Therefore no efforts should be made to control one's sovereignty.sov•er•eign•ty (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov•er•eign•ties
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.I do not see how illegal immigration, at least in the context we are discussing, removes our control over any of those definitions. Are you suggesting we will be overrun by Mexicans and become a colony of Mexico? Surely not.
Help me understand your position.
Are you being tongue in cheek or do you really not see how a massive failure to control our boarders is a failure of a state to protect it's sovereignty?
Therefore no efforts should be made to control one's sovereignty.sov•er•eign•ty (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov•er•eign•ties
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.I do not see how illegal immigration, at least in the context we are discussing, removes our control over any of those definitions. Are you suggesting we will be overrun by Mexicans and become a colony of Mexico? Surely not.
Help me understand your position.
Apparently it is wrong to enforce the laws in one's own country about who can immigrate legally and who can't and what means they can use.
Apparently it is wrong to enforce the laws in one's own country about who can immigrate legally and who can't and what means they can use.
Ah, I get it. You're not actually part of the larger discussion; you're just selectively goading people. Sorry; I misunderstood.
Apparently it is wrong to enforce the laws in one's own country about who can immigrate legally and who can't and what means they can use.
The federal government seems completely incapable of preventing drunk drivers from killing people too. Do DUI and DWI challenge the government's sovereignty? There are plenty of laws that are routinely broken.
Obviously, I am not suggesting we should just ignore laws that are not 100% enforceable. I am suggesting we spend more energy addressing the real issue instead of trying to lay blame elsewhere.
Apparently it is wrong to enforce the laws in one's own country about who can immigrate legally and who can't and what means they can use.Ah, I get it. You're not actually part of the discussion, you're just goading Courtfool. Sorry; I misunderstood.
Kind of funny given Courtfool responded to me first. LOL, my mind control powers are finally coming to being.
Kind of funny given Courtfool responded to me first.
Just caught that -- see edit.
Apparently it is wrong to enforce the laws in one's own country about who can immigrate legally and who can't and what means they can use.The federal government seems completely incapable of preventing drunk drivers from killing people too. Do DUI and DWI challenge the government's sovereignty? There are plenty of laws that are routinely broken.
Obviously, I am not suggesting we should just ignore laws that are not 100% enforceable. I am suggesting we spend more energy addressing the real issue instead of trying to lay blame elsewhere.
How many people drive around hanging out of their window screaming, "I'm driving drunk!" While taking drinks from a bottle of Jack? Now how many people go around admitting they are undocumented, even meeting with law enforcement members?
The federal government seems completely incapable of preventing drunk drivers from killing people too. Do DUI and DWI challenge the government's sovereignty? There are plenty of laws that are routinely broken.
Other than the middle letter, what's the difference between DUI and DWI?
How many people drive around hanging out of their window screaming, "I'm driving drunk!" While taking drinks from a bottle of Jack? Now how many people go around admitting they are undocumented, even meeting with law enforcement members?
They're busily uploading on YouTube. Shouldn't take but a minute to find one.
Other than the middle letter, what's the difference between DUI and DWI?
Driving Under the Influence
Driving While Intoxicted
Isn't that the same, or does DUI mean it's more inclusive of other ingested items?
Apparently it is wrong to enforce the laws in one's own country about who can immigrate legally and who can't and what means they can use.The federal government seems completely incapable of preventing drunk drivers from killing people too. Do DUI and DWI challenge the government's sovereignty? There are plenty of laws that are routinely broken.
Obviously, I am not suggesting we should just ignore laws that are not 100% enforceable. I am suggesting we spend more energy addressing the real issue instead of trying to lay blame elsewhere.
Even though I think you mean it rhetorically you raise an interesting point about the rule of law and the fact that we don't enforce our laws or enforce them very selectively. I'm frankly shocked that we (as Americans) don't hold the law in even greater contempt than we do. An argument can be made that the massive huge failure of the government to enforce its countless laws and regulations is a challenge in terms of national sovereignty. I don't think I would make it because I don't have a philosophical problem with the violation of unjust or unconstitutional laws.
ghost SPLOOOORTCH
Isn't that the same, or does DUI mean it's more inclusive of other ingested items?
