PUB DISCUSSION Rancher sued, another killed. Can't we defend ourselves? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dippin · 04-27-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

o for DOUBLE fucks sake!

Your argument may be against vigilante action, but his post didn't suggest or encourage it. It was you who took it to that assumptive level because, in your narrow view, everyone who wants our immigration laws enforced also secretly wants to whack brown people from 500 meters with their Remington Model 700. Pant, pant, pant.

...and this is EXACTLY why I didn't want to discuss politics with you. Because you don't want to have a discussion about real problems/solutions. As always, you want to make it all about bitter-clinger-teabagging-birthing minutemen vs. your idea of how the world is or should be. Marginalizing to the extreme in order to maintain your concrete way of thinking.

I'm done, you can stop weaving now. You have a wonderful day.

Isn't this entire thread based precisely about vigilante action, and how the poor vigilante in question suffered oh so much for "defending" his country? Isn't the "when does a criminal become a criminal" discussion basically an attempt at justifying that?

I mean, it might not be what you, personally, want to see happen, or what you, personally, think.

But it seems to me that this particular discussion has been, from the start, about vigilante action and their supposed righteousness. The rancher in the OP not only kicked a woman when she was on the floor, but previously had held a family of American-born Hispanics at gun point when he saw them out in the open. This is the guy who's become a sort of hero for many. It might not be true for you, but there are a great number of people who want to "whack" illegal immigrants with their high powered rifles. Ask Brian James.

dc_dux · 04-27-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

The problem that I have with "illegal workers" is and always will be the fact that their illegal act affords them the ability to avoid paying taxes on the wages that they earn. Furthermore, the companies that hire them do not pay taxes on the wages they pay them.

An estimated 60+ percent of illegal workers not only pay FICA taxes, to the tune of $billions/year, but federal/state income taxes as well.

Quote:

When does a person become a criminal? When they commit a felony or only if they are caught and convicted?

US Code title 8 section 1325

Arizona isn't doing anything other than giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law that is already on the books. title 8 section Sec. 1357

In fact, AZ is doing more that simply giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law already on the books.

The state law goes beyond the existing federal law and allows law enforcement authority to apprehend and hold persons for no other cause other than "suspicion" of being here illegally.

There are constitutional questions at two levels.

First, whether the state can even enact laws that go beyond the federal law, given that immigration regulation is the responsibility of Congress.

And then, assuming the state can enact such a law, the way the law is written, does it infringe upon guaranteed 4th and 4th amendment rights?

Cimarron29414 · 04-27-2010, 11:39 AM

"an estimated 60%", by whom? When it's 100%, the illegal worker problem is solved.

I haven't once in this thread debated the Arizona law. Why is this directed at me?

dc_dux · 04-27-2010, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

"an estimated 60%", by whom? When it's 100%, the illegal worker problem is solved.

I haven't once in this thread debated the Arizona law. Why is this directed at me?

The FICA tax contributions of illegals comes from the Social Security Admin and I think it was more around 75%....$7 billion in the last year reported. The federal/state income taxes from a CBO report.

And I directed the AZ law question to you since you were the one who posted:

"Arizona isn't doing anything other than giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law that is already on the books. title 8 section Sec. 1357"

I have no problem with addressing the illegal worker issue, if it is done in a Constitutionally acceptable manner.

A fiscally acceptable manner makes sense to me as well.....providing a path to citizenship (not amnesty) makes far more sense, is cheaper, and generates more tax revenue that attempting to deport 12+ million people.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

Oh...as to the question of "When does a person become a criminal? When they commit a felony or only if they are caught and convicted?"

Entering the country illegally is a federal misdemeanor, not a felony.

Cimarron29414 · 04-27-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The FICA tax contributions of illegals comes from the Social Security Admin and I think it was more around 75%....$7 billion in the last year reported. The federal/state income taxes from a CBO report.

And I directed the AZ law question to you since you were the one who posted:

"Arizona isn't doing anything other than giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law that is already on the books. title 8 section Sec. 1357"

I have no problem with addressing the illegal worker issue, if it is done in a Constitutionally acceptable manner.

A fiscally acceptable manner makes sense to me as well.....providing a path to citizenship (not amnesty) makes far more sense, is cheaper, and generates more tax revenue that attempting to deport 12+ million people.

Well, actually I was quoting someone else in that statement, but it is hard to follow.

The challenge in a non-deportation solution is that it is difficult to assess the penalty (both compensatory for lost tax revenues and punitive) on those for whom you have absolutely no records prior to their coming out of the woodworks.

As with all other licensing crimes, which is essentially what this is, you have to pay a penalty for not getting the correct permits plus unpaid taxes plus interest on unpaid taxes, etc. I don't know if the amount of bureaucracy surrounding those indeterminate numbers and the subsequent collections issues are cheaper than the "bygones and be gone" solution. ~shrug~ I don't know which is fiscally cheaper.

roachboy · 04-28-2010, 03:23 AM

this is an interesting take.
it makes sense, given that it hinges on an older dimension of the populist conservative discourse of paranoia: the fear that somehow or another millions of "illegals" are being registered by the democrats and threatening the continued viability of the republican party, which is in this case sometimes the organizational expression of the "real" conservative movement and sometimes its lapdog.

of course, this particular canard hinges on the assertion, which is implicit in the fear above, that conservatives are the "real americans" who are being threatened by evil Others. and so it is that one of the core identity politics mobilizing tropes that's held together this newest incarnation of things poujadiste repeats. but read on:

Quote:

Behind the Arizona Immigration Law:
GOP Game to Swipe the November Election

Our investigation in Arizona discovered the real intent of the show-me-your-papers law.

by Greg Palast for [1] Truthout.org

[Phoenix, AZ.] Don't be fooled. The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.

I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.

What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic "Teabag" uprising.

What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote -- and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.

In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer.

Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer's command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.

That statistic caught my attention. Voting or registering to vote if you're not a citizen is a felony, a big-time jail-time crime. And arresting such criminal voters is easy: after all, they give their names and addresses.

So I asked Brewer's office, had she busted a single one of these thousands of allegedly illegal voters? Did she turn over even one name to the feds for prosecution?

No, not one.

Which raises the question: were these disenfranchised voters the criminal, non-citizens Brewer tagged them, or just not-quite-white voters given the José Crow treatment, entrapped in document-chase trickery?

The answer was provided by a federal prosecutor who was sent on a crazy hunt all over the Western mesas looking for these illegal voters. "We took over 100 complaints, we investigated for almost 2 years, I didn’t find one prosecutable voter fraud case."

This prosecutor, David Iglesias, is a prosecutor no more. When he refused to fabricate charges of illegal voting among immigrants, his firing was personally ordered by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, under orders from his boss, Karl Rove.

Iglesias' jurisdiction was next door, in New Mexico, but he told me that Rove and the Republican chieftains were working nationwide to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria with public busts of illegal voters, even though there were none.

"They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments," Iglesias told me. The former prosecutor, himself a Republican, paid the price when he stood up to this vicious attack on citizenship.

But Secretary of State Brewer followed the Rove plan to a T. The weapon she used to slice the Arizona voter rolls was a 2004 law, known as "Prop 200," which required proof of citizenship to register. It is important to see the Republicans' latest legislative horror show, sanctioning cops to stop residents and prove citizenship, as just one more step in the party's desperate plan to impede Mexican-Americans from marching to the ballot box.

[By the way, no one elected Brewer. Weirdly, Barack Obama placed her in office last year when, for reasons known only to the Devil and Rahm Emanuel, the President appointed Arizona's Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano to his cabinet, which automatically moved Republican Brewer into the Governor's office.]

State Senator Russell Pearce, the Republican sponsor of the latest ID law, gave away his real intent, blocking the vote, when he said, "There is a massive effort under way to register illegal aliens in this country."

How many? Pearce's PR flak told me, five million. All Democrats, too. Again, I asked Pearce's office to give me their the names and addresses from their phony registration forms. I'd happily make a citizens arrest of each one, on camera. Pearce didn't have five million names. He didn't have five. He didn't have one.

The horde of five million voters who swam the Rio Grande just to vote for Obama was calculated on a Republican website extrapolating from the number of Mexicans in a border town who refused jury service because they were not citizens. Not one, in fact, had registered to vote: they had registered to drive. They had obtained licenses as required by the law.

The illegal voters, "wetback" welfare moms, and alien job thieves are just GOP website wet-dreams, but their mythic PR power helps the party's electoral hacks chop away at voter rolls and civil rights with little more than a whimper from the Democrats.

Indeed, one reason, I discovered, that some Democrats are silent is that they are in on the game themselves. In New Mexico, Democratic Party bosses tossed away ballots of Pueblo Indians to cut native influence in party primaries.

But what’s wrong with requiring folks to prove they’re American if the want to vote and live in America? The answer: because the vast majority of perfectly legal voters and residents who lack ID sufficient for Ms. Brewer and Mr. Pearce are citizens of color, citizens of poverty.

According to a study by prof. Matt Barreto, of Washington State University, minority citizens are half as likely as whites to have the government ID. The numbers are dreadfully worse when income is factored in.

Just outside Phoenix, without Brewer's or Pearce's help, I did locate one of these evil un-American voters, that is, someone who could not prove her citizenship: 100-year-old Shirley Preiss. Her US birth certificate was nowhere to be found as it never existed.

In Phoenix, I stopped in at the Maricopa County prison where Sheriff Joe Arpaio houses the captives of his campaign to stop illegal immigration. Arpaio, who under the new Arizona law, will be empowered to choose his targets for citizenship testing, is already facing federal indictment for his racially-charged and legally suspect methods.

I admit, I was a little nervous, passing through the iron doors with a big sign, "NOTICE: ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE PROHIBITED FROM VISITING ANYONE IN THIS JAIL." I mean, Grandma Palast snuck into the USA via Windsor, Canada. We Palasts are illegal as they come, but Arpaio's sophisticated deportee-sniffer didn't stop this white boy from entering his sanctum.

But that's the point, isn't it? Not to stop non-citizens from entering Arizona -- after all, who else would care for the country club lawn? -- but to harass folks of the wrong color: Democratic blue.

Greg Palast Print Behind the Arizona Immigration Law:GOP Game to Swipe the November Election

personally, i find this interesting but not necessarily a single overarching explanation. but it's interesting, yes?

Seaver · 04-28-2010, 12:33 PM

That sound you hear coming from Arizona? It's the wildfire of Hispanics across the country abandoning the Right for the Democrats.

For those who would argue they already voted that way, take a look at the actual numbers. There were huge sums who voted based on the Republican opposition to Gay Marriage.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-28-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

An estimated 60+ percent of illegal workers not only pay FICA taxes, to the tune of $billions/year, but federal/state income taxes as well.

In fact, AZ is doing more that simply giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law already on the books.

The state law goes beyond the existing federal law and allows law enforcement authority to apprehend and hold persons for no other cause other than "suspicion" of being here illegally.

There are constitutional questions at two levels.

First, whether the state can even enact laws that go beyond the federal law, given that immigration regulation is the responsibility of Congress.

And then, assuming the state can enact such a law, the way the law is written, does it infringe upon guaranteed 4th and 4th amendment rights?

This no Arizona law is really nothing new, as it completely mirrors the constitutional question raised in Hiibel v. Sixth Judiciary District court of Nevada. The Supreme Court upheld the right of law enforcement officials to arrest an individual who refuses to/or is unable to identify themselves. The SC also stated that there was no burden for "probable cause", only rather reasonable suspicion.

