The founding fathers were slave owners

Come on. There's a big difference between entering the country and sitting on a park bench in Tuscon. If I'm sitting on the park bench, I have a reasonable expectation that I will not be asked for my identification and arrested if I don't have it or refuse to show it.

In the late 90s an attorney in Douglasville, Ga. brought me a tape from a Douglas County Sheriff's dash camera to copy. A man was walking along side a country road with a backpack. The car pulled up behind him and the deputy got out. The man stood there and did nothing. The deputy asked him for his identification and he refused, saying that he was not required to do so. The deputy called for backup and the man roughed up and pushed to the ground with pepper spray in his face. He did nothing but refuse to show his ID.

The attorney who brought the tape to me was his attorney. The man, who looked homeless, had 3 degrees in science and just liked to life a simple life. Douglas County dropped the charges against him and issued him a formal apology, but he was still suing.

Like the Arizona legislation, this is called an unreasonable search.

Brown ones.

You're getting a bit extreme now. I'm not suggesting that no one should be arrested for being in America unlawfully. I'm just suggesting that they would not come if there were no jobs for them. If you want to start a thread about illegal immigration I'll be happy to debate that issue. There is a lot more than meets the eye, it's actually not as simple as you want it to be.

Social programs were initiated because private charity didn't come close to fulfilling the need.

 

It's one thing not having identification and another refusing to show it. And yes, there is a difference between entering the country (at a valid entry point) and sitting on a park bench in Tuscon, where it might be more likely to find illegal aliens among the legal aliens and citizens due to the history of poor border controls. You're likely to catch more fish in a lake than in a swimming pool.

I wonder what would have happened had he shown his ID, or just responded that he didn't have any on him?

Are we now making a case that higher education does not not necessarily produce common sense?

I still don't see a relation to the Arizona legislation.

Considering the area being on the border with Mexico, and I assume most Mexicans are brown? what should be expected? Had we a border with China, being crossed illegally, would it be more likely that we would be targeting those with "Yellow" skin? This is exactly the kind of problem created by a central government, all people are not the same, but it tries to create equalities where they simply do not exist. If one state consistently suffers from drought, and another consistently suffers flooding, the Federal government solution would be most likely to mandate that residents of all states purchase both flood and drought insurance, thereby reducing the cost to everyone, ignoring that many suffer neither flooding or droughts. Each state has unique problems, and speaking of illegal immigrants, the border states are in a unique position as they are violated first. Although the Federal government is responsible for protecting the borders, they have shown that they are either incapable or reluctant to assume that responsibility, thereby leaving the states little choice in the matter.

I've not said the problem is one that has a simple solution. In fact it has grown to quite large proportions by not giving it prompt attention. Having ignored the problem for so long has allowed a significant number of illegal immigrants to enter the country, some giving birth upon entry which provides us with an American citizen with an illegal parent(s). Others have grown their family size over long periods of remaining here, and still others continue to enter illegally. Even the President has a relative who, as best I know, remains here illegally. Being a nation of laws, and having immigration laws on the books, we need to first take control of the borders, followed by identifying and repatriating those who have entered the U.S. illegally, while simultaneously prosecuting those who have knowingly used them as a cheap labor force. At the same time we might even strengthen the existing laws, by making the punishments more of a deterrent for both citizens as well as aliens in breaking the law.

Based on what facts? If you were to put a sign on a Department store in an affluent neighborhood, "Today only , everything free to the needy", you'd be amazed at how many needy persons reside in an affluent neighborhood, not to mention how quickly such words travel, and just how mobile the needy are, when they need to be.

 

As fucked up as it is, that was socially acceptable at the time. I've heard either James Madison or Thomas Jefferson (i forget which one) was lobbying for it to be a constitutional law before the constitution was written, but he never got enough support for it.

 

You had to see the video, I guess. I made a copy for myself and watched it many times. The man was a "passive resistor," He just stood there and kept saying that he had done nothing wrong and had a right to be left alone. In the end, he was right. This was an identical situation to the Walkman.

This is a Constitutional issue of "unreasonable search and seizure." Where do you want to draw the line. Can they come into my home at night to see if there are any illegal immigrants in my closets? Someone breaks into a house, can they go door to door in the neighborhood and search every closet for the stolen items?

