PDA

View Full Version : Arizona Immigration Law: 2A claim?


bulgron
04-26-2010, 9:41 AM
Last week Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a law that requires Arizona law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.


The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.


Liberal groups, particularly those that support immigrants, are all hot and bothered about it, and they are preparing a constitutional challenge for the new law.

You probably already know all about this, but you can read about it here if you don't:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281

I don't know what arguments the pro-illegal-immigration groups are going to use to challenge the new Arizona law, but I'm assuming it's going to be something along the lines of Arizona doesn't have the power to enforce federal laws. However, the new law in Arizona makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, so the argument that Arizona can't enforce federal laws would seem to be by-passed.

In any case, I'm wondering if Arizona can't make a Second Amendment claim in defense of this law. Around here, we like to talk about the Second Amendment granting individuals the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (which it does). But the 2A also clearly grants an individual state the right to defend itself against aggression, both foreign and domestic.

Can't Arizona, therefore, claim that under the Second Amendment they have the right to enforce federal immigration laws, and to pass immigration laws of their own, as this is the best way for the state to defend itself against what amounts to foreign invasion?

Any claims that the federal government might have sole authority in this area would seem to be moot, since the Second Amendment comes after all the powers granted to the Federal Government, and so supersedes those powers.

Or is it more the case that Arizona won't need to make a 2A claim because they are clearly well-within their right to pass an immigration law?

Mind you, I think this entire brouhaha could be mooted if the Federal Government would just come out with a decent guest worker visa that no-skill and low-skill laborers could use to come to this country legally. But since the Feds have been dropping the ball for decades on immigration, I'm wondering what rights under the 2A the various states have to defend themselves from foreign illegals.

Thoughts, theories, counter-arguments?

loather
04-26-2010, 9:48 AM
I think using a second amendment argument here would be quite the stretch.

I do agree, however, that the guest worker visa program is the *right* way to handle this.

Make it easier for the people to legally come to the US and work/immigrate/whatever, and the problem will go away. The people already illegally here get deported back to their country of origin, and can apply for visas just like anyone else once they get back.

a1c
04-26-2010, 9:50 AM
Jesus. That is a huge stretch. Not ever going to fly. That's just ridiculous.

The law in question says nothing that could connect this to the 2A. Let's stop trying to make tenuous links to the 2A out of everything like this.

Glock22Fan
04-26-2010, 9:53 AM
Mind you, I think this entire brouhaha could be mooted if the Federal Government would just come out with a decent guest worker visa that no-skill and low-skill laborers could use to come to this country legally. But since the Feds have been dropping the ball for decades on immigration, I'm wondering what rights under the 2A the various states have to defend themselves from foreign illegals.

What so many people appear to not understand here is that as soon as you legalize any of these people, they are going to be on the books. As soon as they are on the books, they have to pay taxes of various sorts, and their employer is also on the hook for various programs. As soon as that happens, you can no longer get away with the $6 an hour (or whatever figure it is (it has to go up considerably because legal or illegal, the worker has to go home with enough money on which to live.

The reason that low-skilled Americans don't want these low paid jobs is that they are on the books and do have to pay taxes. Therefore, adding the enhanced wages and the payroll extras onto the salary that they would pay an illegal makes it cost ineffective.

In other words, the reason illegal workers are working is because they are illegal. Making them legal changes the whole economic structure, the now legal workers will be legal, but unemployed, and another bunch of illegals will be needed to fill those posts.

bwiese
04-26-2010, 10:03 AM
2nd Amed. claims will be a stretch here.

It's also not good to tie RKBA up with other hot-button issues even if there's overlap of supporters.

I believe this law was highly politicized in its development. It likely did not have good attorneys around its formulation - as the goal was less results than satisfying a certain crowed. The politicians, if the law is overturned, can go around doing fundraisers saying "Hey, we tried..." - [just like the Bradys will after we win more RKBA cases].

The root problem with this law is that it will cause longstanding US citizens - perhaps whose families have been here for generations - of obvious Mexican/Latin American ancestry to have excessive focus placed up on them, including arrests/detentions, etc. This law could likely gonna trigger ID requirements to stop such dramas. This law is gonna have some real equal protection problems in court. Enforce border control and immigration laws, and crack down on employers - but if you start targeting people on the street there's gonna be big legal issues.

This is much like how the Patriot act was used against some strippers in Vegas.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-26-2010, 10:16 AM
This is much like how the Patriot act was used against some strippers in Vegas.


Could you provide a link to this?


The Raisuli

GrizzlyGuy
04-26-2010, 10:23 AM
Arizona already has RKBA in its state constitution (http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf) so it is hard for me to see how this immigration-related law has any relevance to RKBA in that state:

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

USAFTS
04-26-2010, 10:27 AM
2nd Amed. claims will be a stretch here.

It's also not good to tie RKBA up with other hot-button issues even if there's overlap of supporters.

I believe this law was highly politicized in its development. It likely did not have good attorneys around its formulation - as the goal was less results than satisfying a certain crowed. The politicians, if the law is overturned, can go around doing fundraisers saying "Hey, we tried..." - [just like the Bradys will after we win more RKBA cases].

The root problem with this law is that it will cause longstanding US citizens - perhaps whose families have been here for generations - of obvious Mexican/Latin American ancestry to have excessive focus placed up on them, including arrests/detentions, etc. This law could likely gonna trigger ID requirements to stop such dramas. This law is gonna have some real equal protection problems in court. Enforce border control and immigration laws, and crack down on employers - but if you start targeting people on the street there's gonna be big legal issues.

This is much like how the Patriot act was used against some strippers in Vegas.

I agree.

Not an Attorney...but I have a hard time thinking that this law has a chance surviving a Constitutional challenge. The government has a very short list of responsibilities, Constitutionally...and I'm pretty sure immigration is one of them. Article 1 as well as the 14th Amendment will both shoot this law down. I understand why Arizona has done this and frankly, I support their desire to deal with this problem...but this is ANOTHER failure of government to do their job. The government needs FINISH THE FENCE and then tell Mexico that we are done dealing with the drug and human traffic. Take care of the problem or we will. MAKE MEXICO CLEAN THEIR OWN HOUSE!

I know....Easier said than done.