The Supreme Court held that the gentleman, Hiibel's, 4th & 5th amendment rights were not violated.

Also from the holding

Quote:

the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.

Color me crazy, but I would imagine that illegal immigrants would be guilty to some degree of criminal activity.

HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.

FuglyStick · 04-28-2010, 12:58 PM

"Reasonable suspicion" being "brown", of course.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-28-2010, 01:04 PM

I also have a question to pose to you DC_Dux. You state that immigration regulation is the responsibility of congress. How then can you explain the validity of sanctuary cities?

Here's a ducky example of an illegal immigrant, with a violent criminal record who was never deported as a result of San Fran's sanctuary laws. The long and short of it is that after a traffic dispute, This donkey Edwin Ramos mowed down a father and his two sons with an AK-47.

Slaying suspect once found sanctuary in S.F. - SFGate

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

I suppose the TSA should be hesitant to profile passengers of Arab decent for fear of offending people or being labeled racist....

dc_dux · 04-28-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

This no Arizona law is really nothing new, as it completely mirrors the constitutional question raised in Hiibel v. Sixth Judiciary District court of Nevada. The Supreme Court upheld the right of law enforcement officials to arrest an individual who refuses to/or is unable to identify themselves. The SC also stated that there was no burden for "probable cause", only rather reasonable suspicion.

The Supreme Court held that the gentleman, Hiibel's, 4th & 5th amendment rights were not violated.

Also from the holding

Color me crazy, but I would imagine that illegal immigrants would be guilty to some degree of criminal activity.

HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.

The AZ law does something new.

It creates a new criminal activity, "trespassing by illegal aliens" that give police the power to apprehend any person on public or private property if the police have suspicion that the person is illegal.

40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Presently, the police can demand identification if they have apprehended a person as a result of being suspected of committing another crime or traffic violation....whiich was the case in Hibel, was it not?

The new law, in effect, expands the definition of "lawful" contact. Under the law, a cop in AZ could apprehend a person standing in a city park or a 7-11 based solely on suspicion that the person is illegal and in violation of the "trespassing by illegal alien" provision.

What is reasonable suspicion? That is whee the 4th amendment comes into play.

---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I also have a question to pose to you DC_Dux. You state that immigration regulation is the responsibility of congress. How then can you explain the validity of sanctuary cities?

I dont think the sanctuary city's ordinances could stand up to a constitutional test.

The Bush admin never pursued it and neither has Obama.

It is also a fact that immigration enforcement is NOT a local or state govt responsibility so a city could chose to simply do noting in regards to checking the legal status of individuals (w/o a sanctuary ordinance) and would probably be in compliance with the law.

Bill O'Rights · 04-29-2010, 07:11 AM

There is, of course, a simple solution to it all. There are...what...31 states in Mexico? Just redesign the U.S. flag to accomodate 31 more stars and make 'em ALL citizens.

Push-Pull · 04-29-2010, 12:35 PM

Phew!!! I almost, ALMOST, sat down and made a lengthy post, but I waited until the feeling went away.

Bottom line everyone....THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!!

You may love or hate Arizona for it, but you gotta admit, at least someone's FINALLY doing something about the two ton gorilla in the corner.

FWIW, I don't think a butterfly net is gonna work.

KirStang · 04-29-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

There is, of course, a simple solution to it all. There are...what...31 states in Mexico? Just redesign the U.S. flag to accomodate 31 more stars and make 'em ALL citizens.

WOOT! More job opportunities in the DEA!

Seaver · 04-29-2010, 05:54 PM

Quote:

WOOT! More job opportunities in the DEA!

Don't forget all of the demolition opportunities when the companies currently manufacturing in Mexico move further South!

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-30-2010, 11:21 AM

I thought I might post some numbers, since I am a big fan of them regarding to this debate. I already am aware that most (here) who will disagree with them will automatically discredit them; fair enough, I've never really found numbers on the subject, so I'm giving them ball park credibility.

Plus or minus time (I'm rounding down on the figures).
-Illegal immigrants in the US 22 million +/- (by my awesome math skills I concluded that is roughly 7% of the population.
-Non-Mexican illegals in US 550,000+/- (2% of illegals)

They post some cute numbers about money wired out from USA to Latin America/South America, really irrelevant.

-Cost of social services paid to illegal immigrants since 1996 just south off 400 billion.
-Number of illegal's children in America's public school system north of 5 million
-Cost of educating illegals since 1996, north of 160 billion dollars US.
-Number of illegals incarcerated in US +/- 420,000.
-Cost of alleged incarcerations is fairly low at a cool $24 billion since 1996

-Skilled jobs provided to illegals, which I don't know how to define, is listed at +/- 11 million.
-And Anchor babies, which I assume would be illegal's naturalizing kids in the US, is listed at +4 million.

Website is Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources, they post some interesting numbers. Like how Mexico has an unemployment rate of +/- 5% which later verified at Cia.gov, there poverty rate is at 18% which is only 6% higher than the US. Apparently they are also home to the Richest man on the planet. Oh and switching gears but hilarious none the less America's public debt is 52% of the GDP.

roachboy · 04-30-2010, 12:00 PM

one of the basic problems with undocumented populations is counting them.
i haven't time to look into this at the moment, but how does your source do the counting, mojo?

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-30-2010, 12:09 PM

The claim is a compilation of public research + government released numbers. Working retroactively they attempt to find trends and there predict certain figures. Most of the numbers I posted I didn't personally verify but a few of them I was able to at CIA's owrld factbook.

dogzilla · 04-30-2010, 02:51 PM

If even a fraction of what's claimed here is true, it makes the uproar over the Arizona law rather silly and Mexican president Calderon's outrage rather hypocritical. Maybe instead of being outraged at the Arizona law, President Calderon should get his own country in order, and not by exporting his problems to the US.

