Illegals

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by NeedForSpeed

It would seem that if the Federal Government would secure the borders, then the States wouldn't have to deal with the costs and other factors.

It also seems that we have troops all around the world in the name of security forces, but what about domestic security? What a mess!

They won't let me on a plane without ID, so, how does one travel to another country without proper authority.

As for rights, what constitutional rights? Bush senior once said that we are not operating under the Constitution, but under the U.N. Charter. If that is true, everything seems to make more sense .

Darn, I really tried to stay out of this

Pardon me while I go on a hypothetical journey. The following is not a suggested plan of action, rather an examination of our options.

It is known that the borderlands on the Mexico side are quickly becoming a "narco state", meaning that the cartels have more power than the government. The inability to enforce on the far side of the border is very much the cause for this trouble in Arizona. Since this land is no longer governed by Mexico, perhaps it's time that we take it off their hands and fix it as US territory. This would not be without precedence, our country has no qualms about invading foreign soil to protect our interests (see the attached map earlier in the thread). The problem is that, on a federal level, our government is unwilling and unable to take the steps required to secure said land. The decision to secure our oil reserves has taken priority over our national security. We're currently fighting a war on two fronts, and militarizing our border would only stretch our armed forces further as well as being seen as an aggressive act by our neighbors. Maybe once we're done setting up our puppet governments overseas, we can focus on expanding our influence on our own continent.

I know this all sounds pretty extreme, but none of this is new to our nation's history. We're currently in the process of doing just this in two countries, and have done it countless times in the past. It may seem incredulous, but as the strongest military and political force on the planet it is not out of the question. Viewed objectively, this plan is much more likely solve the problem than passively waiting for them to enter our country and then ask them for their birth certificates.

[benebob]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I have to ask you to refer me to the para and line that allows them to be stopped for just looking "illegal". I read it as you still only be stopped for some other infraction. I still read probable cause. It does allow them to check people congregating on the street at the usual daytime employment sites soliciting which is no different than checking prostitutes doing the same thing. Heck, they have undercover cops that entrap prostitutes and that is considered constitutional. Not a bit different.

Lee

Lee it is the legalise mumbo jumbo, the classification of the infraction. Haven't seen it online but saw a copy of the bill as originally passed that a law student friend has. If that were the case I personally have no issues nor do I think the Federal Court would as once you have been arrested or issued citation for a traffic or non-traffic offense Of course the state would only be able to hand the non document producing offender over to the feds for further follow up or holding them until proper documentation is presented.

For example in PA we have a secondary seat belt law. A cop can't pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. Now if your tail light is out and you're pulled over, he can write you a ticket if you don't have your seatbelt on. Some states have a seatbelt law which is a primary offense, which means if they don't see a belt on, you can be pulled over even if your have no other infraction.

Checking at a place people employment streets most likely wouldn't be considered legal, just as setting up a dui check point around the corner of a bar. There is no probably cause that accepting a job at a known location where say farmers round up day labors means you are not a legal resident. Entrapment is perfectly legal provided all the guidelines set down by the courts are followed. As for your prositutes, you can't just "check" them for their prostitution union card. You would need to see them accepting money, stopping traffic etc.

[sowise]

Benebob "Illegal is illegal you should care. They are the flood as everyone else who comes across wants to be them! Selective swearing of the constitution. I didn't know that they allowed you to do that in the military these days."

There was nothing selective, I can have a preference or a priority list of what I personnally think is important. Last I checked I was no longer active duty military and havent been for ohhhh about a decade.

Here is part of my problem with illegals and the liberal view:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...-92945969.html

[NeedForSpeed]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

Pardon me while I go on a hypothetical journey. The following is not a suggested plan of action, rather an examination of our options.

It is known that the borderlands on the Mexico side are quickly becoming a "narco state", meaning that the cartels have more power than the government. The inability to enforce on the far side of the border is very much the cause for this trouble in Arizona. Since this land is no longer governed by Mexico, perhaps it's time that we take it off their hands and fix it as US territory. This would not be without precedence, our country has no qualms about invading foreign soil to protect our interests (see the attached map earlier in the thread). The problem is that, on a federal level, our government is unwilling and unable to take the steps required to secure said land. The decision to secure our oil reserves has taken priority over our national security. We're currently fighting a war on two fronts, and militarizing our border would only stretch our armed forces further as well as being seen as an aggressive act by our neighbors. Maybe once we're done setting up our puppet governments overseas, we can focus on expanding our influence on our own continent.

