(04-29-2010 07:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote: As a lawyer, I was initially concerned this law was unconstitutional but after learning more about it, I believe it likely passes constitutional standards. (The one catch could be Congress' enumerated power over immigration). The law prohibits stops based on race alone. It requires lawful contact based upon reasonable suspicion (which is the legal standard for normal traffic stops anyway). Based on that it is probably facially valid. It may be invalid in application though. The main issue is whether it violates 4th protections against unreasonable searches, but the standards in place look okay there.
It looks like they've tightened the requirements.
Quote:A change that legislators approved Thursday night, however, says police could check on residency status only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.
I don't like it, my approach to immigration is more libertarian, but I actually think it may well pass constitutional muster. Maybe not 9th circuit, but I think this supreme court would uphold it.
So, you're against public schools. You've been quiet about that in the past.
Stanhope is "Money" ... Classic bit that is dead on. Just how many American welfare queens spit out another useless bundle that ends up having to be supported by the fruits of others labor?....Most likely 100's of times more than those that travel across the border.
It all goes back to the MAJOR problem...The GD Welfare state!!!!
(04-26-2010 11:20 AM)mistabinks Wrote: Assuming Arizona is successful in eliminating the crimes committed by Illegals, does Arizona have a working plan ready to roll for all the crime created by Caucasians? Does Arizona even acknowledge that the amount of crime by Caucasians is a much bigger number than crimes committed by Illegals? To be fair, those crimes were "Made in the USA." USA! USA! USA!
It will only eliminate the crimes that are being committed by those who are criminals just by being here illegally. It won't put a dent in crimes committed by white, black or brown legal residents. Legal being the key word.
(04-26-2010 01:58 PM)uhmump95 Wrote: Sounds like he is a Republican doesn't it?
Placing people in a neat little category and giving it a name is the easiest thing to do when you are unwilling or unable, for what ever reason, to debate the issue.
Good for you. You'd make a great illegal immigrant..
Do you read full posts or do you scan for a chance to type something stupid? I am thinking the latter.
I support Arizona's law. Torch's complaint in the post that I quoted sounds an awful lot like complaints made about Republicans during the health care "debate". That was my point.
(04-26-2010 08:51 PM)Know Nothing Wrote: That is the point I am making, there are no Irish or German flags in your home, but if we went back the homes of your ancestors a 100+ years ago it would be a completely different story. Do some reading on 19th century post-civil war American history and you'll will find that many of the major political issues of the era dealt with trying to address the issue of our ancestors not assimilating.
Hispanics, given the time will follow the same route.
IF the illegal Hispanics were following the same path as the Germans, Asian, Irish, Italians and many others...as in the legal path that these ethnic groups did, there would be no issue.
The first numerical restrictions on immigration didn't happen until 1921 (there were restrictions on "undesirables" prior to 1921). The reason the Europeans weren't immigrating illegally is because it was impossible to do so. Wikipedia suggests (the reference is a book so I can't verify it) that the 1921 act led to an immediate increase in illegal immigrants from Europe.
I stand corrected. However you will have to offer better evidence to convince me that European illegals even approach the numbers of illegal hispanics flooding into American today. And thats not to say that even one illegal European is OK. I am for ALL legal immigration, just as I am against ALL illegal immigration.
Regardless, this is not 1921. There are laws on immigration today.
So, you're against public schools. You've been quiet about that in the past.
Stanhope is "Money" ... Classic bit that is dead on. Just how many American welfare queens spit out another useless bundle that ends up having to be supported by the fruits of others labor?....Most likely 100's of times more than those that travel across the border.
It all goes back to the MAJOR problem...The GD Welfare state!!!!
Completely agree. We have enough bloodsucking leeches born from legal residents. However we don't need any more blood sucking leeches born from illegal common criminals.
Actually, illegal aliens make our criminal situation worse because they take resources that could be used elsewhere. Whether it be a bed. or an officer or a court or a squad car or a doctor or a case worker. the pool of help is finite. Decreasing the demand for those resources would help them be more effective
This is CLEARLY not a "slow paperwork" issue, but one of design. It is DESIGNED to be slow. The same is generally true for other countries. The smarter/richer/more employable you are, the easier it is to emigrate.
We create the problem of illegal immigration by having it be so long, yet we don't defend the regulations by enforcing the borders. Why not? I'll let others debate that question, but the idea that because the process is slow, we should ALLOW people to circumvent the process is not only wrong, but supporting crime. This is not how we change laws in this country... and Congressmen who do so should be put in jail. I'm serious.
You don't like the law? Write a different one. Don't simply fail to fund the process to enforce it.
... Classic bit that is dead on. Just how many American welfare queens spit out another useless bundle that ends up having to be supported by the fruits of others labor?....Most likely 100's of times more than those that travel across the border.
![[Image: 07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad1.jpg]](http://ssmag.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad1.jpg)