Michelle Malkin Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens

Quote:

– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

Anyone who thinks this article is bogus is welcome to try to sneak into Mexico and report back here about what happened to them.

dippin · 04-30-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

If even a fraction of what's claimed here is true, it makes the uproar over the Arizona law rather silly and Mexican president Calderon's outrage rather hypocritical. Maybe instead of being outraged at the Arizona law, President Calderon should get his own country in order, and not by exporting his problems to the US.

Michelle Malkin Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens

Anyone who thinks this article is bogus is welcome to try to sneak into Mexico and report back here about what happened to them.

So the goal is to have the second worst treatment of immigrants? As long as someone is worse it's ok?

And I think the issue is not so much how illegals are treated under the new law, but how the law treats everyone else. Short of seeing someone crossing the border, can anyone tell me, without using race or ethnicity, how to "reasonably suspect" anyone is an undocumented alien?

By the way, Mexico also has a national ID law. Every supporter of the Arizona law should also support a national ID. In fact, driver's licenses from states that don't check immigration status are not valid as proof of citizenship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I thought I might post some numbers, since I am a big fan of them regarding to this debate. I already am aware that most (here) who will disagree with them will automatically discredit them; fair enough, I've never really found numbers on the subject, so I'm giving them ball park credibility.

Plus or minus time (I'm rounding down on the figures).
-Illegal immigrants in the US 22 million +/- (by my awesome math skills I concluded that is roughly 7% of the population.
-Non-Mexican illegals in US 550,000+/- (2% of illegals)

They post some cute numbers about money wired out from USA to Latin America/South America, really irrelevant.

-Cost of social services paid to illegal immigrants since 1996 just south off 400 billion.
-Number of illegal's children in America's public school system north of 5 million
-Cost of educating illegals since 1996, north of 160 billion dollars US.
-Number of illegals incarcerated in US +/- 420,000.
-Cost of alleged incarcerations is fairly low at a cool $24 billion since 1996

-Skilled jobs provided to illegals, which I don't know how to define, is listed at +/- 11 million.
-And Anchor babies, which I assume would be illegal's naturalizing kids in the US, is listed at +4 million.

Website is Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources, they post some interesting numbers. Like how Mexico has an unemployment rate of +/- 5% which later verified at Cia.gov, there poverty rate is at 18% which is only 6% higher than the US. Apparently they are also home to the Richest man on the planet. Oh and switching gears but hilarious none the less America's public debt is 52% of the GDP.

Wow, so out of the 22 million, 5 million are children, and 11 million are employed in skilled jobs? Another half a million are in jail? So unskilled illegal immigration workers is just 5.5 million? And illegal immigrants actually occupy skilled positions at a higher rate than most Americans?

And a full half of all Latinos in this country are illegal immigrants?

This is why I don't trust sources with an agenda. If you want non partisan data, try the DHS or PEW.

Regarding jobs, the number of actual jobs "lost" to illegal immigrants is much smaller than the actual number of jobs illegal immigrants have.

And regarding their costs, anything that ignores how much tax they pay is suspect. Even the ones that don't pay income taxes still pay sales/property/etc. taxes.

dogzilla · 04-30-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

So the goal is to have the second worst treatment of immigrants? As long as someone is worse it's ok?

I'm not particularly sympathetic to the problems that an illegal immigrant caused themselves by coming into this country illegally. If they don't want problems they should stay home or apply for legal immigration status.

As far as 2nd worst treatment of people breaking the law, that's hardly true and doesn't cause me any heartburn either. I've recently read where some Americans crossed into N. Korea illegally and Bill Clinton had to rescue then as well as some Americans that wandered into Iran and are in trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

And I think the issue is not so much how illegals are treated under the new law, but how the law treats everyone else. Short of seeing someone crossing the border, can anyone tell me, without using race or ethnicity, how to "reasonably suspect" anyone is an undocumented alien?

By the way, Mexico also has a national ID law. Every supporter of the Arizona law should also support a national ID. In fact, driver's licenses from states that don't check immigration status are not valid as proof of citizenship.

I'm not one who sees being stopped and asked to prove my citizenship as a horrible violation of my civil rights. Given the current state of affairs with illegal immigration, I think it's a reasonable request, along the lines of DWI checkpoints and such. I also have no problem with a national ID card. I carry a driver's license today as well as photo ID where I work so a national ID card is no biggie.

dippin · 04-30-2010, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I'm not one who sees being stopped and asked to prove my citizenship as a horrible violation of my civil rights. Given the current state of affairs with illegal immigration, I think it's a reasonable request, along the lines of DWI checkpoints and such. I also have no problem with a national ID card. I carry a driver's license today as well as photo ID where I work so a national ID card is no biggie.

As to the national ID part: I have no problem with a national ID, either. In fact, if the law was everyone must have an ID and carry it at all times, I don't think I'd have a problem with the law. My issue with the current law is that there are a number of penalties, sanctions, and so on for not carrying proper ids that are all based on a "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien. But the fact that being an illegal alien is a matter of status, and so short of seeing someone crossing the border, I've yet to hear anyone describe, in non-racial terms, what a suspected illegal alien looks like. At the end of the day, it is an arbitrary law that can be followed at the discretion of the police officer, and which in all likelihood will mean that the Hispanic man born in the US with a driver's license will be held over until ICE determines his status, while the blond norwegian exchange student who overstayed her visa won't be bothered.

As for the Arizona law itself, it goes well beyond going after illegal aliens. Did you know that by that law, if someone gave a ride to an illegal alien, the car faces mandatory impound? The person doesn't even need to know that the passenger was an illegal alien, as long as he or she acted with "disregard" for the passenger's status. Of course, what disregard means in this case is not defined, so we go back to my previous point. In fact, the law has so many provisions like that, that if enforced the police would be doing nothing but that (just like violent crime surged in Maricopa county when they diverted resources to focus on illegal immigration).

timalkin · 04-30-2010, 08:01 PM

Baraka_Guru · 04-30-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

An Arizona sheriff's deputy was shot by illegals (using an AK-47) today when he tried to stop a group of them from hauling some marijuana through a well-known smuggling corridor.

