Neo-Nazis Rally For Arizona Immigration Law

It should only take a few minutes. If a cop stops you and you show them your ID, they get into their car, call into the station and boom, done. Or do they have computers in their cars now and check that way? Not sure, but no one I know has ever had to be detained and held anywhere for any reason.

reply to post by whatukno


I'm sorry, but as been pointed out before there is a difference. Going through the TSA scans there is NO reasomable suspicion of a crime, thus it violates the 4th ammendment. As near as I can tell, the law in AZ there already has been reasonable suspicion because they are NOT allowed to ask for proof of citizenship UNLESS you have already been stopped for reasonable suspicion of having commited a violation. That is a HUGE difference. This is something I have been watching because I am part Puerto Rican. That said, I already have my Driver's License, no? I am already, if I get stopped, going to have to show them that license, am I not? That works the same for everyone whether you have purple eyes, blue skin and green hair!

The irony here is this... when I was in Mexico City, I was required to keep my passport with me at all times, you know, to proove I was there LEGALLY as visitor with a visa. Did this bother me? Not at all. It's the same in any of the other many countries I have traveled to, you have to keep your ID on you at all times. Yet, we should not be allowed to enforce the same policy here? We should not have the ability to be assured that those living here are doing so legally? As many in this thread have stated, this is NOT a door to door search, if it were, I would be one of the first people screaming wrongdoing and would protest it.

Originally posted by whatukno
It's not surprising as white supremacist eugenics groups like the Heritage Foundation and FAIR funded by people like John Tanton, are the ones that are pushing for these laws.

Sorry you are mistaken. The Heritage Foundation is pro-life. Barak Obama and his Democrat Congress just created a health care system that will deny care (kill) people who are deemed worthless to the economy like the elderly and handicapped. That is eugenics in action - at least until it is repealed by human beings.

reply to post by sara123123


As much as people like to portray this law as strictly the work of neo-nazi's, it isn't. I want to know who is in the damn country.

God only knows how many al-qaeda cells have just walked across the border by now...

I think the point is that here again they are using fear to justify placing one more stone in the pavement of our new police state.

Doesn't matter if your skin color doesn't meet the requirement of reasonable suspicion as of right now. Next they will find reasons to suspect YOU of being here illegally. Just like they have done with the TSA as it uses its absurd power against law abiding citizens. Why would they do this? Because they can. Absolute power..you know the rest.

People who support this bill claim..we need to secure the border. How does this bill secure the border? Is it only applicable at the border?

Harassing legal residents will do little to rid the state/country of illegals. IMO

More likely will create more fringe groups to fight this singling out by skin color .

I will repeat again just for those that didn't read my earlier post.

They have passed a bill that allows;

SKIN COLOR AS REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME.

Peace

I think decentralization of Power would help a lot. People are good, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should be in charge of what were good at.

Learning should be free. Paying to go to school is a tax on learning, the more we pay, the longer it takes to learn. I can't believe we even think about having laws like this. Mexicans who come here are willing to work for almost nothing, yet Americans who were born here hold signs that say "please give me money".

Money is messed up. It is the metaphorical wall/prison that we build for ourselves. We are slaves, the only difference is that the pen is bigger. Whenever we can't do something in life, the excuse is "I don't have the money to afford that". I just think laws are the symptom of the shortcomings of society. When we cannot find a technical solution, we blame groups of people less fortunate than us.

Copyright and patents prevent amazing technology from reaching the public. This totally holds us back.

Increasingly we are buying not actual goods, but virtual assets (Insurance, mp3 downloads, Virtual Machines, etc.) Overtime, our money that was earned from real work is put into theoretical work. That is why we notice the slow decay of society. Life is good! But trippy #.

reply to post by ProvehitoInAltum

As near as I can tell, the law in AZ there already has been reasonable suspicion because they are NOT allowed to ask for proof of citizenship UNLESS you have already been stopped for reasonable suspicion of having commited a violation.

So, using that logic, it should be ok for the police to search your house for drugs or child porn or whatever because you were stopped for speeding right? It's the same thing here.

Now, if a person was say, climbing over the border fence, sure, I can see the reasonable suspicion, I could agree with a police officer asking for proof of citizenship there, no problem, but how does speeding equate with being in the country illegally?

