44 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Yep, it's a weird one.
How does a state investigate and combat illegal immigration without.. investigating?
I saw a news article about this on BBC News TV the other day. The usual, get 'both sides' type report. For the other point of view they went to Mexico and found the wife of an illegal immigrant in Arizona who complained that if he was sent back how would they manage with re-building their home? A good, "Ohh woe is me" type report. Strangely no-one thought to see her response to the fact that he was 'illegal' in the US.
The judge's idea is that...
the state has no business investigating and combating illegal immigration at all. That's the federal gov't's responsibility. Of course, the federal gov't has no interest in fulfilling that responsibility.
RE: the federal gov't has no interest
only a few million more to go?
The longest journey in the world starts with 1 step
Didn't Moses say that?
The 1,200 National Guard troops expected to arrive Sunday on the southwest border for reinforcement won't finish deploying until late September, federal officials say, stirring confusion and anger among Arizona lawmakers who thought the deadline was Aug. 1.
According to the Obama administration, nearly half of the troops will be sent to the volatile Arizona-Mexico border. A total of 524 will be stationed in Arizona, with 250 in Texas, 224 in California and 72 in New Mexico. An additional 130 will serve in "command-and-control" and other support positions.
I wonder if they will really deport ANY?
I have a problem with...
I have a problem with the explanation that the state has no business investigating and combating this. The problem arises when I try to apply this logic to other situations.
For example, in my area we just had a situation where a government official was claiming to have been awarded certain medals for his actions in Vietnam, and claimed to have been a SEAL. Someone claimed that this was not true and said they had evidence to show that it was not true. The local government investigated and demanded that the official back up his claims or resign. He resigned.
O.K., Federal law forbids falsely claiming awards of military medals, but as that is a Federal law, should the State have been forbidden from investigating and combating his claim? It seems to me that the judge's ruling in the immigration case would also apply to the medals case.
Or, take the subject of someone possessing a kilogram of heroin. The Federal government forbids its possession. The States also passed laws forbidding its possession. So, does the Federal government now hold that the States laws about heroin are improper, as such a law is the responsibility of the Federal government?
Here's a link to the ruling...
The Federal government controls immigration. The Federal government also controls possession of ownership of fully automatic weapons. They allow a license with a thorough background check, and payment of a transfer tax. Note: the permit will not be issued if the weapon is to be located in a state that forbids such possession.
With the immigration ruling, a couple of questions now come to mind. As the Federal Government claims power over a permit to possess an automatic weapon, do the state laws that forbid such possession in that state encroach on that power of the Federal government? If a person in a state that allows possession is discovered by the state to be in possession of one, should the State be forbidden from asking that the party found to be in possession to show them their Federal license to possess it?
In other words, if the ruling forbids the State from asking to see a "green card" permission, would it also forbid the State from asking to to see a Title III document permission?
A matter for courts and law professors.
There will be many arguments to come before this is settled.
For instance, one of the r=things the judge whacked and that opponents of the law decry as racist was the requirement that legal immigrants carry their papers with them at all times. But Federal law already requires that...
Maybe expecting rationality and consistency from government is too much of a stretch.
Something you said there sparked a light in my brain cell
You said, "The Federal government controls immigration."
I now understand, (I think), why the Feds are so uptight about this, and so my opinion is changing. Not that it matters what I think since I am not a US Citizen.
But anyway, Central Government must control immigration otherwise each state would be allowed to say yay or nay to whoever applies to live in the States. The single nation must have overall control of immigration to avoid a 52 state, (or however many there are now), mishmash of immigration laws.
So if the Feds control immigration, then they must also control illegal immigrants. Whether they are doing that effectively is a matter for debate, but I see now why Washington is so against Arizona's unilateral position.
What did I miss there?
About gun laws. Again nothing I know about, but didn't I see a debate here a while ago where the Feds over-ruled some state or city's new laws on gun possession? As to your question to Ed, if State laws forbid gun possession then the Feds won't issue a permit; is that what you said?
What did you miss...
You asked "What did I miss there?". I think there is a problem with your statement "So if the Feds control immigration, then they must also control illegal immigrants.". The Feds also control narcotics. Some people possess them legally by prescription. This does not mean that the Feds control people in illegal possession, like dope dealers. I wouldn't say that forbidding something is control of it. The problem is the claim of exclusive control. With narcotics, the Feds allow State investigation of the legality of possession of them. If I am searched and the cop finds, say loose Vicodin tablets" in my pocket, are they forbidden from asking for me to show them the prescription bottle (legal permission to possess) because the Feds are in control of that substance?
Well I said control
but I meant, 'are the nation's law-makers' with regard to immigration matters. Do the Feds consider that Arizona's proposed laws attempt to undermine the national statutes on the control of immigration?
It's just a thought.
They probably do...
but since the Feds are so reluctant to enforce the laws and Arizona's citizens are negatively affected, there's no wonder hey passed that law.
The issue is, does the Arizona law conflict with or impeded the federal enforcement of the law. I don't see how it does, but that is a matter for the courts.
there are several issues involved here, Mark
It is just that many people like to blur them together, as if they were all the same.
One issue is State versus Federal laws, and who has supremacy. This battle has gone on for over 200 years and will go on as long as the USA exists.
Another is the concern over possible reformation of immigration policies. Immigrant advocacy groups fight to have immigration laws made more lenient, often times trying to make the case that standing on US land is a de facto argument for residency and eventual citizenship. Many liberals want to be all bleeding heart and support this view while many conservatives view all but a few easily assimilated immigrants as an immediate threat to their way of life and standard of living.