The bleeding hearts need to do a better job of reigning in their boys if they want this law to go away. Law-abiding folks are more than a little pissed at the situation down there, and rightfully so. I can easily see an escalation in private individuals taking the law into their own hands if something isn't done soon. Good on Arizona for taking action.

Who are the "bleeding hearts"? Who are "their boys"? What do you mean by "reigning" them in?

Do you think the Arizona law is meant to fight drug smuggling?

Where's the connection?

FuglyStick · 04-30-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

An Arizona sheriff's deputy was shot by illegals (using an AK-47) today when he tried to stop a group of them from hauling some marijuana through a well-known smuggling corridor.

The bleeding hearts need to do a better job of reigning in their boys if they want this law to go away. Law-abiding folks are more than a little pissed at the situation down there, and rightfully so. I can easily see an escalation in private individuals taking the law into their own hands if something isn't done soon. Good on Arizona for taking action.

Maybe they should stop everyone carrying a firearm ('cuz we know them cowboys love their guns; hell, didn't they just make it legal to carry without a permit?) on a "reasonable suspicion" that the weapon might be used in a crime?

See, you can't take one incident and use it as an excuse to REWRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.

GOD BLESS MOTHERFUCKING AMERICA AND SAMUEL COLT.

(And for the record, I support the right to bear arms; idiocy, not so much.)

dippin · 04-30-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

An Arizona sheriff's deputy was shot by illegals (using an AK-47) today when he tried to stop a group of them from hauling some marijuana through a well-known smuggling corridor.

The bleeding hearts need to do a better job of reigning in their boys if they want this law to go away. Law-abiding folks are more than a little pissed at the situation down there, and rightfully so. I can easily see an escalation in private individuals taking the law into their own hands if something isn't done soon. Good on Arizona for taking action.

And I'm sure THAT is the reason "bleeding hearts" oppose the Arizona law, right? Because without that law, trafficking drugs carrying an ak-47 was completely legal, so we need to have a law that gives cops license to hold anyone and ask anyone for papers and that makes the penalty for overstaying a visa worse than that for child sex abuse to stop this sort of thing.

Anonymous Member · 04-30-2010, 09:27 PM

The article states that illegal immigrants were with the bundles. And, given the area, I have no reason to doubt that is exactly what it was.

And now, I'm going to correct something I keep seeing.....

The term "Reasonable suspicion" (RS) has been tossed about in the news without a proper definition, almost as if it is some sort of magic key that allows law enforcement to violate civil rights. All me to present a quick lesson in law.....

Reasonable suspicion=a series of ARTICULABLE FACTS that when taken as a whole, would give a the average person reasonable suspicion that a particular act is being or has been commited.

Articulable Fact=tangible evidence that is witnessed directly by any of the five senses.

In the case of immigration, you can have manner of dress (clothes not typical of area or dirty as if crawling through the desert), lack of english speaking skills (despite being in a predominantly english speaking location), location (eg, and area where illegal immigrants are known to be, travel through, or frequent), and attempting to avoid contact with law enforcement (many ways of doing that including in-your-face tactics).
Heck, even hygiene can play into it. But these are just examples, and there are a number of ways to build RS with articulable facts, as long as they are tangible.

The confusion arises in that, in most cases, the average person isn't trained or experienced enough to see the articulable facts that law enforcement does. That is why they have to be tangible; the law enforcement officer needs to be able to present concrete facts to build his/her particular 'reasonable suspicion' and thus make a lawful detention and/or arrest. In short, as a LEO, you'd better have some concrete stuff, hunches don't play out well.

Now, keep in mind, RS only gives the LEO the legal right to detain and investigate further. It does NOT give them the right to arrest. For that, they need Probable Cause. So, once a LEO has RS, he can keep probing until he can determine whether or not a crime has been commited. If not, the person goes on their way, usually inside a very short time frame. If more articulable facts are found that will lead an average person that a crime is probably being commited, then the LEO can legally arrest the person.

Bottom line, if the LEO approaches you and asks for immigration documents, then he has gathered sufficient tangible facts that give him the legal right to do so.

dippin · 04-30-2010, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous Member

The article states that illegal immigrants were with the bundles. And, given the area, I have no reason to doubt that is exactly what it was.

And now, I'm going to correct something I keep seeing.....

The term "Reasonable suspicion" (RS) has been tossed about in the news without a proper definition, almost as if it is some sort of magic key that allows law enforcement to violate civil rights. All me to present a quick lesson in law.....

Reasonable suspicion=a series of ARTICULABLE FACTS that when taken as a whole, would give a the average person reasonable suspicion that a particular act is being or has been commited.

Articulable Fact=tangible evidence that is witnessed directly by any of the five senses.

In the case of immigration, you can have manner of dress (clothes not typical of area or dirty as if crawling through the desert), lack of english speaking skills (despite being in a predominantly english speaking location), location (eg, and area where illegal immigrants are known to be, travel through, or frequent), and attempting to avoid contact with law enforcement (many ways of doing that including in-your-face tactics).
Heck, even hygiene can play into it. But these are just examples, and there are a number of ways to build RS with articulable facts, as long as they are tangible.

The confusion arises in that, in most cases, the average person isn't trained or experienced enough to see the articulable facts that law enforcement does. That is why they have to be tangible; the law enforcement officer needs to be able to present concrete facts to build his/her particular 'reasonable suspicion' and thus make a lawful detention and/or arrest. In short, as a LEO, you'd better have some concrete stuff, hunches don't play out well.