You keep batting this back to me, but, the Supreme Court ruled on this issue in 1983, and unless you can show how this is different from a black man walking through white neighborhoods there isn't much more to say. We're talking about individual Americans being free from an unreasonable search of their person and papers. Just because one in brown in Arizona does not give the police the right to stop and search their documents.

No, I'm saying that they took the man for a bum and thought they might find him to be wanted for something. That's a far cry from having a description, that he fit, of someone who just robbed a house in the neighborhood, which would be "probable cause."

If you want to start another thread and argue that the police should have more latitude and be allowed to stop and search anyone at any time, I'll entertain that one, too. As it stands now, the police have a particular order that the Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced, which is, probable cause, then stop and search.

.

Then you don't understand exactly what the Arizona legislation does. It tries to subvert the constitutional right of American citizens to be free from unreasonable searches, the Fourth Amendment.

This is a straw man argument. There is a huge population of "brown" citizens in Arizona. With this law, the police will have the authority to subvert the constitution and search them for proper documentation. You're still not getting it. This is not about illegal citizens,this is about the Fourth Amendment and a citizen's right not to be searched without "probable cause."

.

 

This is a dilema wrapped in an enigma. Build a 50 foot fence assuming mexicans don't know how to operate a ladder?Can't operate a shovel to dig under? The US has been used as a safety valve for the Mexican government for decades because of the inequity of ownership there.Plus,their pesos are good substitutes for toilet paper. In addition , you could say the illegals were/are allowed in to take jobs here because they will do them cheaply and take abuse from business owners ,being afraid of being deported back south if they speak up. It's a crummy situation, having a third world country on our southern border. I have read that Mexico guards their southern border a little differantly than we do. It involves machine guns. We won't do that, but I can understand why folks in Arizona/California have gotten tired of the problems that have been brought across the border. So the man that wrote the law is a racist pig?(I'm assuming that was stated-computer wouldn't bring the link up) Radical situations demand radical solutions so the most radical rise to the top.--So what's to be done? Feds have been ineffective. I saw the results of of unchecked illegals where I grew up and still visit from time to time. Graffitti,gangs,shootings,fights,hit and runs(many,many of those) ,disruptions in the schools--in a little town just like the other towns around Fresno,that was peacefull and law abiding ,for the most part,just a decade or two ago. I'm thinking the only way to stop the exodus of illegals is to pressure the Mexican government in a BIG way to stop them on the other side,whether they like it or not. What leverage the US has regarding Mexico--I don't have a clue. I've read that there are 20 million illegals here,which probably means twice as many. Would any other country allow this? Obviously,if jobs weren't available for illegals,they wouldn't come. I suppose that's where to start(as was mentioned). There has to be some semblance of order and the restoration of law.

 

There's not 20 million illegals, there's an estimated 12 million and that number was thought to have dropped by possibly over a million when the recession took hold. And yes, other countries would allow it, proportional to population, Britain would have about 5 million illegal immigrants, and that's without a 2,000 mile land border on a country who's average income is 1/5 of yours and suffers a horrendous violence problem caused directly by the US. Jesus northern Mexico is basically a war zone, completely fueled by the war on drugs and America's insatiable appetite for drugs, and armed with American weapons, then we complain when they try to leave and come here instead.

Assuming the U.S. population is about circa 310,000,000, and that there are between 12-14 million illegal immigrants here right now, we literally spend all this time arguing over 3% of the population, and considering most of them are concentrated in California, Arizona and Texas, it's not even 1% in most states.

 

Besides, people say they should come here legally like everyone else, let's see what the immigration process is actually like:

(Sorry that picture was just too big and has been removed, can you re-size it at post again or give the gist of it in writing? ed Balbus)

Compared to our boats full of ancestors who came here not knowing how to do jack shit but just in love with the idea of America.

 

A post such as that should really be backed up with the facts and a link to the source as hearsay, right, wrong, or simply out of context, is so easily accepted today if it supports ones views.

 

I'll take your word as I have no direct knowledge of either case.

Justifiable cause. If one or more of your neighbors claim they saw you breaking into a house, would that not make any search reasonable?

If I appear to bat it back to you, it's because I'm still not sure you agree there is a problem and if there is, should we try to solve it completely or partially. If the police were to stop both browns and whites in Arizona to check their 'documents' would that then be acceptable?

That was an individual case.