Any opinions?

winnre
04-26-2010, 10:32 AM
Could you provide a link to this?


The Raisuli

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014804/posts

FBI says Patriot Act used in Vegas strip club corruption probe
Associated Press ^ | 11-04-03

Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:07:36 PM by Brian S

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The FBI used the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial information about key figures in a political corruption probe centered on striptease club owner Michael Galardi, an agent said.

Investigators used a section of the Patriot Act to get subpoenas for financial documents, said Special Agent Jim Stern, a spokesman for the Las Vegas FBI office.

"It was used appropriately by the FBI and was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," Stern said.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Tuesday that records were subpoenaed from Galardi, the owner of Jaguars in southern Nevada and Cheetah's in Las Vegas and San Diego; his lobbyist, former Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone; former Commissioner Erin Kenny; County Commission Chairwoman Mary Kincaid-Chauncey; former County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera; and Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald, who lost a re-election bid in June.

The Patriot Act, passed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was originally touted by the government as a tool to help federal law enforcers combat and prevent terrorism.

Civil libertarians have criticized the Bush administration for employing the wide-ranging act to also crack down on drug traffickers and child pornographers.

The measure lets federal investigators seek financial records of people suspected of being terrorists or laundering money.

Malone's lawyer called it an outrage that the FBI used anti-terrorism measures in an effort to gather information on his client.

"The Patriot Act ... clearly was not intended for this," Las Vegas lawyer Dominic Gentile said.

Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said the Patriot Act included provisions "that in no way had anything to do with the threat of terrorism, but could help them in your more garden variety criminal prosecutions."

Attorney Richard Wright, who represents McDonald, said he was unaware investigators had used Patriot Act powers.

"It isn't anything that's lawfully known," he said.

Federal authorities in San Diego say Galardi and Malone paid San Diego city officials to lift a ban on contact between topless dancers and their customers. Malone and three San Diego city councilmen await trial on public corruption charges.

A federal grand jury in Las Vegas also has been hearing evidence regarding allegations of public corruption in southern Nevada. No indictments have been announced in that case.

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal

C.W.M.V.
04-26-2010, 10:32 AM
It would be easier to deputize a bunch of guys (us) to patrol the border.
Figure 10 armed volunteers supervised/led by one Deputy/Officer conducting patrols of the border area. Sounds like fun to me! If they just put out a call for volunteers i think a lot of people would go.

thebronze
04-26-2010, 10:42 AM
Jesus. That is a huge stretch. Not ever going to fly. That's just ridiculous.

The law in question says nothing that could connect this to the 2A. Let's stop trying to make tenuous links to the 2A out of everything like this.


This.

bulgron
04-26-2010, 10:49 AM
Jesus. That is a huge stretch. Not ever going to fly. That's just ridiculous.

The law in question says nothing that could connect this to the 2A. Let's stop trying to make tenuous links to the 2A out of everything like this.

I remain unconvinced.

The 2A protects the right of a state to defend itself.

The Federal Government is failing to defend this nation from a flood of illegal immigrants.

A state should, therefore, be able to defend itself from this flood of illegal immigrants under the 2A, even if as a last resort.

Whether anyone will actually make that claim in the forthcoming legal battles is a separate issue. Whether the argument would fly given the current political makeup of our federal courts is also a separate issue.

Upon the founding of this country, clearly the individual states meant to retain the right to defend their own borders, and just as clearly the Second Amendment was written in part to protect that right.

Forgetting for a moment the whole illegal immigration angle of this, does anyone dispute this argument?

choprzrul
04-26-2010, 10:52 AM
Any opinions?

1. Finish the border barrier along our entire border with Mexico.
2. Set up guest worker programs with offices in Mexican cities.
3. Guest workers pay taxes equal to state and federal highest tax brackets to help cover costs of running guest worker program.
4. Employers caught employing illegals are fined $2500 per person the 1st time, $25,000 per person the 2nd time, banned from having a business license for life the 3rd time.
5. Contract with a Mexican 3rd party company to incarcerate illegals and guest workers who break our laws. This can be done much cheaper that housing them in our jails. Plus, they will be released there instead of here.
6. After working here for 10 years, paying taxes, and staying out of trouble; they can apply for citizenship. Once they obtain citizenship, they can bring immediate family (mother, father, children, grandparents).
7. No path to citizenship if they have ever violated ANY of our laws.
8. Same parameters for any citizen of any other country world wide. If there are more applicants than positions available, a lottery system will be implemented.
9. Implement a 6th branch of the armed forces for the sole purpose of protecting our borders. This branch of service is only open to those who have previously served in one of the other 5 branches of the armed forces. This would greatly reduce corruption on the border.

Just some random thoughts since you asked.

USAFTS
04-26-2010, 11:00 AM
Just some random thoughts since you asked.

You have some interesting ideas. Some should be implemented NOW...others may not fly for "political" reasons...but tough nonetheless.

vantec08
04-26-2010, 11:10 AM
The main reason nobody but illegals take those jobs is because most Americans are lazy as hell. Why should a 13 or 14 yr. old kid in the inner city paint your jive fence for 15 bucks an hour when he has 3k CASH in his pocket from hustling? If drug interdiction enforcement was enhanced with border security, we might get somewhere. We have a generation of feral animals roaming our streets with little or no work ethic and a head full of "rights" and "entitlements."

a1c
04-26-2010, 11:14 AM
This thread should be moved. It was doomed to get off-track anyway.

Nessal
04-26-2010, 1:09 PM
The main reason nobody but illegals take those jobs is because most Americans are lazy as hell. Why should a 13 or 14 yr. old kid in the inner city paint your jive fence for 15 bucks an hour when he has 3k CASH in his pocket from hustling? If drug interdiction enforcement was enhanced with border security, we might get somewhere. We have a generation of feral animals roaming our streets with little or no work ethic and a head full of "rights" and "entitlements."




Wrong. Oh how did we ever have painted fences in this country then?

tiki
04-26-2010, 1:30 PM
In any case, I'm wondering if Arizona can't make a Second Amendment claim in defense of this law. Around here, we like to talk about the Second Amendment granting individuals the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (which it does). But the 2A also clearly grants an individual state the right to defend itself against aggression, both foreign and domestic.


Seriously?