I am already, if I get stopped, going to have to show them that license, am I not? That works the same for everyone whether you have purple eyes, blue skin and green hair!

There again, according to your logic, would it be ok for the police to search your house for drugs or whatever because you were stopped in your car? Reasonable suspicion has a limit, these people are trying to remove that limit. Being stopped for one crime does not equate with being in the country illegally, the reasonable suspicion clause doesn't work. Like I said, if they were climbing over the border fence sure, you got reasonable suspicion there. But there's a limit and this doesn't cut it to me.

reply to post by whatukno


You know, as much as I hate to admit it, after thinking about it a bit, I am starting to come around to your point of view on this. I had written you off as a total troll a while back really, maybe I was wrong.

It is a hard situation really, my business was run into the ground, because we could not compete with people that employ illegals. For quite a while, yes, I was bitter as hell. I know all the legal immigrants that I met on job sites were mad as hell as well. My family on my father's side, are all legal immigrants to the US from canada. My grandfather saved up money to do the paperwork, and get his visa, then went to work in the US. He worked there, alone for 4 years to make the money to bring his wife and 9 children all over after legally. People that go through all the legal channels, are not happy that many people do not.

The only solution I can see being fair, is going after slumlords that house illegals, and businesses that hire illegals. But how? How can you tell when a crew is hiring 3 guys on the books, and 15 illegals under the table? How can you tell when a slumlord is renting a house to one legal, and 20 other illegals are packed into the house? If you asked me last year, I would have said to give all the bluecollars out of work an INS badge, and 10 bucks an illegal caught, and pretty soon illegal immigration would be under control. As a bluecollar, I know all the spots mexicans and south americans gather to be picked up for cash jobs. All of them I guess are breaking the law(tax laws), but how many of them are illegal? I can't say for sure. I as a bluecollar have technically broken the law, accepted cash jobs, and not claimed them on my tax return. Hell I have even bartered trade for trade perks on some jobs, which I am sure is somehow illegal in this day and age.

Even here in canada, in my small white town we have a bit of a problem. Except it is even worse, the government brings in hatians and jamaicans, to keep the fish and plastic factory wages to the minimum. The women get brought in to keep the resteraunt wages to the minimum. They wonder why people only work there for a last resort... It used to be the norm to drop out of HS to go work at the factories for crap pay, people are getting smarter now. So instead of paying decent wages, the owners use their political pull to fly cheap workers in every year, to keep their profit margins maxed out.

Ok another point I would like to make. If you are pulled over for a traffic infraction, you are asked for a driver's license am I right? If you cannot provide one, what happens? Serious question, has anyone had that happen to them? I have not, I have no idea. I would think that there would be some kind of protocol set up in that situation, and if you were not a legal citizen that would be found out?

A bigger problem, as far as I know; If you are convicted of a crime, after you server your time, if you are not legal, you still get cut loose. Is this right? That is what I have heard. I say, if you are illegal, and serve a prison sentance, then you should be deported to your country of origin. Is that wrong? Not that it really matters any, until the borders are secured they can just hop it again anyway right?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ProvehitoInAltum

 

As near as I can tell, the law in AZ there already has been reasonable suspicion because they are NOT allowed to ask for proof of citizenship UNLESS you have already been stopped for reasonable suspicion of having commited a violation.

So, using that logic, it should be ok for the police to search your house for drugs or child porn or whatever because you were stopped for speeding right? It's the same thing here.

Now, if a person was say, climbing over the border fence, sure, I can see the reasonable suspicion, I could agree with a police officer asking for proof of citizenship there, no problem, but how does speeding equate with being in the country illegally?

I am already, if I get stopped, going to have to show them that license, am I not? That works the same for everyone whether you have purple eyes, blue skin and green hair!

There again, according to your logic, would it be ok for the police to search your house for drugs or whatever because you were stopped in your car? Reasonable suspicion has a limit, these people are trying to remove that limit. Being stopped for one crime does not equate with being in the country illegally, the reasonable suspicion clause doesn't work. Like I said, if they were climbing over the border fence sure, you got reasonable suspicion there. But there's a limit and this doesn't cut it to me.

