempt at reform.
Posted by: Stuart at April 24, 2010 8:19 PMRhody-stop with the apartheid/pass law comparison-it's ridiculous.The people subject to apartheid laws were CITIZENS of South Africa,just like the Jews subject to the Nuremberg Laws were CITIZENS of Germany.
We have very specific immigration laws.They were passed by Congress,signed by presidents,and reviewed by the Judiciary.They just aren't enforced,thus resulting in the action by Arizona.
Tim is correct.YYou have no idea of how many Hispanic Americans support strict enforcement.Half of my Border partol Academy class was Hispanic.One of my instructors,the late Gus Delavina,became Chief of the Border Patrol.You,Rhody are probably just a few years too young to have paid attention to the last amnesty in 1986.
Stuart-you aren't that young and I am sure you were aware of it,but not of the devil in the details.I mean,why would you be,as you were neither an alien nor an immigration officer.
That amnesty started out sensibly and in a bipartisan framework(Simpson/Mazzoli),but was sabotaged by various perovisions added on such as the Panetta Amendment and the confidentiality provisions which were really insane.Anyway,that amnesty solved nothing,and the "increased enforcement" never materialized.
So here we are,24 years down the road and still no closer to an answer.
Is it any surprise a border state is reacting like this?If you lived there you might be of a different mindset.
BTW the term "path to citizenship"is misleading.Amnesty would lead to a path to permanent residence,not citizenhip.Huge difference-the right to vote for starters.
The RI executve order by the Governor is much different and well thought-it sets up a reactive posture by the police-i.e.an inquiry into immigration status would be initiated by a stop for police business.Police in RI aren't authorized to stop and question people based solely on potential immigration violations unless it involves a prima facie felony,such as transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8USC 1324.
Boy.I could go on here for awhile.The Progreso Latino race pimps and their acolytes like Jerzyk,Crowley,and the Ocean State Action/Olneyville Neighborhood Association agitators such as Peter Asen and Shana Kurland are pushing an open borders philosophy that can lead nowhere good.
If any of you liberals REALLY believe in the rule of law,you would support increased enforcement by ICE.
I'd like to hear an honest answer free of ideology for a change.I have avoided ideology here I hope.
My opinion of the people I criticized has been shaped by their comments and actions.
Joe writes:
"The people subject to apartheid laws were CITIZENS of South Africa"
If that is so, it might be interesting to know more about South African immigration/naturalization law. It is worth remembering that when the Dutch/Boers settled in South Africa, it was essentially void of population. There were a small number of "Bushmen". Most of the black population immigrated from other places. When the British forced the "trek Boers" further inland they did encounter some native population, but it was sparse. The vast majority of Blacks came to South Africa to work. I have no idea of South Africa's immigration/naturalization policy at the time.
So, what have we now? The immigrant blacks are now the "majority" and run the country (perhaps into the ground). So long as we leave our borders open the same possibility exists for us.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 24, 2010 9:14 PMWarrington-and the Jews in Germany were interlopers too?Despite the fact that many of them served admirably in WW1?12,000 Jews were killed serving in Germany's armed forces in that conflict.Those who returned later lost their citizenship.
Apartheid in South Africa was initiated after WW2 under Malan-millions of Blacks were already there.
Apartheid also affected East Indians and Malays,although Chinese were excepted due to an agreement between Nationalist China(Taiwan) and South Africa.
In any event,Rhody was really exagerrating with the comparison.
Hispanics have never been subject to the kind of legalized discrimination that affected Blacks.Not even in baseball.The "Hipanic Jackie Robinson" if you want to call him that was Bobby Avila and no one even took notice.
Another thing-many,many illegal aliens are non-Hispanic.Fact of life,people.The last thing we need on this issue is sound-bite sloganeering.
Right on Joe! The sound biting sloganeering from those talking out of their arse is tedious and tiresome.
The America we grew up in is all done and will never be seen again but it thrills me to know there are still citizens in this once great country who are not going down without a dog fight of epic porportion.
Btw Governor Carcieri would have signed that Arizona illegal alien enforcement bill in a heartbeat if given the chance.
Stuey somehow I missed your explanation as to why a border state with 1/4 of their population Hispanic in heritage is pushing for tough illegal alien laws. Talk louder Stuey. Nobody could hear you the first time.