I know this all sounds pretty extreme, but none of this is new to our nation's history. We're currently in the process of doing just this in two countries, and have done it countless times in the past. It may seem incredulous, but as the strongest military and political force on the planet it is not out of the question. Viewed objectively, this plan is much more likely solve the problem than passively waiting for them to enter our country and then ask them for their birth certificates.

Respectfully, what wars are currently being waged by the Federal Government? It is my understanding that the actions in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are United Nations actions, is this the truth? Where is our declaration of war in these actions? When was the last time a sovereign US government actually declared war?

Apparently, the United Nations, seemingly in control of US military, doesn’t see the Southern border of the United States as a concern, as no assets are at stake? Yes, the border of South Korea is better protected, no one walks over that line without consequences.

Just some simple questions

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by sowise

Benebob "Illegal is illegal you should care. They are the flood as everyone else who comes across wants to be them! Selective swearing of the constitution. I didn't know that they allowed you to do that in the military these days."

There was nothing selective, I can have a preference or a priority list of what I personnally think is important. Last I checked I was no longer active duty military and havent been for ohhhh about a decade.

Here is part of my problem with illegals and the liberal view:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...-92945969.html

That article has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The school acted inappropriately, and the district knows it. If I were to draw a parallel between this case and the Arizona law it would be the implication that a Mexican flag on a t-shirt would be cause for the police to stop and harass young men of Hispanic descent. It would be no less wrong than what the school has done, but our double standard comes into play when we assume that the boys in the story were white and therefore entitled to more rights than a dark skinned boy in Arizona.

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by NeedForSpeed

Respectfully, what wars are currently being waged by the Federal Government? It is my understanding that the actions in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are United Nations actions, is this the truth? Where is our declaration of war in these actions? When was the last time a sovereign US government actually declared war?

Apparently, the United Nations, seemingly in control of US military, doesn’t see the Southern border of the United States as a concern, as no assets are at stake? Yes, the border of South Korea is better protected, no one walks over that line without consequences.

Just some simple questions

My cousin Billy's friend said that he saw some WMDs while vacationing in Cabo. Let's call in the Marines until we sort this out.

That post, as well as this, were loaded with hard-to-detect sarcasm, but I think we've made it clear many times that we do what we must to secure our interests, and that the UN will follow suit. When we were under attack from Spain, we saw Guam as an important strategic point for our forces in the Philippines and so we took it. When the Dole company faced opposition to their land grab our government forced the royal family out of Hawaii at gun point. When the cruel and corrupt leader of Iraq threatened to withhold oil from us we got the support we needed from the UN and overthrew him. Like I said, my proposal was hypothetical but not without precedence.

[sowise]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

That article has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The school acted inappropriately, and the district knows it. If I were to draw a parallel between this case and the Arizona law it would be the implication that a Mexican flag on a t-shirt would be cause for the police to stop and harass young men of Hispanic descent. It would be no less wrong than what the school has done, but our double standard comes into play when we assume that the boys in the story were white and therefore entitled to more rights than a dark skinned boy in Arizona.

Actually I think it has alot to do with what is going on in Arizona and the country.

I kept typing more to my response but kept deleting it because that sentence pretty much says my point of view.

[benebob]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

That article has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The school acted inappropriately, and the district knows it. If I were to draw a parallel between this case and the Arizona law it would be the implication that a Mexican flag on a t-shirt would be cause for the police to stop and harass young men of Hispanic descent. It would be no less wrong than what the school has done, but our double standard comes into play when we assume that the boys in the story were white and therefore entitled to more rights than a dark skinned boy in Arizona.

Did they? I know my k-12 school didn't allow the use of the American flag on clothing (except for uniforms) when I went there. Is it simply that they wouldn't have been permitted to not wear it that day or anyday? It could very well be that the rule is on the books based on "offensive" clothing and someone found it offensive that day? I remember getting sent home for wearing a Not all Penn State fans are A-holes teeshirt with Joe Pa with a big old hairy penis nose years ago. Tastfully done of course because it was found to be offensive to Penn State fans. Had I worn it the day after Penn State beat Pitt, I doubt anyone would have cared. There is simply not enough information either here or from Rush today to pass judgement. Regardless, the American flag is anything but clothing and I believe it is still illegal to be printed onto clothing here in PA!

[NeedForSpeed]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

My cousin Billy's friend said that he saw some WMDs while vacationing in Cabo. Let's call in the Marines until we sort this out.