Now, keep in mind, RS only gives the LEO the legal right to detain and investigate further. It does NOT give them the right to arrest. For that, they need Probable Cause. So, once a LEO has RS, he can keep probing until he can determine whether or not a crime has been commited. If not, the person goes on their way, usually inside a very short time frame. If more articulable facts are found that will lead an average person that a crime is probably being commited, then the LEO can legally arrest the person.

Bottom line, if the LEO approaches you and asks for immigration documents, then he has gathered sufficient tangible facts that give him the legal right to do so.

Clothes, etc. (to the extent that they could even tell people from a border state apart from people on the other side of the border) would only still apply to recent immigrants.

And a "very short time frame" is very relative, for while it is easy to check one's status with ICE if the person is an alien, it is significantly more complicated to check the status of people who are not aliens or who have never registered with ICE. Especially since the new Arizona law does not consider driver's licenses from states that don't check immigration status as valid proof of citizenship.

As for "articulable facts," those are always easy to find afterwards (though I would love to hear anyone articulate them with regards to this issue without using race or ethnic terms).

The bottom line is that "reasonable suspicion" when it comes to a issue of status will inevitably lead to racial profiling. I am willing to bet with anyone that, 5 years from now, the number of white Americans detained to further determine their citizenship will be close to zero, while the number of hispanics will be significantly larger.

The easier solution would be to require everyone to carry identification at all times, but I guess that the number of supporters of this bill would drop dramatically if they had an equal chance of being subjected to this sort of thing as the people they want to check.

dogzilla · 05-01-2010, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

See, you can't take one incident and use it as an excuse to REWRITE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.

Nobody's rewriting the Constitution. We just want these illegal immigrants, who are breaking the law, sent home.

timalkin · 05-01-2010, 05:41 AM

Anonymous Member · 05-01-2010, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous Member

The article states that illegal immigrants were with the bundles. And, given the area, I have no reason to doubt that is exactly what it was.

And now, I'm going to correct something I keep seeing.....

The term "Reasonable suspicion" (RS) has been tossed about in the news without a proper definition, almost as if it is some sort of magic key that allows law enforcement to violate civil rights. All me to present a quick lesson in law.....

Reasonable suspicion=a series of ARTICULABLE FACTS that when taken as a whole, would give a the average person reasonable suspicion that a particular act is being or has been commited.

Articulable Fact=tangible evidence that is witnessed directly by any of the five senses.

In the case of immigration, you can have manner of dress (clothes not typical of area or dirty as if crawling through the desert), lack of english speaking skills (despite being in a predominantly english speaking location), location (eg, and area where illegal immigrants are known to be, travel through, or frequent), and attempting to avoid contact with law enforcement (many ways of doing that including in-your-face tactics).
Heck, even hygiene can play into it. But these are just examples, and there are a number of ways to build RS with articulable facts, as long as they are tangible.

The confusion arises in that, in most cases, the average person isn't trained or experienced enough to see the articulable facts that law enforcement does. That is why they have to be tangible; the law enforcement officer needs to be able to present concrete facts to build his/her particular 'reasonable suspicion' and thus make a lawful detention and/or arrest. In short, as a LEO, you'd better have some concrete stuff, hunches don't play out well.

Now, keep in mind, RS only gives the LEO the legal right to detain and investigate further. It does NOT give them the right to arrest. For that, they need Probable Cause. So, once a LEO has RS, he can keep probing until he can determine whether or not a crime has been commited. If not, the person goes on their way, usually inside a very short time frame. If more articulable facts are found that will lead an average person that a crime is probably being commited, then the LEO can legally arrest the person.

Bottom line, if the LEO approaches you and asks for immigration documents, then he has gathered sufficient tangible facts that give him the legal right to do so.

And of course it is completely out of the question that the discretion afforded to law enforcement officers by this law would be abused. The concept of probable cause has certainly never been abused.

I'm confused about the definition of Articulable Fact. On the one hand, you seem to say that articulable facts are sufficiently obvious for the average person to pick them out. Then later you say that the average person actually can't pick them out, that we need to rely on the expert opinion of the local police, who are certainly not immune to the failings of humanity, who are frequently considered credible by default by the legal system, who are certainly not immune to political and social pressures, and who are operating in a political environment which is overtly hostile to those suspected of being illegal.

Meh. I've dealt with law enforcement enough to know that you get just as many good guys as you do thugs.

dippin · 05-01-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Nobody's rewriting the Constitution. We just want these illegal immigrants, who are breaking the law, sent home.

I'm quite sure that at least a couple of articles in the new law will be struck down by the court, because it goes far, far beyond sending illegal immigrants home.

---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

Hey now, let's not bring actual law and Supreme Court precedence into this discussion. Facts and jurisprudence won't allow the race card to be played, and we certainly need the race card if we're going to accomplish anything.

Please, again, "articulate" what exactly would make one suspicious of the legal status of someone in a way that doesn't unfairly single out Hispanics.

timalkin · 05-01-2010, 08:35 AM

dippin · 05-01-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

I'm not sure that I understand this question. Arizona is having a serious problem with illegals. The vast majority of the illegals in Arizona are Hispanic. There's nothing unfair about this law simply because most of the people affected by it will be Hispanic. If mostly blond haired, blue eyed Germans were coming across the Mexican border illegally, then blond haired, blue eyed Germans would mostly be affected by the law. The race of the illegals is not the focus of the law.

If an area of New York was having serious problems with gang activities, and most of the gangs were composed of blacks, would it be unfair to make a law to curb gang activity simply because mostly blacks would be affected? Of course not...unless you believe that the race card is acceptable to use in any situation where minorities are affected by anything.

Ah, so it's not that you deny that this law will lead to racial profiling, but that you actually think racial profiling is a good thing. I am really not surprised.

A law requiring ID of everyone would be more efficient. But then some whites would find their civil rights violated. In this case, the "race card" is being used by those who will not be affected by this law because of their race.