Btw Stu McCain ain't Rambo and you ain't McCain.
rhody only simpletons believe the police do not profile now. They not only profile but they profile suburban white folk. Sounds good to me!
Posted by: Tim at April 24, 2010 11:57 PMJoe writes:
"Warrington-and the Jews in Germany were interlopers too?Despite the fact that many of them served admirably in WW1?12,000 Jews were killed serving in Germany's armed forces in that conflict.Those who returned later lost their citizenship.
Apartheid in South Africa was initiated after WW2 under Malan-millions of Blacks were already there."
Joe, come on. I specificaly made no mention of the Jews in Germany because there is no correlation with the Blacks in South Africa. There have been Sephardites in Germany since at least the middle ages, probably earlier. Until the fall of the Weimar Republic I think it is fair to say that they were fully integrated into German society.
Although Apartheid may not have been codified in South Africa until after WW2, it certainly existed without the name. There may have been millions then, but there were practically none at the time of the Dutch/Boer settlement. The vast majority came to South Africa to "work".
I have no idea whether the Boers recognized any theory of immigration, or citizenship. God knows they had their hands full with the invading English. I had no particlular sympathy with Apartheid, but look what has happened. White farmers are being killed at the rate of 3-4 a week. Carjacking murders are so common that people are installing flame throwers in their cars.
"All men are created equal" is American scripture. For whatever reason we decided to put pressure on South Africa. India still recognizes a "Caste system" and little or nothing is said. Mexico certainly makes tacit distinction between "Europeans" and "Indians", why don't we squeeze them a little? Have you ever seen a politician from the Dominican Republic who wasn;t at least plausibly White, the citizens certainly notice it.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 25, 2010 12:39 AMThe comparison to the Nuremberg laws with E-verify was actually made before a RI Senate committee by David St.Germaine"activist"by trade and professional complainer.
I am not unaware of the racial/religious discrimination that goes on in many third world countries and "civilized" Europe so beloved of some here.
Crime in South Africa has been out of control for years now.Too bad,because it is a country rich in resources.It hasn't gotten as bad for Whites as Zimbabwe,but it could.I think Mandela was a very moderating influence,but his successors have certainly not measured up.
In Zimbabwe Nkomo was the one who made people nervous,and now look at what a racist monster Mugabe has turned into,ruining the country for everyone.
Latin America is rife with anti-Indian discrimination.Anti-Black too.Ever check out the Brazilian elite?
I don't get the love affair some people here have with foreign countries.I'd really like to see any European equivalent of Colin Powell,Condoleeza Rice,or of sourse,Obama.It's not like there aren't many non White citizens of European countries.Thanks to colonialism that is not the case.Only they are never visible at national level political positions.
Belgium is a particularly nauseating example-they set themselves up as judges of "war crimes" around the world,yet they ran a truly bestial colonial system in Congo and Ruanda-Urundi,resulting in post colonial bloodshed since the 60's that dwarfs anything else in Africa,and that's saying something.Belgium also has language based hatred between Flemings and Walloons as bitter as anything you could imagine.And yet they preach to the world.Kinda like Rabbi Flam,Steven Brown,and Charlie Bakst producing verbal diarrhea about racism from their nests in all-White Barrington.
Just remember one thing-we've heard a lot of noise about the Federal government overreaching its authority and there is a lot of merit to the argument.There is not enough attention paid to the failure of the Federal government to do what they are mandated to do by the Constitution and the US Code with relation to taking responsibilty for controlling the immigration situation.
I hope this is a forum where we can dispense with name calling on this particular matter because it won't go away.Kinda like bickering over the fabric on the furniture in a cancer clinic.
This subject cannot be discussed intelligently at RIF or Kmareka because of the frenzied shouts of racism from the people at those blogs.
Here's a link to what (I believe) is the enacted version of Arizona's new immigration legislation.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Much of the law turns on the authority of local law enforcement to act on "a reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."
This is the heart of the issue over which all the liberals have their knickers in a twist; they are concerned that police will be pulling people over just because they look or sound different.
With a traffic stop or street encounter, for example, an officer might well have reason to believe that the driver or occupants are from another country, but the law requires more. What factors -- at the moment of the stop -- would the officer use to determine whether they are here lawfully or unlawfully?
Hopefully Arizona will be developing a set of objective factors upon which police officer may rely in making that call, although I'm not sure what they would be.
