Arizona Latinos Lose Their Cool While the Cameras Roll

[low preference guy]

Are you a lawyer?

no, but I read the law.

Let's wait and see who is right. I wrote a note to remind you when the first innocent American dies due to this law. If it doesn't happen within 6 months of enforcement, I'll apologize to you.

 

[angelatc]

no, but I read the law.

And did you read my post that mentioned that I believe the phrase actually does have some established precedents to rely on?

 

[low preference guy]

And did you read my post that mentioned that I believe the phrase actually does have some established precedents to rely on?

Yes. Are you aware of the abuses of the law about "Disorderly conduct"? That law applies only to public places (I'm not a lawyer, but that's Judge Napolitano's opinion). But recently, Henry Louis Gates was detained for being rude to a police officer in his own house! The charges were dropped later, but there was a confrontation.

Let's wait and see who is right. I wrote a note to remind you when the first innocent American dies due to this law. If it doesn't happen within 6 months of enforcement, I'll apologize to you.

 

[BlackTerrel]

dont make these immigrants sound like martyrs...

the illegal ones are lawbreakers...

even most of the legal ones are Obama voters who will vote you into tyrannical ...
government...

we need to send them back, cuz if you think these hordes of Latino Obama-bot voters could ever be converted to "libertarianism"....well.....a huge LOL to that

Sofia wants lets Latinos in US. Shocker

Yes the Latins voted for Obama and the whites voted for McCain. What is your point?

 

[angelatc]

no, but I read the law.

Let's wait and see who is right. I wrote a note to remind you when the first innocent American dies due to this law. If it doesn't happen within 6 months of enforcement, I'll apologize to you.

Do you realize that Arizona is already the kidnapping capital of the country, because the Mexican smugglers hold their "cargo" hostage here while extorting more payments from their relatives? Why no concern for those who will die because the cops weren't allowed ask a guy about his citizenship status when he got pulled over for speeding and they discovered he had no license and couldn't speak English?

It's only Americans that you care about? Sounds pretty racist to me.

If you don't like Arizona's laws, vote with your feet.

 

[low preference guy]

Do you realize that Arizona is already the kidnapping capital of the country, because the Mexican smugglers hold their "cargo" hostage here while extorting more payments from their relatives? Why no concern for those who will die because the cops weren't allowed ask a guy about his citizenship status when he got pulled over for speeding and they discovered he had no license and couldn't speak English?

It's only Americans that you care about? Sounds pretty racist to me.

If you don't like Arizona's laws, vote with your feet.

The right way to do it is to stop them at the border, not turn the state into a polite state.

Caring about Americans is racist? That's one of the most ridiculous things I heard in a long time. I'm talking about Americans here because it's obvious their rights are being violated in this case.

 

[angelatc]

Yes. Are you aware of the abuses of the law about "Disorderly conduct"? That law applies only to public places (I'm not a lawyer, but that's Judge Napolitano's opinion). But recently, Henry Louis Gates was detained for being rude to a police officer in his own house! The charges were dropped later, but there was a confrontation.

Let's wait and see who is right. I wrote a note to remind you when the first innocent American dies due to this law. If it doesn't happen within 6 months of enforcement, I'll apologize to you.

Disorderly conduct has nothing to do with this topic. We were talking about probable cause, or reasonable cause. You said it isn't defined. I said there are indeed precedents.

Are you conceding that point now? Because the only way you can segue to an abuse of the law is to admit that there are precedents that indicate that the concept of non-abuse also exists.

Should cops be allowed to abuse people? No. Should cops be allowed to ask about citizenship? Yes.

Are there bad people on both sides of the issue? Yes.

 

[angelatc]

The right way to do it is to stop them at the border, not turn the state into a polite state.

Caring about Americans is racist? That's one of the most ridiculous things I heard in a long time. I'm talking about Americans here because it's obvious their rights are being violated in this case.

So the illegals don't actually have rights? They get stuck in a cargo container in the desert...too bad for them?

And you'd rather have the military on the border than allow the cops to question people? Seriously?

That's why I asked if you were a lawyer. There are precedents that establish when the police are allowed to ask for ID. Asking for proof of citizenship as part of that doesn't take away a right from anybody. Why do we issue Visas and green cards if we're not allowed to ask for them?

 

[low preference guy]

Disorderly conduct has nothing to do with this topic. We were talking about probable cause, or reasonable cause. You said it isn't defined. I said there are indeed precedents.

Are you conceding that point now? Because the only way you can segue to an abuse of the law is to admit that there are precedents that indicate that the concept of non-abuse also exists.