The concern for preserving a certain standard of living leads to the irony and reality that part of the US economy depends on illegal workers. Many people talk about the fact that illegal immigrants take american jobs, but the reality is that these are mostly jobs americans refuse to work. I saw a recent article where a farmer who used immigrant labor was asked if any americans had ever applied to be field harvesters. He replied that in 35 years of farming grapes, not a single american (anglo) had ever asked for work.
Reality is that the bulk of illegal immigrants come to the US because they can earn money here. They are good, decent, more than hard working people who come to find a better life for themselves and their families. If we didn't pay them, then they would quit coming.
A more valid concern to me, is the inability of the Federal government to control US borders. Arizona is trying to take that step towards protecting their borders with Mexico, because the Fed seems unwilling or unable to do so. The borders are allowing criminals, and drugs to pas north, just as US guns are flooding Mexico. Of course... you never see anyone complaining about the fact that US guns and ammunition are fueling the drug wars in Mexico... until the violence spills north of the border.
When talking about guns, it is common sense to argue that when you outlaw guns, only the criminals will be left possessing guns. In the case of the questionably designed Arizona laws, the bulk of the illegals that will end up being caught by these laws, will be the ones we had the least to worry about.
In the meantime, if the law stands... many legal residents and US citizens, along with illegals, will be stopped for various reasons, and in addition, asked about their legal right to be in Arizona.
What would be a good British example? Would it be like a Scotsman living in Wales being asked to prove he had a legal right to be there, just because he looked or talked differently from the other folk that lived around there?
How about a state identity card?
What if everyone working in the state was required to have one? No discrimination there.
In answer to both
your post and Grim's reply to me.
The previous UK Government attempted to introduce ID Cards but failed miserably with such a public backlash that I don't see it being attempted again in the near future. Having an ID card wouldn't bother me. I would remember who I was!
A good British example? I only have the one, again introduced by the last government and 'good' isn't the description I would use. They allowed the UK police to "Stop & Search" for no reason. I don't have any statistics to prove my point, but the public impression was that the police concentrated on young black males in the cities and continuously stopped them for no reason and searched them. The police justified this by saying that the majority of inner city crime was carried out by young black males. Possibly that is true, but the impression was that ybm's were being targeted by the police, and innocents were continuously being harassed. That practice has also been dropped now.
So, point taken.
rattlesnakes, frogs and lizards
In Texas they have rattlesnake roundups at times to reduce the number of snakebites in the state. They don't grab frogs and lizards just to make the rattlesnakes feel good about it. Even if they did, the ones kept would be the rattlesnakes and the others would be released. In most communities, if there's a large number of stray dog bites, they don't concentrate their energies on rounding up stray cats instead.
The point being, you concentrate efforts where the biggest problem is and where the greatest result can be achieved. If a community feels this targets them stronger than some other community, then maybe it's time they put effort into creating the type of community that didn't require such outside attentions. I see no reason for police to be deliberately stupid.
in other words, assimilate or prepare to be hassled?
I know what you are saying, and this makes sense from a purely pragmatic stance, but dealing with people in an ethical, US Constitutional, US Bill of Rights, kind of way... involves more than pragmatism.
If my family had been living in Arizona for 300-400 years, and we spoke Spanish at home, and the next time I get stopped for jay walking I am asked to provide papers showing I had a right to be in my own homeland (which is basically what the new laws allow)... well, who had been there longer? And who should be under an obligation to assimilate?
No, not at all
All the law allows for is for a local officer to ask to see your ID if you get stopped for something else. If you happen to be an alien that would be the Green Card you are required to carry with you at all times under federal law. If you are a foreign tourist that would be the passport you are required to have with you by federal law. There's no reason a local officer should need a federal officer to check for those documents that you are required to have in your possession if you get stopped for some other legal infraction.
The question remains, should illegal aliens have a 'right' to not have their illegal status checked by police officers?
Well it's a good point
And it may be that the UK system worked, meaning inner-city crime statistics have reduced.
Time will tell now as the practice has stopped. Officially that is.
No, there's no such right...
Bank robbery is a federal crime.
Should state level police leave it to the feds to deal with?
let me get this straight...
... how many think illegal aliens have a right to not be questioned about their illegal immigration status?
That is the issue in a nutshell ?
sorry about this misplaced "/"
The Federal government has a law that states allows the possession of a fully automatic weapon if the person goes through a thorough background check, registers it, and pays a tax. The permit is only issued if the weapon is to be located in a state that allows such possession.
So, if in one of those states that allow possession, and the state discover someone in possession of one, are they allowed to ask the party in possession of it to show them their Federal permit to possess it?
comment totally unrelated to what I said.
I was trying to get a clarification of just what c!ay was asking.
To address what you have said... do states that allow federally issued automatic weapons permits have a right to ask to see the permit? Well, sure... but under what circumstances would the need to ask occur?
Would a cop need to ask for the permit if he finds you in possession of such a weapon?
Would a cop need to ask for the permit if he sees you run a red light, or jay walk but doesn't see a weapon?
Would a cop need to ask for the permit if you look like you might own such a weapon? Say if you wear an NRA t shirt or have a marine corp cap on... or even just a pair of camo pants?
Now what if the blond guy next to you in the car that just drifted thru a stop sign has a t **** that says "I love my M-16". The cops stop your car, and talk to both of you. They ask to see your auto weapons permit because you have dark hair and an accent (like all people from Wisconsin do). Would the cop be correct in doing this, just because you didn't look, or sound like you were from around there?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)