I accept that you've made the impediments clear, so perhaps you might offer a comprehensive solution? Or do you think that targeting employers who may employ illegal aliens to be adequate in completely solving the problem?

SB 1070? It's only 17 pages, and from a brief scan, appears to implement some of your suggestions related to employers of illegal immigrants. Considering the estimated number of illegal aliens who have already entered the country, and the fact that it continues, states along the borders where penetration occurs initially would appear to be the most reasonable source of where the problem might be eliminated or at least lessened. It would appear that the citizens of Arizona have Democratically agreed. This is a Democracy is it not? Was it not American citizens who voted to pass the bill? And do not the polls indicate that the American citizens who are also Arizona citizens, where the law is to be applied have shown overwhelming support for it? Those living in Georgia or another state are unaffected by the Arizona law, unless, of course, those illegal aliens decide they should quickly exit Arizona and move to another state where no similar law exists.

But the 'citizens' of Arizona appear to be willing to allow encroachment on their Fourth amendment rights in order to try and solve a problem. It's one thing when government, state or federal, lessens ones freedom without consent of the governed, but quite within the constitution for such to occur for reasons that have the consent of the governed. I'm all for allowing the law to be exercised watching the results. Obviously there will be many instances where challenges will occur, but I think many will be forced, by opponents, only as an attempt to generate the illusion of a cause to repeal the law.

 

Nice chart, but not exactly based on facts. Perhaps it is a correct representation of the worst possible cases.

What were the immigration laws when our ancestors came? How would you like it if China were to send over about 500 million of their citizens? Would you welcome them with open arms?

 

That is not what I said. I said can they go door to door without a warrant or probable cause.

Here is the Supreme Court ruling:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=461&invol=352

some excerpts:

I agree there is an immigration problem, but wiping your ass with the Constitution is not the way to solve it.

An individual case that represented many other like cases and resulted in the deletion of a particular law that allowed police to stop someone without probable cause and check their identification.

"Completely" solving the problem is impossible, but employer sanctions and arrests on job sites, with probable cause, would clear up the problem to an acceptable level and protect American jobs. I live near an area with a pretty big Hispanic population and I have known some of them who were/are illegal. I've talked to them. Most are here for jobs, they send most of the money they make back home (American business provides the means), and they plan to go back home when they have earned their $ goal, usually to open their own businesses.

Most of these people are hard working decent individuals who just happen to be from a very poor country and are looking to improve the lives of their families.

You mean the white citizens, right. In 1860 the majority of citizens in the South were in favor of slavery. How far did they get with that one?

Sorry, the majority is not allowed to "encroach" on the rights of the minority. Constitutional rights exist to protect the minority, not the majority, who need no protection.

.

 

That's just an asinine example, if we completely scrapped immigration laws all together and let anyone and everyone in 500 million people still wouldn't come. 500 million people have yet to immigrate here in all of our 400 year history of immigration. Moving across the world and starting a new life in a new country takes more determination then it seems.

Also in terms of immigration when out ancestors came here, basically if you didn't have a contagious disease or were running from the law you were welcomed in. To quote from the book Ellis Island by Pamela Reeves, "...in 1907, the peak year of immigration, 13,064 of the 1,285,349 immigrants were sent home. Most because of disease of the inspector's conclusion that the person in question was likely to become a public charge."

13,000 out of 1.28 million, that is 0.001% of people turned back when boatloads of people were coming in every single day. Immigrants then were given instant citizenship too.

 

There's no point in arguing about settled cases. The Arizona S.B. 1070 does not say anything at all about going door to door without a warrant or probable cause. See S.B. 1070, page 2, Article 8B and 8E.

I agree, the solution has nothing to do with wiping your ass, but does have something to do with getting off your ass and doing something rather than nothing.

What's the probable cause when police set up a road block to check for drivers licenses and insurance? If you've done nothing wrong should you be allowed to tell the officer to shove it, and that you don't have to show them since you've broken no law?

What's an acceptable level? So you admit to aiding and abetting? Don't worry I wont turn you in. There used to be a Mexican restaurant I liked to eat at, on Buford Hwy I believe, and one day I took a friend to eat there and there were quite a few waiters and waitresses so we expected to place our order quickly, when several police cars pulled up out front, and before the police could enter the restaurant nearly all the workers disappeared. Turned out the police were only looking for food, but they sure did cause service to suffer.