Posted by: brassband at April 25, 2010 8:18 AMBrass-there are objective,articulable factors which can be employed to initiate questioning of an individual as to their alienage and deportability.
Refer to a short article I wrote for AR by googling "joe bernstein ins real profiling"-it describes real world situations,not theory.Of course as INS agents,we had statutory authority under 8USC235 and 287 to make such stops.Still,due to court challenges we had to provide justification for our practices-Chicago was the focus of a major case,Illinois Migrant Council vs.Pilliod which started before I was hired but which colored our every move.The case dragged on for years and in an en banc decision,the US Circuit Court held that in fact racial appearance could be one factor to consider in a stop,but not the sole factor.
My concern is the quality of training the police in Arizona will receive.
The 287(g) program provides high qualtiy training for police at one the ICE academies(there are several sites nowadays)specifically to avoid unecessary problems.
>>>Stuey somehow I missed your explanation as to why a border state with 1/4 of their population Hispanic in heritage is pushing for tough illegal alien laws
They have 100% right to do anything which is within their power and legal under the US Constitution.
That goes without saying........
It's not a popularity contest. It's only a question of legality under the privacy clause and other aspects of the Constitution. I suppose we will find out.
Posted by: Stuart at April 25, 2010 9:07 AM Somehow, I doubt the people who supported this law give a damn about what kind of training police receive. They just want to see people of a different color thrown into jail. And will Latinos who support this still do so when they're the ones getting stopped?
McCain looks more like a panicked, poll-driven politician than any Democrat. He's running scared of a corrupt blowhard. He stood there with Palin like Carrie with the jock at the prom just before the pig's blood was dumped on his head. He was a fool to have Palin on stage with him - it only made him look weak (and don't think she didn't realize that).
Stuart writes:
"It's only a question of legality under the privacy clause and other aspects of the Constitution."
"Privacy clause", what privacy clause? You will not find one, "privacy" was somehow "found" in the Constitution to enable the decision in Roe v. Wade. That left a lot of Constitutional scholars wondering.
About the right of police officers to question citizenship status. There is little question that they have the right to demand to see a driver's license. This is sensible in order to determine if you have right to drive. Well, if they have the right to determine if you are legally on the road, surely they have the right to see if you are legally in this country.
If you are in this country ilegally, it would seem that you have been caught in the act of a crime. If it is not a crime (I am not sure if the violation is criminal, but suspect it is if you canbe incarcerated) it is certainly a civil infraction. Let us stop minicing words and decide wether we want "open" or "closed" borders. An area which cannot (perhaps in this case "will not") control its borders is not a country, it is a place.
While actual implementation may give rise to other questions, I cannot understand criticism of Arizona for choosing to enforce laws which the federal government will not enforce. I think what really troubles the Feds, and perhaps others, is that Arizona is exercizing "national policy". Surely, on the federal level, we have at least a tacit agreement not to enforce our immigration laws.
I also buy the "cheap labor" argument. I know a very nice Indian couple, both the husband and wife are software engineers. Although the husband is employed, the wife does not seem able to get permission to work. I suspect that if she sneaked out of the ocuntry and "re-entered" through Mexico, she could easily find employment as a bean picker. Perhaps I am biased by personal acquaintence with the Indian couple, but I find this quite aggravating. Perhaps I would approve if I were a software engineer. If I thought they were being treated equally with the bean pickers, I might think it was "fair".
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 25, 2010 10:08 AMJoe -- thanks for the lead, I read your essay.
You recommended against non-ICE law enforcement engaging in "proactive investigation of immigration," and I can see why.
Rhody accuses the drafters of the Arizona legislation of having no interest in assuring that locals are properly trained; anything that a liberal disagrees with is ipso fact racism, I guess.
I hope Arizona devotes the training resources necessary to implement this law, otherwise they will just be feeding into the ACLU/leftist prejudices regarding immigration enforcement.
And as someone who has never lived outside the Northeast, I recognize that I have very little understanding of the impact that such large numbers of illegals can have on a community, state or region.
Posted by: brassband at April 25, 2010 11:14 AMBrassband writes:
"And as someone who has never lived outside the Northeast, I recognize that I have very little understanding of the impact that such large numbers of illegals can have on a community, state or region."