With how much trouble we have going from:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
To you buying a gun with a different color than the one that is on the preapproved list, do you really think that Arizona would have a chance in hell at using the 2nd Amendment for defending that law?
I support the new law, and obviously, the 2nd Amendment, but I think Pelosi would have an easier time getting tipped in a strip club than that argument working.

Oldbud
04-26-2010, 1:50 PM
Unfortunately the WH & Legislators are going to expend more time/money & media points countering the AZ law than to fix the reason the law was enacted.

wheels
04-26-2010, 2:20 PM
1. Finish the border barrier along our entire border with Mexico.
2. Set up guest worker programs with offices in Mexican cities.
3. Guest workers pay taxes equal to state and federal highest tax brackets to help cover costs of running guest worker program.
4. Employers caught employing illegals are fined $2500 per person the 1st time, $25,000 per person the 2nd time, banned from having a business license for life the 3rd time.
5. Contract with a Mexican 3rd party company to incarcerate illegals and guest workers who break our laws. This can be done much cheaper that housing them in our jails. Plus, they will be released there instead of here.
6. After working here for 10 years, paying taxes, and staying out of trouble; they can apply for citizenship. Once they obtain citizenship, they can bring immediate family (mother, father, children, grandparents).
7. No path to citizenship if they have ever violated ANY of our laws.
8. Same parameters for any citizen of any other country world wide. If there are more applicants than positions available, a lottery system will be implemented.
9. Implement a 6th branch of the armed forces for the sole purpose of protecting our borders. This branch of service is only open to those who have previously served in one of the other 5 branches of the armed forces. This would greatly reduce corruption on the border.

Just some random thoughts since you asked.

See - there is a 1 page immigration bill that I could get behind.

Roadrunner
04-26-2010, 3:02 PM
With Obama getting all bent out of shape about this, I'm wondering if he won't instruct the Attorney General to claim some kind of preemption against states that make their own immigration laws.

OleCuss
04-26-2010, 3:09 PM
I think that it is technically not an immigration bill but a trespassing bill. If you think you are trespassing they can ask you about that and if you are trespassing they can arrest you.

M198
04-26-2010, 3:16 PM
1. Finish the border barrier along our entire border with Mexico. Walls don't work. Anyone who want's to get here will get here. You have to stop people from wanting to get here illegally.
2. Set up guest worker programs with offices in Mexican cities. This is good
3. Guest workers pay taxes equal to state and federal highest tax brackets to help cover costs of running guest worker program. This is not so good. A $10/hr janitor paying 40%+ taxes?
4. Employers caught employing illegals are fined $2500 per person the 1st time, $25,000 per person the 2nd time, banned from having a business license for life the 3rd time. This, I like a lot.
5. Contract with a Mexican 3rd party company to incarcerate illegals and guest workers who break our laws. This can be done much cheaper that housing them in our jails. Plus, they will be released there instead of here. Yeah, operating jails in another country is not going to happen. You think Mexico would allow us to ship people to a private detainment facility in their borders just because we say please? Not happening.
6. After working here for 10 years, paying taxes, and staying out of trouble; they can apply for citizenship. Once they obtain citizenship, they can bring immediate family (mother, father, children, grandparents). 10 Years is a bit much, how about 5?
7. No path to citizenship if they have ever violated ANY of our laws. "any" is not a good word. Zero tolerance leads to stupidity. Speed ticket? No soup for you!
8. Same parameters for any citizen of any other country world wide. If there are more applicants than positions available, a lottery system will be implemented. OK, let's get rid of H1B visas will we are at it.
9. Implement a 6th branch of the armed forces for the sole purpose of protecting our borders. This branch of service is only open to those who have previously served in one of the other 5 branches of the armed forces. This would greatly reduce corruption on the border. Posse comitatus? Not a good idea. See #1

Just some random thoughts since you asked.

See bold.

vantec08
04-26-2010, 3:46 PM
If anyone is interested, a facebook page of Stand With Arizona.

http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona

Fate
04-26-2010, 3:53 PM
Jesus. That is a huge stretch. Not ever going to fly. That's just ridiculous.

The law in question says nothing that could connect this to the 2A. Let's stop trying to make tenuous links to the 2A out of everything like this.

Agree with you 100%

However, it's no more ludicrous than what the government has done by twisting the "Commerce Clause." ;)

thebronze
04-26-2010, 6:38 PM
I remain unconvinced.

The 2A protects the right of a state to defend itself.

The Federal Government is failing to defend this nation from a flood of illegal immigrants.

A state should, therefore, be able to defend itself from this flood of illegal immigrants under the 2A, even if as a last resort.

Whether anyone will actually make that claim in the forthcoming legal battles is a separate issue. Whether the argument would fly given the current political makeup of our federal courts is also a separate issue.

Upon the founding of this country, clearly the individual states meant to retain the right to defend their own borders, and just as clearly the Second Amendment was written in part to protect that right.

Forgetting for a moment the whole illegal immigration angle of this, does anyone dispute this argument?


Actually, the 2A protects the right of The People to defend themselves against The State.

If you want to be picky about it.

dustoff31
04-26-2010, 7:00 PM
It would be easier to deputize a bunch of guys (us) to patrol the border.
Figure 10 armed volunteers supervised/led by one Deputy/Officer conducting patrols of the border area. Sounds like fun to me! If they just put out a call for volunteers i think a lot of people would go.

AZ did pass a bill a couple of years ago to create a volunteer "Homeland Security Force" to do precisely as you describe, amongst other things.

It was vetoed by Nepalitano. She said it wasn't needed because we had the National Guard.

Apocalypsenerd
04-26-2010, 7:28 PM
Hmm, it would seem to me that the Federal Government stopping a state from raising a militia is a violation of the Constitution.

dfletcher
04-26-2010, 7:40 PM
I would turn it around. Is there anything in the 14th regarding equal protection that could be used in this matter that may be applied to 2nd Amendment rights?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Privilges & Immunities bit the dust pretty quick in McDonald, I don't know if could be applied here and revived at some later date.

dustoff31
04-26-2010, 7:59 PM
Hmm, it would seem to me that the Federal Government stopping a state from raising a militia is a violation of the Constitution.

No, that was before we got rid of her, when she was still the Governor.