I wouldn't disagree with that, and that's exactly the reason my family and I live abroad. The only difference is we do so within the laws of the countries we live in.

I don't look at everything as having racial undertones. If it turns out some Irish, Germans, English, Canadians, Australians, or other nationalities who are predominantly white skinned happened to be discovered living illegally in the U.S. they should be treated the same. As my immediate family is made up of both light and dark skinned members I don't make an issue out of skin color. The issue is law abiding versus law breaking, regardless of race, gender, or any other physical or economic differences.

In this case we are talking about protecting the rights of U.S. citizens, in addition to enforcement of existing immigration laws. The only encroachment on the citizens is about the same as the encroachment produced by the roadblocks and drivers license and insurance check, a minor annoyance.
In all 50 states including DC, the DMV not only will produce drivers licenses, but photo ID's as well which can be useful when cashing checks, using a credit card, or asked for ID by the police. They can be obtained for a small fee and one or more pieces of identification, passport, birth certificate, Social Security card, etc. I haven't checked each states requirements, but that would provide a means of legitimate citizens, white, brown, black, or other to have adequate ID under the Arizona bill to produce when asked, and then quickly be on their way, assuming they were not being arrested for some other reason.

 

So what's your point? Open the borders?

 

No, close the borders but open up and streamline the process to actually legally immigrate so people don't have to risk their lives crossing the desert to get in. For starters it will help offshoot the massive baby boomer problem we're facing.

 

That attitude pre-dated Christianity, and white people.

It's there in Judaism, and Jews were among the first slave traders, as were Arabs and the Chinese -- going into Africa, buying captives, and selling them across Asia and the Middle East.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled, wrong in my opinion, that driving is a "privilege" and not a right protected under the Constitution. And, actually, the latest ruling by Them, on driving, states that a driver who has been stopped has a right to "be on his way" if no probable cause exists to affect an arrest or detention.

An acceptable level is one that does not disturb the economy of this nation. Americans simply will not do some of the jobs that we need done for the salaries offered. I knew one employer several years ago who hired "Mexicans," (his term) because they were the only ones who would do the job.

I worked in Security for several years on several job sites. My job was to maintain a secure work area, not to check Green Cards. One of those sites was a government subsidized project at a power plant. I watched many local Americans come and go within a few days while the Hispanics were the most reliable and hardest workers.

I was learning how these companies hire and maintain these immigrant workers, and terms like "Coyotes," when the crash of 2008 ended funding for the project. I, and one of my coworkers, were considering reporting this to INS. We found that some of the supervisors were taking a percentage of their wages in return for the job and the appearance of legal status. We were investigating an issue that the corporation, and my employer, a subcontractor, had told us to leave alone.

So, no, I wasn't "aiding and abetting," I was investigating an issue that I was told to leave alone. I can't say for sure, but I had the impression that the federal investigators were aware that there were illegals on the job site, but looked the other way because reliable workers were difficult to find. Some of these jobs were filthy, disgusting and dangerous.

.

 

So, this makes it OK for them to murder and enslave millions of my ancestors? Justification by pre-existing condition.

btw..read the story of Ham in the Old Testament to find what Christianity uses to justify slavery.

.

 

You know the Old Testament predates Christianity, and is used by at least one other religion?

 

Open up in what way? Complex problems are only made much more complex when applying simple and very broad reaching solutions. Exactly what should the process be for someone to immigrate legally? Should there be limits to the number of immigrants annually? People don't have to cross the desert to get into the U.S., they choose to. Have you really thought out what you present as "the massive baby boomer problem"? I'm assuming you mean the retiring baby boomers who are beginning to collect social security payments? If correct, then would an influx of middle aged or older immigrants be helpful or a hindrance? Also many immigrants have little education or job skills and take, as I've often been told, the low paying jobs that Americans wont. Such jobs don't produce much tax revenue, and may even require government subsidies be provided to the worker and his/her family. In addition, they make up an addition future social security recipient. Immigrants from many countries have no documents, such as a birth record or certificate that provides accurate and true details, which legal immigrant friends proudly told me allowed them to begin drawing Social Security long before they actually reached retirement age. Not only that, but they were provided with the idea from those who helped them with their paperwork, some of whom were government workers, and others NGO workers, or religious groups. Have you really looked into the depth of problems that need to be solved?