Anonymous Member · 05-01-2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous Member

I'm confused about the definition of Articulable Fact. On the one hand, you seem to say that articulable facts are sufficiently obvious for the average person to pick them out. Then later you say that the average person actually can't pick them out, that we need to rely on the expert opinion of the local police, who are certainly not immune to the failings of humanity, who are frequently considered credible by default by the legal system, who are certainly not immune to political and social pressures, and who are operating in a political environment which is overtly hostile to those suspected of being illegal.

It's not that the average person can't pick them out, it's that they simply aren't looking. It becomes pretty obvious once it's pointed out and is hard to refute.

For example, a cop notices a subtle bulge in the back of someone's shirt. It's not a predominant bulge, and the average person passes it over, usually because they aren't looking for it. But once pointed out, it's hard to say "there is no bulge." To a cop however, that could mean a weapon of some sort. Yes, it could mean a magazine as well, but that's why the cop would need other articulable facts to build up to reasonable suspicion.

Quote:

Please, again, "articulate" what exactly would make one suspicious of the legal status of someone in a way that doesn't unfairly single out Hispanics.

Quote:

In the case of immigration, you can have manner of dress (clothes not typical of area or dirty as if crawling through the desert), lack of english speaking skills (despite being in a predominantly english speaking location), location (eg, and area where illegal immigrants are known to be, travel through, or frequent), and attempting to avoid contact with law enforcement (many ways of doing that including in-your-face tactics).
Heck, even hygiene can play into it. But these are just examples, and there are a number of ways to build RS with articulable facts, as long as they are tangible.

Uh, wasn't that just done? Funny how you assumed hispanic based on these non-biased facts. (WAKE UP CALL, even CHINESE people can and do enter through Mexico, not to mention Iranian, Romanian, Saudi, and all others.) Not once was anything mentioned about race, color, or ethnicity. Keep in mind that these are just examples. Someone who does it for a living would probably be able to do a much more thorough list.

I don't understand how it could get any more 'fair' than that. Oh well, doesn't matter, because once someone is grabbed committing a crime, the law can and will then LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY determine whether or not other crimes, such as illegal immigration, are also applicable. But, you say, these people are "just coming here for a better life." Well, I guess they have nothing to worry about then. At least it will weed out the shitbags.

dippin · 05-01-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous Member

It's not that the average person can't pick them out, it's that they simply aren't looking. It becomes pretty obvious once it's pointed out and is hard to refute.

For example, a cop notices a subtle bulge in the back of someone's shirt. It's not a predominant bulge, and the average person passes it over, usually because they aren't looking for it. But once pointed out, it's hard to say "there is no bulge." To a cop however, that could mean a weapon of some sort. Yes, it could mean a magazine as well, but that's why the cop would need other articulable facts to build up to reasonable suspicion.

Uh, wasn't that just done? Funny how you assumed hispanic based on these non-biased facts. (WAKE UP CALL, even CHINESE people can and do enter through Mexico, not to mention Iranian, Romanian, Saudi, and all others.) Not once was anything mentioned about race, color, or ethnicity. Keep in mind that these are just examples. Someone who does it for a living would probably be able to do a much more thorough list.

I don't understand how it could get any more 'fair' than that. Oh well, doesn't matter, because once someone is grabbed committing a crime, the law can and will then LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY determine whether or not other crimes, such as illegal immigration, are also applicable. But, you say, these people are "just coming here for a better life." Well, I guess they have nothing to worry about then. At least it will weed out the shitbags.

But law enforcement isn't just allowed to determine whether someone is here legally after being grabbed for a crime. The law says that law enforcement can check status during any "lawful contact." As it was outlined in Terry V Ohio, lawful contact refers to a wide range of situations, and not just ones where suspicion of a crime takes place. A LEO can ask anyone on the street anything, and while the person doesn't have to respond or acknowledge, the mere asking is in and of itself "lawful contact."

And I just "assumed" Hispanic because that is the group that is going to be singled out in this law. But please, tell me the difference between the clothes illegal immigrants wear, regardless of origin, and the clothes Americans of a similar ethnic group wear.

KirStang · 05-01-2010, 09:47 AM

IIRC in a case I read, people travelling "near the border," towards a "likely smuggling route" and "afraid to look at police" constituted reasonable suspicion. The whole time I'm reading the case, I'm thinking, if it was a bunch of prototypical white guys driving near the border, would such a stop have occurred?

timalkin · 05-01-2010, 10:28 AM

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-01-2010, 10:53 AM

They could maybe be illegal Canadian immigrants?

Anonymous Member · 05-01-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

But law enforcement isn't just allowed to determine whether someone is here legally after being grabbed for a crime. The law says that law enforcement can check status during any "lawful contact." As it was outlined in Terry V Ohio, lawful contact refers to a wide range of situations, and not just ones where suspicion of a crime takes place.

Uhhh, what? You do realize you just contradicted yourself don't you?

Once a LEO has you under arrest, he can dig as deep as he wants. Regards to immigration, when you get fingerprinted, the database should be able to point you out as an illegal immigrant. No court would ever say that is an illegal move on the LEOs part.

No different than being pulled over for a broken taillight and the cop arresting you for having a dead body in the back seat.