AZ did pass a bill a couple of years ago to create a volunteer "Homeland Security Force" to do precisely as you describe, amongst other things.

It was vetoed by Nepalitano. She said it wasn't needed because we had the National Guard

Apocalypsenerd
04-26-2010, 8:02 PM
ahh, my bad.

bandook
04-26-2010, 11:23 PM
@bulgron: Just because you want to shoot 'em doesn't make it a 2A issue :)

But seriously, the issue with the AZ 'law' is that the power to control immigration is held by the Feds. Unless the Feds grant this police power to the state(s), the state is without jurisdiction over immigration issue and doesn't have the power to act as such.
Then there's the 4A which protects us against unreasonable searches. The AZ law seems to say that a police officer can decide to interrogate anyone - because they 'look the part' - doesn't seem right to me.
How would you react if CA enacted this exact approach to people with guns (i.e. stop and check anyone who 'looks' like a troublemaker and has guns in their possession). I think a lot of us would be crying 'bloody murder'.

Regarding what to do with all the illegal immigrants here, i think there should be a worker program that brings these people out of the shadows into mainstream tax-paying workers. heck, I'd even consider a lifelong 'worker' visa. As of now, I see no reason to make any of these people citizens. (I haven't heard a good argument for why citizenship needs to be granted to these people - but that's just me...)

Mulay El Raisuli
04-27-2010, 6:54 AM
4. Employers caught employing illegals are fined $2500 per person the 1st time, $25,000 per person the 2nd time, banned from having a business license for life the 3rd time.



A full court press on this one would make all the other (highly expensive) approaches unnecessary.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014804/posts

FBI says Patriot Act used in Vegas strip club corruption probe
Associated Press ^ | 11-04-03

Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:07:36 PM by Brian S




Thank you. That wasn't against strippers so much as being against those who employ them. Which is why it didn't spring to mind when you first mentioned it. Still, an outrageous overreach.


The Raisuli

tiki
04-27-2010, 7:12 AM
Actually, the 2A protects the right of The People to defend themselves against The State.

If you want to be picky about it.

If you really want to be picky, the 2A protects the right of the People to defend themselves against the Federal Government. Sometime around the end of June, it will protect the People from the States too.

bulgron
04-27-2010, 7:34 AM
@bulgron: Just because you want to shoot 'em doesn't make it a 2A issue :)

Just for the record, I don't want to shoot anyone. And I'd be perfectly content with any and all immigration if it was done legally. People running willy-nilly across the desert on public/private lands is something that needs to end, though. There's too many problems associated with that behavior.


But seriously, the issue with the AZ 'law' is that the power to control immigration is held by the Feds. Unless the Feds grant this police power to the state(s), the state is without jurisdiction over immigration issue and doesn't have the power to act as such.
Then there's the 4A which protects us against unreasonable searches. The AZ law seems to say that a police officer can decide to interrogate anyone - because they 'look the part' - doesn't seem right to me.


My understanding is that the Arizona law requires the police to look into immigration issues only if they've stopped someone for other reasons and they subsequently have a reasonable suspicion that those people "aren't from around here." I imagine someone who can't speak english, or who speaks english with a incredibly heavy accent, will be enough to have the police ask about citizenship. They can't do racial profiling, so how else are they going to do it?

The whole situation is ripe for abuse, sure, but I don't see how you can make the 4A stick on this one. We have other laws on the books that allow similar behavior for the police. For example, an ordinary traffic stop can escalate into a search of your car if, for example, the cop smells booze or weed.

As for the part where states can't enforce Federal law, I don't know how that one works. What we have here is a situation where people are massively breaking federal law, but the feds refuse to adequately enforce that law, and the states themselves are being massively harmed by the feds' neglect. It appears to be a unique situation in American history.

Because it is unique, it seems like unique arguments will be required in order for the states to protect themselves in the face of Federal neglect. Further, I believe the part of the US constitution where the states retained the right to protect themselves appears in the 2A. So this looks like a 2A question to me.

Maybe a better question is, where in the constitution are there words that say that only the Feds can enforce federal law? Off the top of my head, I am unaware of any such power given to the Federal government, but if such a passage does exist, I believe it is superseded by the state's right to self-protection.

Again, all of this could be mooted if the Feds would either change the law so that the immigration situation was not so ripe for abuse, or adequately enforced the law. But since they are unwilling to do either one, we have a unique situation here, one that is going to result in some unique arguments.


How would you react if CA enacted this exact approach to people with guns (i.e. stop and check anyone who 'looks' like a troublemaker and has guns in their possession). I think a lot of us would be crying 'bloody murder'.

Again, the Arizona law does not allow the police to stop someone who 'looks' wrong. There has to be some other reason why they stopped that person, some other suspicion of a crime, before they can start asking about immigration status.

echoarms
04-27-2010, 8:21 AM
What so many people appear to not understand here is that as soon as you legalize any of these people, they are going to be on the books. As soon as they are on the books, they have to pay taxes of various sorts, and their employer is also on the hook for various programs. As soon as that happens, you can no longer get away with the $6 an hour (or whatever figure it is (it has to go up considerably because legal or illegal, the worker has to go home with enough money on which to live.

The reason that low-skilled Americans don't want these low paid jobs is that they are on the books and do have to pay taxes. Therefore, adding the enhanced wages and the payroll extras onto the salary that they would pay an illegal makes it cost ineffective.

In other words, the reason illegal workers are working is because they are illegal. Making them legal changes the whole economic structure, the now legal workers will be legal, but unemployed, and another bunch of illegals will be needed to fill those posts.
The problem I see is that another bunch of illegals WOULD be here and quick. Besides, how many people will apply for citizenship when they are already getting everything for free. I wouldn't, why pay taxes for everything you get when you don't have to?

1stLineGear
04-27-2010, 8:39 AM
What so many people appear to not understand here is that as soon as you legalize any of these people, they are going to be on the books. As soon as they are on the books, they have to pay taxes of various sorts, and their employer is also on the hook for various programs. As soon as that happens, you can no longer get away with the $6 an hour (or whatever figure it is (it has to go up considerably because legal or illegal, the worker has to go home with enough money on which to live.