Well, take a drive through Central Falls. Consider the expense of ESL teachers. Check the major recipients of "entitlements". Notice the signs in Home Depot. Consider that North Carolina is considering road signs in Spanish.
We are becoming a "bi-lingual" country. I don't think this is good. Witness Canada and its troubles. Many people point to Switzerland as an amicable bi-lingual country. That is only because the choose to forget the rather bloody history of Switzerland's formation. Switzerland had so many armies that they ran out of something to do, it's national industry became mercenary armies. That is where the Vatican's Swiss Guard came from.
"Bi-lingual" countries rarely share a common heritage. Notice the disparaging of the "Dead White Males" that formed this country. Have you noticed that England's relationship with us is gradually cooling. They think they see the future.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 25, 2010 12:10 PMWarrington --
You do realize that there are many natural born American citizens for whom Spanish is their first language -- they are from Puerto Rico. (As Sondheim wrote in his West Side Story lyric over half a century ago, "Nobody knows in America . . . Puerto Rico's in America!"
Bilingualism is nothing new in this country; here in Rhode Island it was a big issue in Woonsocket (La Survivance), although these Fancophones who wished their children to learn in the ancestral tongue were able to send them to parish schools with French-speaking nuns and brothers.
As I've admitted, I don't really have a first hand knowledge of the type of impact that illegals have in the Southwest. I'm thinking, though, that Spanish-language signs at Home Depot are not really a very serious problem.
Posted by: brassband at April 25, 2010 1:26 PMFaust, I am of course using common English phrasing. The part of the Constitution which might apply is the:
"Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Being secure in your person and effects includes you car.....a search would be, for instance, asking a person in that car for papers.
Again, I am not a constitutional scholar - but this law seems to tread closely to that Amendment.
As to Roe Vs. Wade, I have to assume you are relating things which have no bearing.....unless you support Roe for the fact that government should stay out of a womens uterus without a warrant.
Come up with better examples if you want to make a point.
This law seems to really have a lot of gray areas that could cause problems. We'll see.
I support comprehensive immigration reform. I just wish that the GOP did. But in their warped logic, they feel it is better used a political football than a problem to solve. After all, they may have no issues left when all these things are addressed.
Posted by: Stuart at April 25, 2010 2:31 PMI'm surprised that no one has identified another reason to at least have a state enforcement mechanism in place, namely narco-gang related incursions. Does the Mexican central government really control its northern border states? The usual gang - freepers, etc - discuss this but there are also a number of less politicized accounts, eg,
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/state/Mexican_military_helicopter_seen_over_US_home.html.
or here,
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf - see pages 39-40
How long until Mexico is recognized as a failed state? And will we make it a full hundred years before another Pancho Villa-style raid on a US border town? This is an ugly situation that politicians of all persuasions have done their best to ignore.
Posted by: chuckR at April 25, 2010 4:05 PM Brass, for all our sake, I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I have little reason to feel optimistic when the likes of Tom Tancredo, Joe Arpaio and J.D. Hayworth are jamming Arizonans and McCain can no longer stand up to these yahoos.
If I were living in Arizona and remembered the embarassment Evan Meacham caused the state when he was governor, I'd want to throw these bums out. Remember, Arizona is no longer a gimme for the GOP (they rose up and tossed Heyworth out of Congress in '06).
Rhody-the legislature in Arizona is reacting not to people working hard at lousy jobs to support their families,but to hardcore narcotraficantes endangering the public of ALL races and immigration statuses.
You like to mock me here,but I dealt with these scumbags head on for years-you DO NOT want them here.
Hopefully the police will use common sense and apply this law only where it is a public safety issue.
Well, that great humanitarisn Noam Chomsky has wighed in on the matter (how does a philologist become a "voice" in human affirs?)
"It's very similar to Weimar Germany, the parallels are striking." Here, too, there is a tremendous disappointment with the parliamentary system, pointed Chomsky interviewing on Truthdig.
"The United States is very lucky that no honest and charismatic figure has appeared, and if this were to happen this country would be in real trouble for the frustration, disillusionment and the justified anger combined with the absence of a coherent response," he concludes.
In Germany, he recalls, an enemy was created to explain the crisis which was the Jew. "Here they are the illegal immigrants and blacks. We will say that white men are a persecuted minority. We will say that we must uphold and defend the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. There will be blows. This could be converted into an undeniable force. And if it takes place, it will be more dangerous than Nazi Germany. The United States is a world power ... I do not believe that this is far from happening," he says.