That is not at all what I am saying, and I do not even understand where you would read that into my post The only way it is acceptable for someone to search someone's home is with a proper WARRENT which has been granted by a judge, after a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing has occured.

Do the cops have the right to pull me over if I am speeding, swerving around in a reckless manner, blow a stop sign/light? Yes, they do. Will they ask me for my license if that happens? Yes, they will, along with registration and insurance. If I'm walking down a street flipping out like I'm tripping on acid, do they have the right to stop me and ask for my ID and ask me a few questions to ascertain if I'm high as a kite on an illegal substance? Yes, they do. Why? Because in those cases they have REASONABLE SUSPICION that I have done something wrong. My license that I would have to show them regardless of if I was Illegal/legal/black/white/brown/blue/purple/whatever is then proof that I am who I say I am, and that yes, I am a citizen of the United States. I do not see how this suddenly becomes my home being searched. Again, they would have to obtain a little thing called a SEARCH WARRENT.

reply to post by whatukno


mexican nationals don't have 4th amendment rights under our bill of rights that is a right reserved for USA citizens

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
reply to post by whatukno

 

mexican nationals don't have 4th amendment rights under our bill of rights that is a right reserved for USA citizens

You're wrong. Read this.

While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.

It was written without regards to nationality, the supreme court realizes this.

reply to post by TKDRL


I think you understand my point, thank god, I was thinking that no one could quite grasp what I am talking about. I agree with your idea of going after slum lords that cater to illegals, that would be a good place to start, I say bring them up on RICO charges and confiscate their property.

I think that businesses that hire illegals should be shut down, and the business owner brought up on RICO charges as well. After all, it is an organized criminal activity they are dealing in.

I just don't think that US Citizens should be harassed. No one understands this, and I have a theory why.

I think that these people think illegals are, anyone regardless of their actual citizenship status, from south of the border. It seems they group the ones that have come here legally in with the ones that are here illegally, and I don't think they really care about the difference.


reply to post by ProvehitoInAltum



If you are driving erratically, then yes, the police have the duty to find out why. How that equates in your mind of someones, citizenship is beyond me. I have seen plenty of regular all American drivers that can't drive to save their lives. So, to me, the correlation between someone's driving habits and their citizenship makes about as much sense as pulling someone over and using that as an excuse to search their home.

And criminal activity, doesn't make sense either, I live in Detroit, and I am pretty sure that most of the crime here is committed by Americans. So, your correlation between criminal activity and citizenship still doesn't hold water. It seems that you assume that if you round up all the "illegals" (Using the racial epithet of the day) I think there would still be crime.

Then there's the strange thing going on in Arizona, with Sheriff Joe, who wants to start an Armed Immigration Posse.

"America's toughest sheriff," Phoenix’s Joe Arpaio, is creating a new armed "Immigration Posse” to combat illegal immigration, and Hollywood actors Steven Seagal and Lou Ferrigno, along with Dick Tracy and Wyatt Earp, have signed up.

Fighting Justice Department allegations that his office discriminated against illegals during arrests, Sheriff Arpaio says the new civilian posse of more than 50 members gives citizens a chance to fight the illegal immigration problem that inundates their border state.

"Law enforcement budgets are being cut and agencies are losing personnel and yet the battle to stop illegal immigration must continue,” said the sheriff, who heads the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

"Arizona is the busiest port of entry for people being smuggled in from Mexico, Latin and South America. So asking for the public´s help in this endeavor makes sense, especially given the success the posses have experienced over the years."

Read more: nation.foxnews.com...

Kinda reminds me of something, does this remind anyone else of something?

On February 10, 1936, the Nazi Reichstag passed the 'Gestapo Law' which included the following paragraph: "Neither the instructions nor the affairs of the Gestapo will be open to review by the administrative courts." This meant the Gestapo was now above the law and there could be no legal appeal regarding anything it did.

Indeed, the Gestapo became a law unto itself. It was entirely possible for someone to be arrested, interrogated and sent to a concentration camp for incarceration or summary execution, without any outside legal procedure.