The reason that low-skilled Americans don't want these low paid jobs is that they are on the books and do have to pay taxes. Therefore, adding the enhanced wages and the payroll extras onto the salary that they would pay an illegal makes it cost ineffective.

In other words, the reason illegal workers are working is because they are illegal. Making them legal changes the whole economic structure, the now legal workers will be legal, but unemployed, and another bunch of illegals will be needed to fill those posts.

Very well said. Some mentioned a visa work program for low skilled workers. That will not work for the above reasons.

This new law in AZ was taken in some parts word for word from current federal law. It will not terrorize and harrass like some of you are saying. Of course there are always bullies in LE and those people should be delt with accordingly. Are the words "Are you a U.S. Citizen" that scary? well they should be for the criminal illegal aliens here in the U.S.

bandook
04-27-2010, 1:15 PM
Very well said. Some mentioned a visa work program for low skilled workers. That will not work for the above reasons.


So now that we know what won't work, can you please tell us what will (or may) work?


This new law in AZ was taken in some parts word for word from current federal law. It will not terrorize and harrass like some of you are saying. Of course there are always bullies in LE and those people should be delt with accordingly. Are the words "Are you a U.S. Citizen" that scary? well they should be for the criminal illegal aliens here in the U.S.

So lets say you're traveling in from another state and get asked the question "Are you a US Citizen?". You answer "Yes" and the cop says, Prove it!
Your passport/birth certificate is at home, 2000 miles away. Should you now spend an evening in a secure facility as a guest of Sheriff Arpaio?.

If you are for this law, you need to be willing to be on the receiving end of it as well and carry your passport with you when you go to Arizona. Cops will have to ask everyone the same questions or they'll get sued for discrimination based on color of skin. E.g. you can't ask a hispanic looking person for proof of legal status during a traffic stop and not do the same for a white dude. perhaps you are in favor of a National ID card?

I feel that ALL police organizations should be required to report illegals to the feds. And hey Feds, don't we have some new roads or something to build with some relatively inexpensive labor?

bandook
04-27-2010, 1:31 PM
Just for the record, I don't want to shoot anyone. And I'd be perfectly content with any and all immigration if it was done legally. People running willy-nilly across the desert on public/private lands is something that needs to end, though. There's too many problems associated with that behavior.



My understanding is that the Arizona law requires the police to look into immigration issues only if they've stopped someone for other reasons and they subsequently have a reasonable suspicion that those people "aren't from around here." I imagine someone who can't speak english, or who speaks english with a incredibly heavy accent, will be enough to have the police ask about citizenship. They can't do racial profiling, so how else are they going to do it?
...

I was just kidding about the 'shoot em' comment.

Regarding the 'heavy accent' issue, there are large numbers of Navajo, Apache, Hopi (and the other 'original' American tribes) in AZ who speak with varying degrees of accented English.

Are these native people acceptable causalities of this law?

In the words of Pastor Niemöller:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

(Replace Comuninsts, Jews, and Trade Unionists with the scourge du jour, the message remains the same).

I feel that as illegals are caught they need to be sent to chain gangs to do some good work for society. (I also feel the same way about the other criminals in jail - do something useful for society as the taxpayer is footing you room and board)

gbp
04-27-2010, 1:57 PM
AZ absolutely did the right thing
all they did was verify an existing federal law and also make it state law
if california were to do the same we may even be able to balance the budget, when you think about what it costs us. i guess you would have to live there to be able to understand the seage these people feel they are under. 1/2 million illegal immigrants, kidnapping capital of north america, crime through the roof.
good on her for having the balls to sign it.

but i think it would be a mistake to jump on this (piggy-back) in any streatch of the imagination for our issues

bulgron
04-27-2010, 2:45 PM
Regarding the 'heavy accent' issue, there are large numbers of Navajo, Apache, Hopi (and the other 'original' American tribes) in AZ who speak with varying degrees of accented English.

Well, then, the police are just going to have to ask everyone that they arrest whether that person is a US citizen.

There's two ways to avoid problems.

1. Have easy access of proof of citizenship wherever you go. That doesn't mean you have to have a passport on you every time you step out the door. But if you're going to travel in Arizona, I imagine it would be a good idea to have a passport or a copy of your birth certificate in your luggage somewhere. Pretty much, whenever I travel away from home (even inside the country) I always carry a passport with me even if for no other reason than it makes good backup ID if my wallet gets lost or stolen. This is good advice for every traveler all the world over, I think.

2. Don't do anything to cause LEO to come asking you questions. Pretty much, this is what I do anyway, and it's good advice for everyone, everywhere, all the world over.

Really, it would be way better if we as a nation would just do something about the disconnect between our immigration laws and our protection of our southern border. But since the Federal Government utterly refuses to do that, we have to go to 'plan B' where 'plan B' involves everyone being prepared to prove their citizenship one way or another.

Maybe if enough people got harassed about their citizenship, the population as a whole would elect officials into Washington who were willing to do something about the illegal immigration problem. Probably not, though. Probably they'll just toss out the politicians who are trying to ensure that the people walking our streets actually belong there.

We're pretty screwed as a country, everyone knows that, right?

shark92651
04-27-2010, 2:56 PM
So now that we know what won't work, can you please tell us what will (or may) work?



So lets say you're traveling in from another state and get asked the question "Are you a US Citizen?". You answer "Yes" and the cop says, Prove it!
Your passport/birth certificate is at home, 2000 miles away. Should you now spend an evening in a secure facility as a guest of Sheriff Arpaio?.

If you are for this law, you need to be willing to be on the receiving end of it as well and carry your passport with you when you go to Arizona. Cops will have to ask everyone the same questions or they'll get sued for discrimination based on color of skin. E.g. you can't ask a hispanic looking person for proof of legal status during a traffic stop and not do the same for a white dude. perhaps you are in favor of a National ID card?

I feel that ALL police organizations should be required to report illegals to the feds. And hey Feds, don't we have some new roads or something to build with some relatively inexpensive labor?

You have never had to show an ID or proof of insurance to a cop when you get pulled over? If I get pulled over and smell like booze, I would expect to be asked if I have been drinking. If I can't speak English, or barely can, and there are seven others in the car with me and none have a legit ID or speak English then I would expect a reasonable suspicion exists that perhaps some of those people are not here legally.