04-27-2010, 11:39 AM	#83 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	"an estimated 60%", by whom? When it's 100%, the illegal worker problem is solved. I haven't once in this thread debated the Arizona law. Why is this directed at me? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

04-28-2010, 12:33 PM	#87 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	That sound you hear coming from Arizona? It's the wildfire of Hispanics across the country abandoning the Right for the Democrats. For those who would argue they already voted that way, take a look at the actual numbers. There were huge sums who voted based on the Republican opposition to Gay Marriage. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

04-28-2010, 12:58 PM	#89 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	"Reasonable suspicion" being "brown", of course. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

04-28-2010, 01:04 PM	#90 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I also have a question to pose to you DC_Dux. You state that immigration regulation is the responsibility of congress. How then can you explain the validity of sanctuary cities? Here's a ducky example of an illegal immigrant, with a violent criminal record who was never deported as a result of San Fran's sanctuary laws. The long and short of it is that after a traffic dispute, This donkey Edwin Ramos mowed down a father and his two sons with an AK-47. Slaying suspect once found sanctuary in S.F. - SFGate ---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ---------- I suppose the TSA should be hesitant to profile passengers of Arab decent for fear of offending people or being labeled racist.... __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-29-2010, 07:11 AM	#92 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	There is, of course, a simple solution to it all. There are...what...31 states in Mexico? Just redesign the U.S. flag to accomodate 31 more stars and make 'em ALL citizens. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

04-29-2010, 12:35 PM	#93 (permalink)
Push-Pull I'll ask when I'm ready.... Location: Firmly in the middle....	Phew!!! I almost, ALMOST, sat down and made a lengthy post, but I waited until the feeling went away. Bottom line everyone....THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!! You may love or hate Arizona for it, but you gotta admit, at least someone's FINALLY doing something about the two ton gorilla in the corner. FWIW, I don't think a butterfly net is gonna work. __________________ "No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me- "Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown- DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer- Last edited by Push-Pull; 04-29-2010 at 12:39 PM..

04-30-2010, 11:21 AM	#96 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I thought I might post some numbers, since I am a big fan of them regarding to this debate. I already am aware that most (here) who will disagree with them will automatically discredit them; fair enough, I've never really found numbers on the subject, so I'm giving them ball park credibility. Plus or minus time (I'm rounding down on the figures). -Illegal immigrants in the US 22 million +/- (by my awesome math skills I concluded that is roughly 7% of the population. -Non-Mexican illegals in US 550,000+/- (2% of illegals) They post some cute numbers about money wired out from USA to Latin America/South America, really irrelevant. -Cost of social services paid to illegal immigrants since 1996 just south off 400 billion. -Number of illegal's children in America's public school system north of 5 million -Cost of educating illegals since 1996, north of 160 billion dollars US. -Number of illegals incarcerated in US +/- 420,000. -Cost of alleged incarcerations is fairly low at a cool $24 billion since 1996 -Skilled jobs provided to illegals, which I don't know how to define, is listed at +/- 11 million. -And Anchor babies, which I assume would be illegal's naturalizing kids in the US, is listed at +4 million. Website is Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources, they post some interesting numbers. Like how Mexico has an unemployment rate of +/- 5% which later verified at Cia.gov, there poverty rate is at 18% which is only 6% higher than the US. Apparently they are also home to the Richest man on the planet. Oh and switching gears but hilarious none the less America's public debt is 52% of the GDP. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-30-2010, 12:00 PM	#97 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one of the basic problems with undocumented populations is counting them. i haven't time to look into this at the moment, but how does your source do the counting, mojo? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-30-2010, 12:09 PM	#98 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The claim is a compilation of public research + government released numbers. Working retroactively they attempt to find trends and there predict certain figures. Most of the numbers I posted I didn't personally verify but a few of them I was able to at CIA's owrld factbook. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-30-2010, 08:01 PM	#103 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-19-2010 at 11:31 AM..

04-30-2010, 09:27 PM	#107 (permalink)
Anonymous Member Addict	The article states that illegal immigrants were with the bundles. And, given the area, I have no reason to doubt that is exactly what it was. And now, I'm going to correct something I keep seeing..... The term "Reasonable suspicion" (RS) has been tossed about in the news without a proper definition, almost as if it is some sort of magic key that allows law enforcement to violate civil rights. All me to present a quick lesson in law..... Reasonable suspicion=a series of ARTICULABLE FACTS that when taken as a whole, would give a the average person reasonable suspicion that a particular act is being or has been commited. Articulable Fact=tangible evidence that is witnessed directly by any of the five senses. In the case of immigration, you can have manner of dress (clothes not typical of area or dirty as if crawling through the desert), lack of english speaking skills (despite being in a predominantly english speaking location), location (eg, and area where illegal immigrants are known to be, travel through, or frequent), and attempting to avoid contact with law enforcement (many ways of doing that including in-your-face tactics). Heck, even hygiene can play into it. But these are just examples, and there are a number of ways to build RS with articulable facts, as long as they are tangible. The confusion arises in that, in most cases, the average person isn't trained or experienced enough to see the articulable facts that law enforcement does. That is why they have to be tangible; the law enforcement officer needs to be able to present concrete facts to build his/her particular 'reasonable suspicion' and thus make a lawful detention and/or arrest. In short, as a LEO, you'd better have some concrete stuff, hunches don't play out well. Now, keep in mind, RS only gives the LEO the legal right to detain and investigate further. It does NOT give them the right to arrest. For that, they need Probable Cause. So, once a LEO has RS, he can keep probing until he can determine whether or not a crime has been commited. If not, the person goes on their way, usually inside a very short time frame. If more articulable facts are found that will lead an average person that a crime is probably being commited, then the LEO can legally arrest the person. Bottom line, if the LEO approaches you and asks for immigration documents, then he has gathered sufficient tangible facts that give him the legal right to do so.

05-01-2010, 05:41 AM	#110 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-19-2010 at 11:31 AM..

05-01-2010, 08:35 AM	#113 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-19-2010 at 11:30 AM..

05-01-2010, 09:47 AM	#117 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	IIRC in a case I read, people travelling "near the border," towards a "likely smuggling route" and "afraid to look at police" constituted reasonable suspicion. The whole time I'm reading the case, I'm thinking, if it was a bunch of prototypical white guys driving near the border, would such a stop have occurred?

05-01-2010, 10:28 AM	#118 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-19-2010 at 11:30 AM..

05-01-2010, 10:53 AM	#119 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	They could maybe be illegal Canadian immigrants? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.