Justice in Hitler's Germany was completely arbitrary, depending on the whim of the man in power, the man who had you in his grip. The legal policy as proclaimed by Hitler in 1938 was: "All means, even if they are not in conformity with existing laws and precedents, are legal if they subserve the will of the Führer."

www.historyplace.com...

Oh that's right, the gestapo. Now Sheriff Joe will have his own Gestapo squad, won't that just be keen?

With Steven Seagal and Lou Ferrigno to boot! Oh what fun they will have eh?

Because we all know how well civilians do when given "Authoritah!"

I think I need to do some explaining, I think that some people misunderstand my point and my stance on this issue.

Yes, there is an illegal immigration problem, people come to this country illegally, and while I think the for the most part, these people are only looking for a better life, they are doing this the wrong way, and this does need to be handled.

I believe that the Federal Government can be doing a better job in policing the border, I, in fact think that if we spent the money and manpower that we do in the worthless war in Afghanistan on border security we wouldn't have a problem at all.

But if we do that, we also have to deal with the issues that cause the problem to begin with, a border security war will do about as much to curb the illegal immigration problem as the drug war has done to curb illegal drugs in this country, and I do believe that they are related issues.

Americans have a drug problem, we as a society like our drugs in whatever form they come in, be it legal ones you get from the doctor, or illegal ones that come from down south, this country loves our drugs, and we won't ever stop either problem as long as there is a market for what Americans want.

I think that America needs a reality check and our politicians need to understand what their constituents really want.

Americans don't like gangs, it's understandable, gangs are violent, they push drugs, they cause property values to go down, they spray paint things, it's something that we would rather not deal with.

Well, there's a funny cure for gang violence, it's been shown before, it does work, it's legalization, but this is an issue for another thread, the point I am making is that gangs run on an economy, just like every other business, well, when something is illegal, it creates an underground demand for it, and well, violent gangs (and drug cartels) fit that demand well. Take away the thing that is illegal, by making it legal, and all of a sudden reputable businesses start to emerge. If you need proof of this, look at prohibition and what happened to gangs after prohibition ended.

Americans don't like illegals working for cut rate wages, well there's a solution to this too, it's called RICO, the businesses that employ illegals, should be brought up on RICO charges, if you don't know what I am talking about, RICO is Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is what they went after mafia businesses with.

I believe it's applicable because businesses that hire illegals are dealing in an illegal trade, they are exploiting people for work, evading taxes, all the things that the feds used to drown mafia businesses in.

The same goes with slum lords who rent to illegals, you slap a RICO charge or two on these people and you will see neighborhoods clear up fast.

There you go, what have I done? I have not only secured the border using our federal troops, I have cut the drug cartels funding by making their trade legal, and I have eliminated the means for illegals to work or live in the United States undocumented. And I came up with this solution without adding one cent to the deficit or adding a new law.

Now, my problem with these laws that Arizona and Texas are proposing is that they go after legitimate citizens. People who come here legally, have passed their immigration test, and have become United States Citizens deserve every single right that every one of us enjoy. I don't want these people hassled, it's not right, it's not fair, it shouldn't be legal.

If one US Citizen get's hassled by these kinds of laws, it's not ok, it's wrong. It's UnAmerican to treat US Citizens like second class citizens because of their immigration status, Remember I said this US Citizens, it's wrong to treat US Citizens like second class citizens because of their immigration status.

Now, for those that are already here illegally, don't commit crimes, just are here to work, or to go to school, or to join our military, I say we need a way for them to come forward, and become citizens. Put them on probation, if they come forward and become citizens. If after the probation period is up, they haven't broken any other law, and they have done everything to become US Citizens, then let them stay and be Citizens.

That's my case, I think it's far less Nazi like that what the radical right or FOX News want's to do, I think it makes sense and I think it's workable.

reply to post by whatukno

Therefore no reason to check whether or not you are here legally. It's simply not in the states purview, it's a federal issue.

It is the responsibility of the state, that when a reasonable suspicion exists a person is violating federal law, that the appropriate federal authorities be notified.

You will also note that it is within a State's right to legislate of its own accord. It can not deny rights guaranteed by the federal government, however, legal precedent exists for the State to enforce federal legislation within its own legislation.

That is exactly what this law does.