The problem with "reporting to the feds" is that the feds have dropped the ball and are not dealing with the problem. AZ is dealing with the fallout from the lack of action at the federal level.

People in Washington don't want to address this issue but they are quick to cry racism to whip up their base for political gain, and that is the only reason they are being so vocal about this action in AZ.

odysseus
04-27-2010, 3:01 PM
1. Have easy access of proof of citizenship wherever you go. That doesn't mean you have to have a passport on you every time you step out the door. But if you're going to travel in Arizona, I imagine it would be a good idea to have a passport or a copy of your birth certificate in your luggage somewhere. Pretty much, whenever I travel away from home (even inside the country) I always carry a passport with me even if for no other reason than it makes good backup ID if my wallet gets lost or stolen. This is good advice for every traveler all the world over, I think.

It is not required for a US citizen to carry their passport under this law, in my understanding. Sure, maybe if you are really paranoid that way or made the choice (some do) to use your passport for ID, then fine. However driving around, you are going to need a valid DL. Your valid DL should be fine enough, unless there is some strong PC to believe you are faking that.

The law as it is written requires an ALIEN to carry proper paperwork or ID with them, kind of like when you travel to many international locations. Thus if you have no form of paperwork as an alien, they can now process you through as a suspected illegal, something they were banned from doing before.

a1c
04-27-2010, 3:06 PM
The law as it is written requires an ALIEN to carry proper paperwork or ID with them, kind of like when you travel to many international locations. Thus if you have no form of paperwork as an alien, they can now process you through as a suspected illegal, something they were banned from doing before.

Are you talking about the Arizona law, or federal law? Because the federal law does not require legal aliens to carry ID with them, with the exception of permanent residents. In other words, visa workers and their spouses and dependents, foreign exchange students, college students, etc. are not required to carry ID with them - just like US citizens. For some reason however, permanent residents (green card holders) are required to carry their green cards with them at all times.

The law is weird, but then again immigration law is in serious need of rewriting.

odysseus
04-27-2010, 3:11 PM
Are you talking about the Arizona law, or federal law?

The Arizona law.

Sinixstar
04-27-2010, 3:16 PM
As much as I agree with the sentiment of the law - it does make me cringe a little. It's good to see states taking a pro-active approach, but I think this sets a dangerous precedent.

Think about it. If Obama was pushing for a law that allowed the feds to stop you at any time and ask to see your papers - what would some of the people rallying around AZ right now say? They wouldn't say anything, they'd be in their basements counting ammo and setting aside food rations.

It's not the idea of the law that bothers me - it's the implementation. I just don't like the idea of the police being able to stop someone at any time, and asking them to prove they are not a criminal. That's just me.

I also think trying to make the case that the 2nd is about the states having the right to protect themselves is absolutely positively the wrong thing. Not only is it a huge stretch - but even if you were able to connect those dots in court, you could arguably undo a considerable amount of work that's been done and/or in the works. Doing so would set in stone the idea that the 2nd protects the state, and not the individual. Exactly what we do NOT want.

stormy_clothing
04-27-2010, 3:20 PM
It's sad that people not familiar with the actual result of illegal immigration have such ingrained ideas about it.

First of all the number of people at least in California doing real hard labor like picking strawberries in less than 50K as reported easily covered by our state inmate population if it were needed. While considerably more than that are in construction a job that Americans would take and more than that are claiming unemployment and more than that are not working at all.

I'm not mad at people for trying to find a better life but I dont want to live in Mexico either.

All Arizona should have said is that anyone stopped by an officer will be identified like they do with everyone else and if they couldn't they were arrested until they could like everyone else and then turned over to INS for deportation. Instead of sounding like they had a vendetta.

Yes illegals are exploited, some people even compare them to slaves. But when slavery got to costly the cotton gin was invented - America stepped up like they would again to make a strawberry picker and a ditch digger and an automatic concrete paver and it would probably do better work to boot so I say send em back and let them try legally like 2 million people every year do.

odysseus
04-27-2010, 3:23 PM
Think about it. If Obama was pushing for a law that allowed the feds to stop you at any time and ask to see your papers - what would some of the people rallying around AZ right now say? They wouldn't say anything, they'd be in their basements counting ammo and setting aside food rations.

It's not the idea of the law that bothers me - it's the implementation. I just don't like the idea of the police being able to stop someone at any time, and asking them to prove they are not a criminal. That's just me.


I try to look at things a little more on the facts of it, rather than the speculation since it hasn't even been put into action. Where in the AZ law do you see what you say being ordered? The law requires LE to have Probable Cause to question the person on papers. So the LEO has to suspect there is something, not just stop people randomly without cause.

a1c
04-27-2010, 3:24 PM
The Arizona law.

Are you sure?

I read the law in question and nowhere could I find a provision requiring aliens to be in possession of ID or immigration papers.

odysseus
04-27-2010, 3:48 PM
Are you sure?

I read the law in question and nowhere could I find a provision requiring aliens to be in possession of ID or immigration papers.

Got it from this, Arizona's main rag: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-law-passed.html

• Makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant by creating a state charge of "willful failure to complete or carry an alien-registration document."

Glock22Fan
04-27-2010, 4:01 PM
permanent residents (green card holders) are required to carry their green cards with them at all times.


I was a permanent resident for some time, but I never had a Green Card. They took so long producing my Green Card that I was a citizen before it arrived. At my citizenship interview (where you are supposed to surrender the Green Card) I had a job persuading them that I didn't have one. Eventually they made me sign a sworn statement that they'd never issued me with one. Such efficiency!

a1c
04-27-2010, 4:10 PM
Got it from this, Arizona's main rag: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-law-passed.html

There is nothing in the law requiring an "an alien registration document."

Furthermore, the story in question - obviously written by someone who knows little about immigration laws - mentions green cards or citizenship, as if these were the only two options. Visa workers or foreign students don't have green cards. Sometimes the visa is not even on their passports.

MichaelKent
04-27-2010, 4:32 PM
About the fence... Watch the Penn & Teller Bull***** episode on Immigration... they built the border fence to federal standards and it took pairs of illegals less than 3 minutes to go under, over and through it!