The latter for the most part, but the laws vary considerably from state to state.
ghost SPLOOOORTCH
Would you like a bucket with that?
ghost SPLOOOORTCHWould you like a bucket with that?
Naah, that's ok. It was pretty thin.
Even though I think you mean it rhetorically you raise an interesting point about the rule of law and the fact that we don't enforce our laws or enforce them very selectively. I'm frankly shocked that we (as Americans) don't hold the law in even greater contempt than we do. An argument can be made that the massive huge failure of the government to enforce its countless laws and regulations is a challenge in terms of national sovereignty. I don't think I would make it because I don't have a philosophical problem with the violation of unjust or unconstitutional laws.
I guess I could agree that the extend of law breaking going on is a challenge and that illegal immigration is law breaking. As I said before, I am not proposing we simply ignore all the laws we can not enforce.
I do not see illegal immigration as any more a threat than many other broken laws. And even within that term I would argue for a weighting of some sort.
The larger problem as I see it is the huge demand for drugs in this country and the availability of weapons to arm people intent on exploiting that weakness. If the drug cartels had no access to guns, it would be a hell of a lot easier to contain the problem. However, the NRA is not going to let anyone even suggest tightening up gun laws (not that I am proposing that either, just so we are clear).
To me, it seems far easier to blame this problem on our Hispanic brothers to the south than accept we have had a large part in creating this problem ourselves.
The larger problem as I see it is the huge demand for drugs in this country and the availability of weapons to arm people intent on exploiting that weakness. If the drug cartels had no access to guns, it would be a hell of a lot easier to contain the problem. However, the NRA is not going to let anyone even suggest tightening up gun laws (not that I am proposing that either, just so we are clear).
Ironically, if Mexico had laxer laws on gun ownership, it might not be so dangerous there. When only the criminals have guns, they can act with impunity.
To take a play out of some other posters play book, since you can't stop people who really want guns from getting them (even if they have to get them from other countries like Iran for example), maybe we should be looking for a different solution then just trying to ban their sale.
ghost BLAAAAAAARRRRRPH
Even though I think you mean it rhetorically you raise an interesting point about the rule of law and the fact that we don't enforce our laws or enforce them very selectively. I'm frankly shocked that we (as Americans) don't hold the law in even greater contempt than we do. An argument can be made that the massive huge failure of the government to enforce its countless laws and regulations is a challenge in terms of national sovereignty. I don't think I would make it because I don't have a philosophical problem with the violation of unjust or unconstitutional laws.I guess I could agree that the extend of law breaking going on is a challenge and that illegal immigration is law breaking. As I said before, I am not proposing we simply ignore all the laws we can not enforce.
I do not see illegal immigration as any more a threat than many other broken laws. And even within that term I would argue for a weighting of some sort.
The larger problem as I see it is the huge demand for drugs in this country and the availability of weapons to arm people intent on exploiting that weakness. If the drug cartels had no access to guns, it would be a hell of a lot easier to contain the problem. However, the NRA is not going to let anyone even suggest tightening up gun laws (not that I am proposing that either, just so we are clear).
To me, it seems far easier to blame this problem on our Hispanic brothers to the south than accept we have had a large part in creating this problem ourselves.
If you mean "we" in the national sense I would tend to agree. Our policies are insane. Our prohibition policies created the black market that drives the drug war. We tell illegal aliens that it's illegal to be here, but we provide cash incentives and access to services. We tell businesses that it's illegal to hire illegal aliens but we largely turn a blind eye to the violation of safety and labor laws. In effect we create vast amounts of law and regulation then we incentivize breaking them.
I would be careful about labeling people who want to secure the boarder as Scape-goaters though.
Isn't that the same, or does DUI mean it's more inclusive of other ingested items?The latter for the most part, but the laws vary considerably from state to state.
DUI, DWI, OMVI, OUDRK12, yadda yadda. Pick one, States.
Thank you.
First off, the news link is by Fox News, which is just slightly right wing of Genghis Khan and what I call the 'fear' network because they are always trying to convince Americans that the sky is falling.
Second, as others have pointed out, the correlation between the loss of use of a park/reserve due to escalating drug violence and illegal immigration is tenuous at best.