Checking someones citizenship status because of a traffic stop, makes about as much sense as searching a person's home for child porn because they were speeding. They aren't related and it's not a reasonable search.

If you have a valid license, this is not a problem.

Terry V. Ohio dictated the "Reasonable Suspicion" idea, giving officers a wide birth in searching a person, but the officer must inform the person that they have a reasonable suspicion based on something, if that is not found to be the case, if the officer does not find what he thinks he would, the officer did not satisfy his reasonable suspicion, should have never had a reason to be suspicious and has violated the persons civil rights.

Under state law, you are required to carry proof of motor vehicle license with you at all times. Under Federal law, any legal immigrant to the U.S. must carry their card identifying them as a valid U.S. citizen with them at all times.

Since citizenship and valid ID are often synonymous, and a valid ID is requested in almost every lawful encounter with an officer, failure to have an ID or refusal to show ID is reasonable suspicion that someone is in violation of state and federal laws regarding fraudulent citizenship or other identity related crimes.

This is the case here. This is what is going to start happening, when cops start harassing legal citizens checking their immigration status, they are going to be sued for violating that citizens civil rights, if they are in the country legally, and are citizens of this country, there is no reason to harass them, violating their 4th Amendment rights, and causing them tremendous amounts of pain and suffering.

Under federal law and under individual instruction upon completing citizenship requirements, all legal immigrants and post-birth citizens are instructed to carry identification with them at all times. Inconveniences resulting from failure to comply with these regulations and instructions is not a liability to officers in the field, but of one's person.

I know that if I had my citizenship questioned by a police officer, I would certainly sue. But thankfully being a Caucasian they probably won't ever check me anyway even if I was in Arizona or Texas or the other states. But if I did travel there and was accosted by an officer who demanded my "papers" I am certain that a decent lawyer would make me quite the wealthy man.

You would have no case. Unless you refused to show your ID during a lawful encounter (which is part of existing regulations, anyway - failure to provide ID when under suspicion of a crime is an offense you can be detained for), you were witnessed crossing the border illegally, or witnessed purchasing/displaying a counterfeit ID or other legal documents - then your citizenship will never be questioned. Nor will anyone else - regardless of what color their skin is. Color of skin and accent are not qualifiers for reasonable suspicion.

reply to post by Aim64C


We are debating at cross-purposes. You are saying that something ought to be the case and I am saying that something is the case. You see, we do live in that universe. Everything that I said would happen if a wall was erected has already come to pass, many years ago!

Every barrier is permeable. The US-Mexican border, even with a concrete wall along the entire length of it, is permeable. Illegal immigrants will dig tunnels, they will ride boats, they will get smuggled in cargo planes if they have to. They will do whatever it takes to get to a better life in America. Their determination to enter and to remain in America is exactly the "problem." Their determination is what makes it so hard for the US authorities to round them up and deport them.

The 14th Amendment does have jurisdiction in this case. It has jurisdiction in America. It very clearly states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Children of illegal immigrants, born in America, are citizens according to your sacred Constitution.

You must be crazy is you think that the drug trade can be stopped by a wall across the Mexican border. No matter how much security goes up on that border, drugs continue to get through. They come in secret packages, on cargo planes and boats, smuggled in by legal visitors to the country and by illegal visitors. They are exported by huge corporations with legitimate fronts, by the CIA and by other countries' intelligence services. Even if the wall managed to cut off most of the imports from down south, the demand in America would not shrink. It would grow. Hundreds of thousands of drug users and addicts will demand product at a reasonable, affordable price. Hundreds of thousands of people in the drug industry will provide it by manufacturing and growing within the United States. The wall is not a solution. Prohibition on drugs has worked no better than prohibition on alcohol. Prohibition on illegal immigration has worked no better than prohibition on drugs. The reason in the same in every case. Americans have freedom of mobility and transport and this makes it impossible for the state to control everything that is imported and exported to, by and within the Union.