Hundreds of millions of dollars for a fence that would only inconvenience illegals for a couple of minutes is certainly wasteful spending. :p


I try to look at things a little more on the facts of it, rather than the speculation since it hasn't even been put into action. Where in the AZ law do you see what you say being ordered? The law requires LE to have Probable Cause to question the person on papers. So the LEO has to suspect there is something, not just stop people randomly without cause.

A big part of the problem is that the probable cause is very loosely defined. It's essentially anybody who looks like an illegal, but what does an illegal look like? LEOs are not allowed to do racial profiling, so anybody in jeans and sneakers could have "probable cause" as well as anybody the cops take a dislike to. I actually agree with everything in the bill except for this part, which is a violation of the 4th amendment protection against search and seizure. The potential for abuse is too high.

Let's make a hypothetical comparison. Say the state of California decided to take weapons away from gang members to curb the amount of stolen or black market weapons on the street. To do this, they allow LEOs to stop anybody carrying a gun or anybody that looks like a gang member. Once detained, you must show your valid ID and the cop runs the serial number on the gun to make sure it's yours. If you don't have ID, or the serial number doesn't match, you get arrested.

Would you support this legislation? Would you support it more or less if it were written by a democrat vs a republican?

Most of the arguments here in favor of AZ's detainment can be easily modified to fit such a "gang member check" bill, i.e. Bulgron points out the two easy ways to avoid the problems: 1) Always carry your ID and show it to LEOs, and 2) don't dress like a gang banger (whatever that is) or carry your guns around... oops, there goes open carry! Storm_clothing might say that it's sad to see those unfamiliar with gangs have ingrained feelings about letting people have guns, LaMigraMike would say it won't terrorize and harass like it sounds, and ask "is the question 'Is that your gun?' really so scary?" ;)

Sinixstar
04-27-2010, 4:33 PM
I try to look at things a little more on the facts of it, rather than the speculation since it hasn't even been put into action. Where in the AZ law do you see what you say being ordered? The law requires LE to have Probable Cause to question the person on papers. So the LEO has to suspect there is something, not just stop people randomly without cause.

My understanding is that suspicion of being illegal is probable cause enough.

a1c
04-27-2010, 4:50 PM
My understanding is that suspicion of being illegal is probable cause enough.

No.

"Reasonable suspicion" has to come from specific and articulable facts.

What would those be to reasonably suspect someone of being illegal? (Apart from catching someone jumping over a fence at the border.)

abusalim81
04-27-2010, 10:39 PM
2nd am. against illegals, no way thats going to work! BTW I am against illegal immigrants no matter what race they are, but this new law will harass hispanic people and others that look hispanic... A legal mexican guy who barely speaks english will be detained because they will think that he's illegal...

The law/constitution protects us when it comes to showing ID or Driver License to the police... Only if you're driving otherwise all I have to tell them is my 1st and last name...

I'm a conservative and not a liberal, but I think this law stumps on the constitituional rights of legal citizens! This brings a picture of a SS Nazi officer at checkpoints, checking papers of people who look middle eastern to make sure they're JUDEN (Jewish).

Unconstitutional... Plain and simple!

Sinixstar
04-27-2010, 11:16 PM
No.

"Reasonable suspicion" has to come from specific and articulable facts.

What would those be to reasonably suspect someone of being illegal? (Apart from catching someone jumping over a fence at the border.)

Just like 'probably cause' for searching a vehicle, right? :rolleyes:

sreiter
04-27-2010, 11:25 PM
1. Finish the border barrier along our entire border with Mexico.

you need a better way of watching it..they are breaching the fence now. I say set a mine field in between 2 fences 25 yards apart


2. Set up guest worker programs with offices in Mexican cities.


That gives preference to Mexicans and excludes every other country. Its a total fallacy that illegals do jobs citizens wont. There are throngs of unemployed people living in tent cities that would love to have the jobs the illegals are taking.

The same jobs illegals do for a fraction of the cost, used to go to men who supported entire families.

I dont buy that notion that in order to compete in a global market, illegals/cheap labor must be used. GM didnt go under because of overpaid workers, they went under because of poor mgmnt.


3. Guest workers pay taxes equal to state and federal highest tax brackets to help cover costs of running guest worker program.


see above


4. Employers caught employing illegals are fined $2500 per person the 1st time, $25,000 per person the 2nd time, banned from having a business license for life the 3rd time.


won't work. you can be the biggest swindler dirt-bag and set up a new corporation every time you get closed down.


5. Contract with a Mexican 3rd party company to incarcerate illegals and guest workers who break our laws. This can be done much cheaper that housing them in our jails. Plus, they will be released there instead of here.


privatized incarceration is never a good thing



6. After working here for 10 years, paying taxes, and staying out of trouble; they can apply for citizenship. Once they obtain citizenship, they can bring immediate family (mother, father, children, grandparents).

this undermines the entire quota system of immigration


7. No path to citizenship if they have ever violated ANY of our laws.


8. Same parameters for any citizen of any other country world wide. If there are more applicants than positions available, a lottery system will be implemented.


9. Implement a 6th branch of the armed forces for the sole purpose of protecting our borders. This branch of service is only open to those who have previously served in one of the other 5 branches of the armed forces. This would greatly reduce corruption on the border.

Just some random thoughts since you asked.

a1c
04-28-2010, 6:48 AM
Just like 'probably cause' for searching a vehicle, right? :rolleyes:

Actually the law is pretty specific regarding vehicles. That's another story.

SoCalCitizen
04-28-2010, 8:37 PM
Border fence is a big joke just like those communist like border patrol check points that are not on the border. You pull up, they ask "where ya traveling from?", none of your godam business. I'm traveling within the U.S not from Mexico or Canada. If they were serious they would position full military on a closed border and stop all the political b.s. And speaking of b.s. the guy who says there are citizens here willing to do the jobs that illegals do is high. Where I live all I see are these toothless drunks from alabama begging for spare change for there next fat 40 holding phony signs that they were vets and that there dog is starving across the street from the car wash where the mexicans are busting *** for minimum wage and grateful for the job. I doubt those worthless pan handlers would trade places. Loonies to the left, loonies to the right, they just want to cram more useless laws down our throat. Get out and checkout the landscape for your self. I think most just sit on there asses and believe everything that comes out of the beanie box. Good luck

GrizzlyGuy
04-29-2010, 7:32 AM
I find it curious that so many people around the nation are vehemently protesting this new AZ law, but not protesting the suspicionless checkpoints that exist well inside our borders within the constitution free zone (http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone). 100% of the people who choose to drive through those checkpoints are questioned by the feds about their citizenship status. American citizens who choose to exercise their rights and not answer the questions are sometimes tasered and beaten (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=246886). A Calgunner got his car damaged (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=238911) when he didn't play ball, and a decorated military officer was repeatedly hassled and threatened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U). Those aren't potential civil rights violations, they are real ones, and they happen all the time (https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/).