Should cops be allowed to abuse people? No. Should cops be allowed to ask about citizenship? Yes.

Are there bad people on both sides of the issue? Yes.

I concede whatever technical points you were talking about. But I stand behind my statement that innocent Americans will probably die because of this law. Giving police power in to detain innocent Americans is insane considering how the police abuse their powers.

Again, the right thing is to stop them at the border.

Lastly, according to Judge Nap, the law is so unconstitutional it's going to be repealed soon. Let's see what happens.

 

[low preference guy]

So you'd rather have the military on the border than allow the cops to question people? Seriously?

Of course! Checking who gets into the country is a national security issue.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Chinese immigrants came to America in large numbers during the 1848 California Gold Rush and in the 1860s when the Central Pacific Railroad recruited large labor groups to build its portion of the Transcontinental railroad. Large-scale immigration continued into the late 1800s, with 123,201 Chinese recorded as arriving between 1871 and 1880, and 61,711 arriving between 1881 and 1890.

At first, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were well tolerated and well-received.[1] As gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being forcibly driven from the mines, most Chinese settled in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low end wage labor such as restaurant work and laundry. With the post Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Dennis Kearney and his Workingman's Party[2] as well as by California Governor John Bigler, both of whom blamed Chinese "coolies" for depressed wage levels. Another significant anti-Chinese group organized in California during this same era was the Supreme Order of Caucasians with some 64 chapters statewide.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed into law by Chester A. Arthur on May 8, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S. to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years.

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/07/ch2.jpg

 

[low preference guy]

For those curious about the legality of this law:

YouTube - Judge Napolitano on SB 1070

 

[Captain America]

illegals should be sent back to wherever they are from, you cant reward lawbreaking with citizenship, i am concerned about people having to show their papers.

 

[angelatc]

Of course! Checking who gets into the country is a national security issue.

And you don't think that they'll use that power to keep us in the country when all hell breaks loose?

How about the law that prohibits the use of troops on American soil? Ready to give up that right?

 

[angelatc]

For those curious about the legality of this law:

YouTube - Judge Napolitano on SB 1070

I hate watching YouTube video. Video is too slow.

Just give me his bullet points.

 

[Captain America]

For those curious about the legality of this law:

YouTube - Judge Napolitano on SB 1070

he didn't explain why its unconstitutional. why can't you send back people that are not here legally?

 

[low preference guy]

And you don't think that they'll use that power to keep us in the country when all hell breaks loose?

How about the law that prohibits the use of troops on American soil? Ready to give up that right?

About american troops, I don't know if they're allowed to be in American soil, but if they're not, they shouldn't be there. I know, however, that there is authority for someone to control who gets into the country, maybe it's the police, I don't know. But whoever it is, they should enforce it.

If you want to stop illegal immigration, it's much easier to stop them at the border. That territory is smaller than the entire country, which is where you'll find them once they get in. Once they are in the country, it's close to impossible to stop them. Even if you have a police state, they'll hide, get armed. The country is just too big.

 

[silus]

I hate watching YouTube video. Video is too slow.

Just give me his bullet points.

Practically speaking its a horrible idea. Constitutionally it is appalling.

And so every argument you put forth is not only wrong, but fundamentally challenges the constitutional position, which begs the question if you really understand why you are in a Ron Paul forum. Just sayin.

 

[Captain America]

About american troops, I don't know if they're allowed to be in American soil, but if they're not, they shouldn't be there. I know, however, that there is authority for someone to control who gets into the country, maybe it's the police, I don't know. But whoever it is, they should enforce it.

If you want to stop illegal immigration, it's much easier to stop them at the border. That territory is smaller than the entire country, which is where you'll find them once they get in. Once they are in the country, it's close to impossible to stop them. Even if you have a police state, they'll hide, get armed. The country is just too big.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

 

[orenbus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

It's interesting because I did see members of our military in uniform with automatic weapons positioned in various commuter locations in and around New York City years after 9/11. I wonder what exclusion that would fall under, JSOC is mentioned although there is no clear definition of what exclusions would fall under that umbrella.

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[3]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[4]

In 2008, these changes were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[5]

I find this passage interesting, does this mean that the actions of having the military in a role after Katrina was actually found to be not legal and therefore the military can not be used in cases of natural or other type of disaster?

Looking at the Insurrection Act is interesting.

As far as SB 1070 goes, I understand something needs to be done about illegal immigration and this is a result of the federal government failing at protecting the borders, however I am a bit concerned about what SB 1070 means in regards to profiling and specifically being able to charge and detain individuals if they can't provide a driver's license or some other form of identification soley based on the color of their skin.