These cartels are going nowhere. Nixon couldn't exterminate them. Reagan couldn't exterminate them. Bushes I and II couldn't exterminate them, and they get stronger every single year. The best efforts of every anti-drug politician in the United States has only succeeded in making the drug trade, which fuels all mafioso activity, more lucrative. It has made the drug trade more illegal and dangerous. It has turned the drug trade into a ruthless competition between rival syndicates as they labour to secure a market by any means necessary. The drug industry is a perfect example of capitalism. It only becomes more profitable as the State helps to reduce competition. There is a reason the mafia is still around. It is because all attempts to combat it have only made it stronger.

The struggle to prohibit illegal immigration has only made immigrants more clever about entering the USA. It has not deterred them from trying. The potential payoff is far greater than any risk of apprehension and deportation. They want to get into America, land of freedom, and nothing will stop them. To struggle against this inevitable force - that is tearing America apart. As with alcohol and drug prohibition, this is criminalizing an ever-growing segment of the US population and forcing them into an underworld where the law does not apply, where the most heinous crimes are accepted as due process.

Continuing the War against Immigration is turning America into a powder keg of racial and ethnic tension. The State is feeding into popular paranoia and implicit racism because that is its job. It must look to the People to give it direction. The real problem is that the People know nothing about the big picture and they don't care to know anything about it. The People are ignorant of what has been going on for decades and where this process is headed. They do not understand that their resistance is futile; that it will only increase the resentment of Hispanics and liberals of all races towards conservative Whites.

The federal government is opposing the state's enforcement of a federal law because the federal government is shifting its own policies regarding immigration. It is working towards a far more lenient immigration policy and combating the various anti-immigrant factions in its ranks. This includes the legislature of Arizona.

reply to post by whatukno


I think one thing that needs to be understood, is that I'm not certain I actually AM for this AZ law. I'm very on the fence about it, and have been since the begining. Note, that I've never said I am FOR the law, I merely defended the right of AZ to make the law, because I believe in State's rights. I've been merely trying to point out that near as I can tell, someone needs to have been stopped for a violation of some sort before they can be asked for proof of citizenship.

As for other points you've brought up in your last post, I agree with a lot of them. A business that knowingly and repeatedly hires illegals in order to profit from cheap labor? Should have to pay a hefty price, perhaps even have its doors close and have some sort of legel action taken against it. I also agree that slum lords who are housing illegals should also be prosecuted in some way, shape or form. The posse idea? That is one of the worst ideas I've read in a while. The last thing we need is a return to the wild west! That has all the possibilities of turning ugly, and turning ugly fast! We DO need to do something about our insecure borders. The TSA are so worried about plane safety... but do you really think real terroritsts would try to hijack another plane with all the measures in place now, when many of our sea ports are not secure, and the notion of border security is a JOKE? Our border is a much bigger IMMEDIATE threat to National Security than the Taliban are over in Afghanistan.

I think the real problem is it's clear the government has no plans to really tackle the real problem of borders. Why? As always, follow the money trail... stopping the flow of illegal drugs and/or legalizing them, the government would looe all of their 'off the books' funding gained from the drugs they, themselves, are running. At the end of the day, the drug trafficking is big business for them... and I think is also a big reason we are in Afghanistan (well that and the huge Lithium deposit there).

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

You see, we do live in that universe.

No, we don't. Look at this law, look at the 60+% of the nation in strong support of the law, and only 20+% in opposition to it.

Illegal immigrants will dig tunnels, they will ride boats, they will get smuggled in cargo planes if they have to.

North Korea tried the whole tunnel thing. Didn't really work too well for them.

I suppose I should feel honored that people would go to such lengths to get to America - but, this won't be a huge problem if people would enter the legal way, and if our legal way were more applicant-friendly. Something I am for.

Their determination to enter and to remain in America is exactly the "problem." Their determination is what makes it so hard for the US authorities to round them up and deport them.

Strangely enough - citizenship is a legal status, not a state of mind or issued for psychological validation. There is a legal way to get into the country, and there are illegal ways.

The 14th Amendment does have jurisdiction in this case. It has jurisdiction in America. It very clearly states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Children of illegal immigrants, born in America, are citizens according to your sacred Constitution.