At least the ACLU is consistent in their outrage. The mainstream media, statists and open border proponents... not so much.

Carlosa
04-29-2010, 11:28 AM
I think the state of Arizona has the right to make it illegal to for undocumented folks to live in their state, not sure how that ties into any 2a state right argument.

what I'm not sure of is..

does the state have the right to question individuals who have committed no crime, and have not provided possible cause as to their immigrant status?

I mean if the government doesn't have the right to ask UOC's for ID's to check if that person is a criminal, and can not run serial numbers to see if the gun is stolen due to the protections our constitution, how is it possible that the state do the same with immigrant status?

Seems to me this is the double edge sword of the argument.

any ideas??

Hunt
04-29-2010, 12:01 PM
...think this entire brouhaha could be mooted if the Federal Government would just come out with a decent guest worker visa that no-skill and low-skill laborers could use to come to this country legally. But since the Feds have been dropping the ball for decades on immigration, ...

Thoughts, theories, counter-arguments?

this is not how the criminal fascist oligarchy works, while out of their mouths they spew lies about racism and social justice, they, by *action and inaction*
(repukes and demonrats) intentionally created an economic refugee class
they could both exploit. The misled immigrants think the demonrats really care even in light of overwhelming evidence they were in part the authors of their refugee status. Reality is, these criminal politicians and bankers see the American populace like the audience of a fake pro wrestling match. They come on the public stage, act as opponents to deceive the public, yet in private they party together and scheme of ways to rob and enslave the citizens. Worse yet, they are racist to the core creating and exploiting a refugee class based upon race.

Sinixstar
04-29-2010, 12:05 PM
@Carlosa - yea, that's the thing for me. It's basically asking the person to prove they have committed no crime. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.

I have for a long time felt that the authorities should have more power to be able to boot people out of the country for being illegal, I just think this is the wrong way to do it.

Sinixstar
04-29-2010, 12:09 PM
this is not how the criminal fascist oligarchy works, while out of their mouths they spew lies about racism and social justice, they, by *action and inaction*
(repukes and demonrats) intentionally created an economic refugee class
they could both exploit. The misled immigrants think the demonrats really care even in light of overwhelming evidence they were in part the authors of their refugee status. Reality is, these criminal politicians and bankers see the American populace like the audience of a fake pro wrestling match. They come on the public stage, act as opponents to deceive the public, yet in private they party together and scheme of ways to rob and enslave the citizens. Worse yet, they are racist to the core creating and exploiting a refugee class based upon race.

I don't think it's quite as intentional as you make it out to be.
I think the bigger issue is that neither party wants to touch this topic with a 10foot pole. There is no way to enact any kind of meaningful reform without pissing off the entire latino population. That population can, and will, vote in a block. If you happen to be the sorry SOB who's name is on the bill - you will lose that vote entirely come next election cycle.

The conspiracy theorist in me says this is actually a political move on the part of the (R)'s to make the (D)'s step up and take the first bite out of this ****burger for that very reason. over 40% of the latino vote went to GWB the last time he ran. People like karl rove worked very very hard to make that happen, and are very proud of that fact. If they can force the hand of the democratic congress, under a democratic administration - they can easily push that number up to 60-70%. This is even more compelling when you look at the timing of everything. It's coming up now in the spring of an election year, knowing full well that by the time anything big is coming up - it will be just in time to hammer the message home that 'democrats are trying to kick you out of the country' before the election.

The lack of movement on the issue is, I think, more about self-preservation then anything. It's political theater of the highest order, but not in the way you make it out to be.

Hunt
04-29-2010, 12:41 PM
I don't think it's quite as intentional as you make it out to be.
I think the bigger issue is that neither party wants to touch this topic...

The lack of movement on the issue is, I think, more about self-preservation then anything. It's political theater of the highest order, but not in the way you make it out to be.

we shall agree to disagree, I have seen too much living in Phoenix and San Diego as well as working for a few years for a Union and on campaigns to think this particular creation of an economic refugee class is anything other than a sophisticated political stategy by very powerful interest. The intentions probably much different than most assume, or would believe.

a1c
04-29-2010, 12:45 PM
I find it curious that so many people around the nation are vehemently protesting this new AZ law, but not protesting the suspicionless checkpoints that exist well inside our borders within the constitution free zone (http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone). 100% of the people who choose to drive through those checkpoints are questioned by the feds about their citizenship status. American citizens who choose to exercise their rights and not answer the questions are sometimes tasered and beaten (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=246886). A Calgunner got his car damaged (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=238911) when he didn't play ball, and a decorated military officer was repeatedly hassled and threatened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U). Those aren't potential civil rights violations, they are real ones, and they happen all the time (https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/).

At least the ACLU is consistent in their outrage. The mainstream media, statists and open border proponents... not so much.

I'm with you there. I find those checkpoints just as disturbing.

Ed_in_Sac
04-29-2010, 1:10 PM
The downside of Arizona's id legislation is that it is already being used as a excuse by the lefties for immediate Federal Immigration Reform, read blanket amnesty with sham enforcement. Let's not give them ammo on 2a as well!

odysseus
04-29-2010, 1:14 PM
The downside of Arizona's id legislation is that it is already being used as a excuse by the lefties for immediate Federal Immigration Reform, read blanket amnesty with sham enforcement. Let's not give them ammo on 2a as well!

There is a small opinion that the labor unions, with so much $$$ to gain from amnesty are also part of policy gaming in all this. Instant flip to status for unionizing and growing their union-political organizations, which have been diminishing. They have a hot reserved seat in the oval office and have been using it a lot. It's a partnership, votes for cash.