Third, the Arizona anti-immigration laws walks a fine thin line on freedom from undue prosecution and harassment. It is a form of profiling since, as I understand the law, anyone who looks like an illegal can be asked by officials for proof of citizenship or immigration. Which means a person can be asked for proof and provide it and then walk down several blocks and be 'challenged' by some other law enforcement dude. Providing one's bona fides every day to some representative on demand would get real old quick.
Providing a birth certificate or green card every time one wants to speak in person to some state or federal services worker because they 'look illegal' when others don't have to might on surface appear to be not a big deal but it is just the slow erosion of equality rights.
That is a road one shouldn't go down. Ask the Arabs in Israel where that road leads...
ghost HUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRLLL
Providing a birth certificate or green card every time one wants to speak in person to some state or federal services worker because they 'look illegal' when others don't have to might on surface appear to be not a big deal but it is just the slow erosion of equality rights.
That is a road one shouldn't go down. Ask the Arab in Israel where that road leads...
Perdition? Via Dolorosa? Megiddo? Can I buy a vowel?
Perdition? Via Dolorosa? Megiddo? Can I buy a vowel?
Dónde está la biblioteca?
To take a play out of some other posters play book, since you can't stop people who really want guns from getting them (even if they have to get them from other countries like Iran for example), maybe we should be looking for a different solution then just trying to ban their sale.
Did I miss the part where someone advocating banning the sale of guns? The Bill of Rights notwithstanding, even trying would be a waste of time.
It really is starting to look like you're popping in and trying to start crap.
Perdition? Via Dolorosa? Megiddo? Can I buy a vowel?Dónde está la biblioteca?
Noreste de los Estados Unidos a través de Bellevue.
To take a play out of some other posters play book, since you can't stop people who really want guns from getting them (even if they have to get them from other countries like Iran for example), maybe we should be looking for a different solution then just trying to ban their sale.Did I miss the part where someone advocating banning the sale of guns? The Bill of Rights notwithstanding, even trying would be a waste of time.
It really is starting to look like you're popping in and trying to start crap.
Starting? (checks calendar, looks at watch...)
|
Third, the Arizona anti-immigration laws walks a fine thin line on freedom from undue prosecution and harassment. It is a form of profiling since, as I understand the law, anyone who looks like an illegal can be asked by officials for proof of citizenship or immigration. Which means a person can be asked for proof and provide it and then walk down several blocks and be 'challenged' by some other law enforcement dude. Providing one's bona fides every day to some representative on demand would get real old quick.
and here's where your argument goes off the rails, as the law does not allow for that. The person who is being asked for papers has to be doing something to warrant police attention in the first place. It's like some states seat belt laws, you can't be pulled over just for being un-buckled you have to be breaking some other driving law and get pulled over while not wearing your seatbelt. Same here, they have to be breaking the law in some other way, then if the police suspect they are illegal they can ask for their papers. They can't just walk down the street asking anyone who "looks illegal" for papers. Now does that mean there isn't a risk of abuse of power where police find any reason at all ("you're loitering") to ask for papers, no it doesn't, but that's an abuse of power issue which is different than the issue with this law that it may lead to profiling, which I actually agree that it probably will lead to profiling, but you have to have your facts straight before you make your claim because if you use false claims to represent your position it weakens said position.
Noreste de los Estados Unidos a través de Bellevue.Perdition? Via Dolorosa? Megiddo? Can I buy a vowel?Dónde está la biblioteca?
Gracias mucho Senor Drow
A national park being overrun with Mexican drug gangs is tenuously related to illegal immigration (at best). It simply isn't worth paying attention to anyone still beating that dead horse.
looks around to see if the dead horse alias shows up
I would be careful about labeling people who want to secure the boarder as Scape-goaters though.