In digital electronics, we cover what is known as "logic." Specifically - Boolean logic and logic tables. For this, a simple and gate is all that is required, evidenced by the statement "and" in the amendment's legislation.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States" - A
"and" +
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof." - B

The logic table for the Boolean statement A+B =

A | B |
0 | 0 | 0
0 | 1 | 0
1 | 0 | 0
1 | 1 | 1

Thus, for the statement A+B to be true, both A and B must be true. Statement A "Born in the united states" - child of an illegal immigrant within the United States makes this true. Statement B "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is, however, false as the U.S. has no jurisdiction over a foreign national or their children.

Further - primary backing for the amendment in the senate debates was of the opinion that foreigners be excluded from the amendment. This would stack with the amendment's other provisions preventing racial discrimination - indicating the purpose was to solidify that former slave populations and their children were officially recognized as citizens.

The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House.

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[2] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[3]

One must be careful in citing supreme court cases as the judicial branch cannot be used to legislate from the bench. New laws and proceedings cannot be created from interpretations of existing laws.

You must be crazy is you think that the drug trade can be stopped by a wall across the Mexican border.

No, I'm quite certain that physics dictates people (and the drugs they carry) cannot walk through walls. At least, not with the technology present in Latin America.

No matter how much security goes up on that border, drugs continue to get through.

There isn't a wall, now is there? Not one that really protects the border, at least.

They come in secret packages,

I knew there was something fishy about my Secret-Santa

on cargo planes and boats,

In small quantities. Nothing like what walks across the border every day.

and by illegal visitors.

And I'm crazy for suggesting a wall that would, logically, impede these illegal visitors.

They are exported by huge corporations with legitimate fronts,

Like who?

by the CIA and by other countries' intelligence services.

I've seen this stated as fact so many times... and yet not a single shred of credible proof. It's like the whole "NASA airbrushes photos" deal. Something repeated so often here that people seem to accept it as fact despite the "evidence" being nothing more than hype over what would be the worst air-brushing job in history executed by groups trying to cover up some of the most important information in human history and in control of entire governments.

It doesn't add up.

But that's all for another thread and doesn't need to be discussed any further, here.

Even if the wall managed to cut off most of the imports from down south, the demand in America would not shrink. It would grow. Hundreds of thousands of drug users and addicts will demand product at a reasonable, affordable price.

Interestingly enough - a number of studies disagree with this premise: findarticles.com...

The elasticities can be used to predict the effect of legalizing coc aine and heroin. These estimates should be viewed with caution, since several assumptions must be made in order to do the calculations.(11) Legalization could take a number of alternative forms, depending on whether only sanctions against buyers or sanctions against both buyers and sellers were reduced and the magnitude of the reductions in sanctions. The reduction of price is indirectly a policy option, since price is a positive function of the level of sanctions. The potential price reduction is considerable, since current sanctions result in a retail price that is more than 10 times production costs, according to Reuter [1988]. Decreasing sanctions for possession of large quantities drugs or for selling drugs would shift the supply curve downward. Assuming that the demand curve remained fixed, the own price elasticity could be used to estimate the change in participation of a given decrease in price resulting from a change in sanctions. Assume that the policy changes resulted in a decrease in the price of both drugs by 50%. Under these assumptions the number of regular coc aine users would increase by about 260,000 and the number of occasional coc aine users would increase by about 1,400,000. In 1991 there were about 1.9 million regular coc aine users and about 6.4 million occasional coc aine users. Also, under these assumptions the number of regular heroin users would increase by about 47,000 and the number of occasional heroin would increase users by about 615,000. In 1991 there were about 100,000 regular heroin users and about 1.5 million occasional heroin users.(12)

Increase in supply and decrease in price correlates with an increase in demand - not the other way around.

Hundreds of thousands of people in the drug industry will provide it by manufacturing and growing within the United States.

It would be rather amusing to see the massive coc aine industry sprout up in view of 24/7 satellite coverage in an area where we can deploy police forces without causing international incidents.

The wall is not a solution. Prohibition on drugs has worked no better than prohibition on alcohol.

That is not within the scope of this discussion. Addictive drugs like coc aine necessarily create an atmosphere of poverty and criminal behavior based around exploitation of those addictions (and expanding to exploitation of others). The southern border, virtually unchecked by anything, allows the free exchange of these materials and the subsequent exploitation of their effects on the surrounding communities. This is an unacceptable effect of an uncontrolled border. Even nations with open border policies have points of entry that are enforced and used to clear passage of materials and persons (IE - no convicts go be-bopping through the checkpoint with drugs or bombs).