That post, as well as this, were loaded with hard-to-detect sarcasm, but I think we've made it clear many times that we do what we must to secure our interests, and that the UN will follow suit. When we were under attack from Spain, we saw Guam as an important strategic point for our forces in the Philippines and so we took it. When the Dole company faced opposition to their land grab our government forced the royal family out of Hawaii at gun point. When the cruel and corrupt leader of Iraq threatened to withhold oil from us we got the support we needed from the UN and overthrew him. Like I said, my proposal was hypothetical but not without precedence.

No negative sarcasm intended, only frustration. Our military resources seem fully committed to the UN, and have been for my lifetime as well as yours.

I agree with you, we have a border problem, and it falls under federal jurisdiction. I'm not sure that I agree that we got support from the UN in dealing with Iraq, even though that is his-story, I rather think the UN and its organizations, corporations, etc. has ultimate power. Therefore, we don't have resources for national concerns, US resources, [UK and other] have been used as an international police strike force.

[K_Dub]

More research reveals enlightening details. I think what this will come down to is the definition of Reasonable Suspicion. The guidelines for this were setup by the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio. The police undertaking these searches will have to be very careful when reporting their reasons as "reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity." They could theoretically do this within the limits of constitutional law, but describing "reasonable suspicion" in a case by case basis will be a minefield of possible infractions on the part of the officer involved. Won't it be a shame when, in the event of an actual criminal being apprehended, the case is dismissed because the officer can't prove why they began the field interrogation within the limits of the law.

By now it should be clear that I do not support this new law. However it is not up to the SVX World Network to determine these definitions, nor is it up to me to persuade anyone here to join me in my opinion. I only wish to make an informed decision for myself, and share what I find with the folks on this forum. I'll be very interested to see what happens when this hits the courts.

[K_Dub]

Arizona just canceled their traffic camera system citing "Big Brother surveillance" and intrusion into citizen's privacy.

AP Article

Bunch of hypocritical clowns.

[NeedForSpeed]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

Arizona just canceled their traffic camera system citing "Big Brother surveillance" and intrusion into citizen's privacy.

AP Article

Bunch of hypocritical clowns.

Interesting, either political posturing, or, it costs more to operate/lease than the return on the 'investment' .

Either way, I know a Arizonian that can now go back to his speeding ways, NOT that he is notorious for receiving THREE camera photos in one day,, or anything like that

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by NeedForSpeed

Interesting, either political posturing, or, it costs more to operate/lease than the return on the 'investment' .

Either way, I know a Arizonian that can now go back to his speeding ways, NOT that he is notorious for receiving THREE camera photos in one day,, or anything like that

I've actually dealt with Redflex (the company contracted for the cameras). Pretty crooked stuff, and apparently this will cost them $5Million this year. Good!

Redflex is an Australian company with an office in Scottsdale. They are hired by numerous gov't agencies to do their policing for them. My ticket for coasting through a stop sign in the state park was actually a bill from a private corp. They don't have any legal right to issue tickets, but they can place a lien on your vehicle for not paying the "bill for services rendered". I ponied up the dough because they had me dead to rights and the price wasn't worth the fight, but it still pissed me off that an Aussie corp. was getting my money rather than the local agency that should have been doing their job monitoring the stop sign.

BTW, the stop was for a gate (not an intersection) and I could see far beyond it to confirm that I was in no danger, nor was anyone else. We ought to make these scumbags "Illegal".

[NeedForSpeed]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

I've actually dealt with Redflex (the company contracted for the cameras). Pretty crooked stuff, and apparently this will cost them $5Million this year. Good!

Redflex is an Australian company with an office in Scottsdale. They are hired by numerous gov't agencies to do their policing for them. My ticket for coasting through a stop sign in the state park was actually a bill from a private corp. They don't have any legal right to issue tickets, but they can place a lien on your vehicle for not paying the "bill for services rendered". I ponied up the dough because they had me dead to rights and the price wasn't worth the fight, but it still pissed me off that an Aussie corp. was getting my money rather than the local agency that should have been doing their job monitoring the stop sign.

BTW, the stop was for a gate (not an intersection) and I could see far beyond it to confirm that I was in no danger, nor was anyone else. We ought to make these scumbags "Illegal".

A camera on a stop sign, that's just wrong

[sowise]

I was reading something a little while back about how I think it was Bel Air, Maryland that was complaining about the stoplight cameras weren't generating enough revenue. Which was their main priority for installation not to curb speeders or traffic violations. They were upset because people were not breaking the traffic laws in those areas anymore. They talked about moving the cameras to other locations but were worried people would end up driving better in those areas too so they still wouldn't generate revenue.