But, are not those same people trying to label illegal immigrants, and Mexicans very specifically, as the root of the problem?
and here's where your argument goes off the rails, as the law does not allow for that. A) the person who is being asked for papers has to be doing something to warrant police attention in the first place. It's like some states seat belt laws, you can't be pulled over just for being un-buckled you have to be breaking some other driving law and get pulled over while not wearing your seatbelt. Same here, they have to be breaking the law in some other way, then if the police suspect they are illegal they can ask for their papers. They can't just walk down the street asking anyone who "looks illegal" for papers. Now does that mean there isn't a risk of abuse of power where police find any reason at all ("you're loitering") to ask for papers, no it doesn't, but that's an abuse of power issue which is different than the issue with this bill that it may lead to profiling, which I actually agree that it probably will lead to profiling, but you have to have your facts straight before you make your claim because if you use false claims to represent your position it weakens said position.
Either everyone who warrants police attention should be asked for papers, or no one should. Anything less opens the door to racial profiling, consciously or not.
Third, the Arizona anti-immigration laws walks a fine thin line on freedom from undue prosecution and harassment. It is a form of profiling since, as I understand the law, anyone who looks like an illegal can be asked by officials for proof of citizenship or immigration. Which means a person can be asked for proof and provide it and then walk down several blocks and be 'challenged' by some other law enforcement dude. Providing one's bona fides every day to some representative on demand would get real old quick.
I don't think you do actually understand the law. I suggest you read up on it more, and not just leftist sites and try to get a more round view of it. No Arizona police won't be able to just stop someone because "they look like an illegal". They have to have some other reasons for interacting with the person and then have to have "reasonable" belief that the person is illegal. Remember "reasonable" is not in the mind of the officer, but the court. Even if the person is illegal, if the court decides that the officer did not have a "reasonable" belief the person gets off scott-free.
Also, this is more restrictive to law-enforcement than the current immigration laws are. The feds don't need "reasonable" suspicion to demand proof of citizenship.
Lastly, this is much more lenient to illegals than places like Mexico's laws are. Go to Mexico and leave your passport in the hotel, ... say hello to a few years in prison.
|
and here's where your argument goes off the rails, as the law does not allow for that. A) the person who is being asked for papers has to be doing something to warrant police attention in the first place. It's like some states seat belt laws, you can't be pulled over just for being un-buckled you have to be breaking some other driving law and get pulled over while not wearing your seatbelt. Same here, they have to be breaking the law in some other way, then if the police suspect they are illegal they can ask for their papers. They can't just walk down the street asking anyone who "looks illegal" for papers. Now does that mean there isn't a risk of abuse of power where police find any reason at all ("you're loitering") to ask for papers, no it doesn't, but that's an abuse of power issue which is different than the issue with this bill that it may lead to profiling, which I actually agree that it probably will lead to profiling, but you have to have your facts straight before you make your claim because if you use false claims to represent your position it weakens said position.
Third, the Arizona anti-immigration laws walks a fine thin line on freedom from undue prosecution and harassment. It is a form of profiling since, as I understand the law, anyone who looks like an illegal can be asked by officials for proof of citizenship or immigration. Which means a person can be asked for proof and provide it and then walk down several blocks and be 'challenged' by some other law enforcement dude. Providing one's bona fides every day to some representative on demand would get real old quick.
The law as written creates a catch-22. It is now trespassing to be on public land if you're an illegal. They could conceivably ask ANYBODY for papers because everybody could be breaking the law. Now go ahead and get it out of your system and say that people would be outraged if that started happening. The problem is that they wouldn't. The right has done a good job of demonizing illegals and blaming them for some of the reason why people are still without jobs (some other leader (who will remain unnamed) used a group of people as a scapegoat for his nations' ills. It is getting to the point where people are terrified of the illegals who "took our jerbs!!!" and sell children into slavery and run drugs into the US and execute the opposition south of the border--things that very few of the "real" illegal aliens do; most are simply looking for a way to support their family.
... say hello to a few years in prison.
Hello to a few years in prison.
|
|
Either everyone who warrants police attention should be asked for papers, or no one should. Anything less opens the door to racial profiling, consciously or not.
Not my point at all, I was just saying make sure you know what it is you're arguing against. The poster used a hypothetical situation that the law specifically doesn't allow for to try and make his point about the law.
I don't agree with the law either, but I don't think people should make claims about it if they don't have their information straight.
Here in the British Isles, we tend to blame single mothers for everything. Have you ruled them out?