Stuart, just a small word. Up until it was created for Roe v. Wade, there was no known right of "privacy" in the Constitution. How the court got to it puzzled Constitutional scholars (which I am not).
THe portion that seems to be brought to bear on the immigration/illegal alien question is "unreasonable searches and seizures". Consequently the argument for "reasonable cause" in requesting proof of citizenship. "Secure in their person and property" was intended as a protection agains searches and arrests with confinement for indefinite periods on the basis of "suspicion". I believe this can be done in France, at least for a longer period than we would permit. Our protection here is "habeas corpus". That requires the government to bring the person before the court and explain the cause for his incarceration. That is not perfect, but it does require a public hearing. That was what caused the trouble over Nelson Mandela. Although he was undeniably apprehended in the course of making a bomb, he was never brought before a court and "charged", nor brought to trial.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 25, 2010 6:30 PMPosted by brassband at April 25, 2010 1:26 PM
"I'm thinking, though, that Spanish-language signs at Home Depot are not really a very serious problem."
It is not just the signs. How about requiring Home Depot to provide bathrooms for the illegal aliens that gather there every morning looking for work. Since we have long standing laws against it resulting from Irish bias (Google "gangers"), wouldn't it seem more reasonable to forbid Home Depot from providing "employment centers" for illegal aliens?
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 25, 2010 6:34 PMFaust, I think you are wrong in the idea of being "secure" in the constitutional sense.
I don't think it simply applied to arrest or lockup, but that would be "secure" in knowing that no one could open your sealed papers or dispatches, etc.
That would include your walled and your ID papers.
C'mon - this is pretty easy to read:
"people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"
The very idea that they mentioned persons, houses, papers and effects....and against searches and seizures...shows that they were trying to cover everything involved, not just the danger of Habeus being suspended.
The US Senate site explains that part of the constitution as this:
"Applying to arrests and to searches of persons, homes, and other private places, this amendment requires a warrant, thereby placing a neutral magistrate between the police and the citizen."
Get it? The idea is to add that check and balance of the neutral magistrate before allowing access to private places or effects.
I don't see too much ambiguity in that one......
Again, as to Roe v Wade, I think you are reaching pretty far. The government, in an attempt to make us more free, has decided NOT to go into the bedroom (no longer is sodomy or oral sex or other acts regulated) nor into the uterus of a woman.
Once again, I see the right always jumping up and down about freedom and liberty, but then easily taking them away at every moment there is a hint of "emergency". That is weak kneed, IMHO.
Either you believe in freedom and free will or you don't. You can't throw away the constitution just because you don't like something that is happening.
Perhaps Az and other states need to sue the Federal Government to get something done in legislation. Or, better yet, since we all know this needs done, convince the GOP to stop blabbermouthing and actually work on it.
Posted by: Stuart at April 25, 2010 8:51 PM>>>How about requiring Home Depot to provide bathrooms for the illegal aliens that gather there every morning looking for work
Wow, Faust!
You are quickly going downhill......from human to sub-human.
I suspect you will next critique social services for providing meals and a bathroom to heroin addicts and drunks.
Wow...........I guess there is a far right in RI.
Posted by: Stuart at April 25, 2010 8:53 PMJoe & Brass,
Tell me if this extended question makes sense:
One argument I've heard against the AZ law is that immigration status is a Federal matter, therefore state authorities are prohibited from doing anything about violations. However, because the Constitution delegates the Federal government a power in a specific area doesn't necessarily imply that state and local authorities have to look the other way when the law is violated.
For a concrete example, I'll jump to the clause in the Constitution immediately following the naturalization clause...
[The Congress shall have Power] to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin...As far as I know, no one takes this to mean that non-Federal authorities are required to look the other way when they see evidence of counterfeiting, or even that they can't investigate counterfeiting when someone brings a potential case to their attention.
So is the "it's a Federal matter and states can't do anything about it" really the slam-dunk that open-borders advocates would have us believe that it is?
Brass is the attorney_I'm not.I see no problem at all in state/local authorities enforcing the laws relating to felonies cognizable under the immigration laws.Like arresting a person for breaking into a mailbox-a federal offense,but no one expects the local police to ignore it.