Prohibition on illegal immigration has worked no better than prohibition on drugs. The reason in the same in every case. Americans have freedom of mobility and transport and this makes it impossible for the state to control everything that is imported and exported to, by and within the Union.

It is at this point that I must admit I question whether or not you were under the influence of some drug or another, when typing this. Mexico is not a state within the union of the United States, and is therefor not entitled to the rights of free travel and commerce. The concept of free travel and commerce was never intended to apply to national borders.

These cartels are going nowhere. Nixon couldn't exterminate them. Reagan couldn't exterminate them. Bushes I and II couldn't exterminate them, and they get stronger every single year.

Dry bologna needs some sauce. (Source or it didn't happen).

The best efforts of every anti-drug politician in the United States has only succeeded in making the drug trade, which fuels all mafioso activity, more lucrative. It has made the drug trade more illegal and dangerous. It has turned the drug trade into a ruthless competition between rival syndicates as they labour to secure a market by any means necessary.

Mexico has tried the "just ignore it and it will go away" routine. Why do you think so many are trying to get the hell away from that country?

The drug industry is a perfect example of capitalism.

No, no - it isn't.

The struggle to prohibit illegal immigration has only made immigrants more clever about entering the USA.

What do you mean? They blatantly walk across the border like it isn't even there..... because there's, literally, nothing in the way.

They want to get into America, land of freedom, and nothing will stop them.

They can get in line. Otherwise, the bullet leaving the barrel of my rifle strongly disagrees with your assertion that nothing will stop them.

To struggle against this inevitable force - that is tearing America apart.

Child, there is an even more powerful inevitable force - known as entropy. I encourage you to embrace the status of maximum entropy, it is your inevitable conclusion.

Continuing the War against Immigration is turning America into a powder keg of racial and ethnic tension.

No, it isn't. The problem is allowing them over by the droves in the first place. The immigration problem is not that they want in or are trying to get in. America has dealt with the high-demand for entry into the country from Europe several times, before, and it did not create near the amount of problems.

The problem with the southern border has been the lack of enforcement. By allowing the illegal population to go unchecked and similarly allowing traffic over the border to go almost completely unregulated, the Latino population has been characterized in a negative manner.

Enforcing border regulations will not tear this country apart. It will define what America is.

They do not understand that their resistance is futile; that it will only increase the resentment of Hispanics and liberals of all races towards conservative Whites.

You started off this whole "let's all have coc aine-inspired orgies in the streets of Tijuana" speech by saying that America wanted to merge with Mexico. Now they are all idiots who don't know what they want or what they are doing, but you are the enlightened cleric to show them the way.

At least I recognize when I'm placing my sense of superiority ahead of my sense of diplomacy and decency.

The federal government is opposing the state's enforcement of a federal law because the federal government is shifting its own policies regarding immigration.

Oh, I can't wait.

Really, I can't. The U.S. can't. I need to know whether or not it's time to secede from the union and prepare to go on the warpath, or what.

It is working towards a far more lenient immigration policy and combating the various anti-immigrant factions in its ranks. This includes the legislature of Arizona.

Can you read my fortune, too? Will Duke Nukem: Forever -ever- be released?

There have been States that have tried to pass laws against landlords renting to illegals and companies that hire illegals and they have been shot down. The government does not care and only enforces the laws they feel like enforcing.

The government does not care about common sense, security of the borders, or its people. Scary!!

reply to post by Aim64C


I think I understand, you believe that anyone from south of the border who comes to this country is an illegal, and to you it doesn't matter whether or not they actually immigrated to this country legally. To you, it seems, that it's just fine for police and other citizens to harass these people. I get it.

But I disagree with your stance on this issue, I think that it is possible for people to come up from south of the border and immigrate here legally, and become citizens, I am certain that it does happen. And, I believe, that when those people immigrate here legally, they should be afforded all the rights and protections under the law as any white person enjoys.

That being said, I think that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I don't think it's right to arrest American Citizens, putting them in an INS Detention facility for months or years until someone can get around to figuring out if they are here legally or not.