Around here, we blame politicians, or the government. And the politicians blame each other.
The law as written creates a catch-22. It is now trespassing to be on public land if you're an illegal. They could conceivably ask ANYBODY for papers because everybody could be breaking the law.and here's where your argument goes off the rails, as the law does not allow for that. A) the person who is being asked for papers has to be doing something to warrant police attention in the first place. It's like some states seat belt laws, you can't be pulled over just for being un-buckled you have to be breaking some other driving law and get pulled over while not wearing your seatbelt. Same here, they have to be breaking the law in some other way, then if the police suspect they are illegal they can ask for their papers. They can't just walk down the street asking anyone who "looks illegal" for papers. Now does that mean there isn't a risk of abuse of power where police find any reason at all ("you're loitering") to ask for papers, no it doesn't, but that's an abuse of power issue which is different than the issue with this bill that it may lead to profiling, which I actually agree that it probably will lead to profiling, but you have to have your facts straight before you make your claim because if you use false claims to represent your position it weakens said position.
Third, the Arizona anti-immigration laws walks a fine thin line on freedom from undue prosecution and harassment. It is a form of profiling since, as I understand the law, anyone who looks like an illegal can be asked by officials for proof of citizenship or immigration. Which means a person can be asked for proof and provide it and then walk down several blocks and be 'challenged' by some other law enforcement dude. Providing one's bona fides every day to some representative on demand would get real old quick.
Sorry, that does not work because it is not illegal for regular citizens to be on public land (unless clearly marked so). The default by law is the person is "legal". Now if someone did actually trespass on off-limits property and would be arrest whether illegal or not, and then the officers had reason to believe the person was illegal, then they could be charged. You're trying to put the cart before the horse here, and it would not stand up in any court of law.
Here in the British Isles, we tend to blame single mothers for everything. Have you ruled them out?Can we deport them?
The British Isles?
and here's where your argument goes off the rails, as the law does not allow for that. A) the person who is being asked for papers has to be doing something to warrant police attention in the first place. It's like some states seat belt laws, you can't be pulled over just for being un-buckled you have to be breaking some other driving law and get pulled over while not wearing your seatbelt. Same here, they have to be breaking the law in some other way, then if the police suspect they are illegal they can ask for their papers. They can't just walk down the street asking anyone who "looks illegal" for papers. Now does that mean there isn't a risk of abuse of power where police find any reason at all ("you're loitering") to ask for papers, no it doesn't, but that's an abuse of power issue which is different than the issue with this bill that it may lead to profiling, which I actually agree that it probably will lead to profiling, but you have to have your facts straight before you make your claim because if you use false claims to represent your position it weakens said position.Either everyone who warrants police attention should be asked for papers, or no one should. Anything less opens the door to racial profiling, consciously or not.
+1
There is a lot to be said for confirming the identity of anyone who is arrested or ticketed. It doesn't put victims under the microscope. It eliminates the profiling issue by being universally applied regardless of race, and it helps to make sure the government is jailing or ticketing who it's supposed to be for the violation.
I take issue with Az1070 for civil liberty reasons, but I still think boarder states have a right to defend themselves (for want of a better term).
looks around to see if the dead horse alias shows up
You rang?
Here in the British Isles, we tend to blame single mothers for everything. Have you ruled them out?Around here, we blame politicians, or the government. And the politicians blame each other.
Or companies, especially those evil Imperial Brit run ones.
They want to build a rig near your shores, you should listen to that crustacean over there. "It's a Trappppp!"
looks around to see if the dead horse alias shows upYou rang?
sniff,sniff
Naah, you're not the guy I was thinking of. You're too fresh.
and here's where your argument goes off the rails, as the law does not allow for that. The person who is being asked for papers has to be doing something to warrant police attention in the first place. It's like some states seat belt laws, you can't be pulled over just for being un-buckled you have to be breaking some other driving law and get pulled over while not wearing your seatbelt. Same here, they have to be breaking the law in some other way, then if the police suspect they are illegal they can ask for their papers.
Out here in Ohio, it got bumped from a Secondary to a Primary offense ... in exchange to get funded grants from the Federales. I think that happened last July, but I'd have to double check to confirm.