As far as srtictly administrative immigration offenses go,that's a tough question.My view is that the police should be reactive rather than proactive.
Warrington-Chomsky is a piece of dirt.I read his little paean to illegal aliens.
He's hardly worth paying attention to.I sincerely hope Chomsky is done in by those he claims to love so much.Even his name is abominable.
Posted by Stuart at April 25, 2010 8:53 PM
"Wow...........I guess there is a far right in RI."
Well, Stu, it is always a question of "far right or wrong".
Stuart-yes,there is a far right in RI-it's not illegal yet although it would be if certain people had their way.
There sure is a far left in this state and they wield considerable influence through the GA and the carbuncle of "advocacy" groups interlaced with each other.
>>>Yes,there is a far right in RI-it's not illegal yet
Problem is, the far right believes in sub-humans and death camps, and the far left in RI only believes in a fair days wages for a fair days work.
There is a difference!
In terms of the basics of immigration, I really have never seen it to be a left or right issue. It is more an issue of the vast business interests which benefit from cheap labor and downward pressure on wages. That includes businesses of all stripes, from hotels to farming to construction. If anything, it includes more from the right (Chamber of Commerce types....) who want to protect their profits.
Sure, the regular and everyday folks in AZ and elsewhere have good reason to be upset when nothing is being done. But at the root of the problem are business people and employers who could care less about those average citizens...heck, they are making a couple extra bucks!
Posted by: Stuart at April 26, 2010 4:40 PMDeath camps?
In Rhode Island?
Must be in New Shoreham . . .
Posted by: brassband at April 26, 2010 7:06 PM To put it mildly, the influence of the left in Rhode Island is greatly exaggerated. We don't have gay marriage. We do have tax cuts for the rich, and the corporate lawyer-lobbyist complex still calling the shots with Murphy out and Fox in.
Inflating the power of the left is, however, an effective propaganda tool.
"Death camps?
In Rhode Island?
Must be in New Shoreham . . ."
Nope, that was just a macrame camp, Brassband. We'll have to keep looking.
Do I dare reference the re-re-refried french fries I once had at Haven Brothers? Probably better not ...
Posted by: Monique at April 26, 2010 9:15 PMStuart writes:
"the far left in RI only believes in a fair days wages for a fair days work"
Ah yes, who can forget the $45.00 per hour crossing guards?
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 26, 2010 10:35 PMDeath camps?Now stuaert has gone off the deep end.
Rhody-ever hear of the Poverty Institute?Ocean State Action?George Nee?
Steven Brown?Nah,the left has no influence.Whew!!
Yeah,Stu,the left just wants to help the whole world-BS.The left really wants to meddle in everyone's lives.
That's it-you're meddlers.Can't leave anything be.
To answer Stuart-immigration is definitely not a right/left issue.Nor a arcial issue as much as some people want to make it one.Not even strictly an economic issue because a major consideration is alien criminals,who while a small segment of the forein born population in the US,causes trouble all out of proportion to their numbers.
I realize some here don't think of porous borders and lack of control over illegal aliens in the interior as national security matters,they are.
"Immigration"is a melange of many different issues-it's like saying "history"-there are many things covered in that word.
I think Stuart is of the mind set that prattles about "making a better world"-it's fantasy-human nature militates against such a notion.
Hey,Stu-was it the "right wing"that ran the gulags,or the death camps during the Cultural Revolution in China,or those in Cambodia?Huh?I'd like to see you try to sanitize those occurences.
Yeah,I know Rhody-it's all propaganda-never happened.
Keep trying to make "gay marriage" the paradigm by which we measure whether the left has a lot of power in RI.It's a red herring-leftists have as many sexual hangups as right wingers.
I think RI has become a social services magnet,and why is it that social services cost more per person to provide here than anywhere else?Hmmm?It should be the opposite considering our small size,requiring less infrastructure and personnel.
It's because left wingers run the network and they do it very poorly.
I'd have to say most people involved in social work,like journalism are thoroughly indoctrinated with left wing views during their education in those fields.
The hypocrisy of the "advocates" is astounding.They "decry' the Arizona for usurping Federal jurisdiction,yet they pass "sanctuary" resolutions which try to negate existing Federal laws in such places as San Francisco.Hmmm?
Posted by: joe bernstein at April 27, 2010 12:40 PM