Dear President Obama: No One in Arizona is Laughing.

[sgreger1]

"An illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet got a $145,000 parting gift from New York City taxpayers before he was deported, after city lawyers decided his civil rights had been violated when he was held too long on Rikers Island.
Federal rules allow local law enforcement to detain suspected illegal immigrants for 48 hours after their criminal cases are resolved, to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement a chance to pick them up and move them to federal facilities.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/alien_WU7CcuvTMg4n2yBzWqSPMI#ixzz0nTLwLkPr"


This is what I mean, the courts are corrupt and no longer use common sense. A criminal with a long rap sheet and who is not even a citizen, gets $145,000 from us before he leaves because we held him too long when we were trying to investigate his immigration background.

I am glad the lawyers of the world are here to make sure this "justice" is served for the real victims here, the criminal aliens.

[AllanH]

Sorry but isn't USA a common law country? Meaning that Magna Charta protects everyone regardless of citizenship?
Citizenship is actually a proto-totalitarian concept from the dark minds of 18th century. Almost played my nazi card there.

[shikitohno]

sgreger1: I'm not sure if this is simply valid when you're only being questioned and not under arrest, but I believe it is. Just to throw it out there, the idea that you must show ID to police officer isn't necessarily true. I know that at least when you're only being questioned, in some states it's a crime to not show it, but in others it's considered protected freedom of expression to refuse to present your ID.

Also, Faust does have something of a case for saying that illegal aliens are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th amendment. It rather explicitly says no person under the jurisdiction of the US can be deny equal treatment of the law, it doesn't say citizen.

Now, for all the conservative leaning folks on this forum, I have a big question. You guys love to bitch and moan about how Obama wastes money flagrantly, but how exactly are we supposed to fight and fund three wars on vastly different fronts, and also maintain the heightened security and cost that goes with it that we've had since 9/11? Don't tell me you're honestly expecting the notoriously corrupt Mexican government to be much help.

And is anyone else noticing a pattern here with the wars conservatives would have the US fighting? We're now constantly waging war with people we supported either materially or through our own policies that have grown to be a nuisance to the US. The US supported Hussein's rise to power since he wasn't a communist. We trained and gave material aid to the Taliban in order to help them fight off the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and we created the market that allows the Mexican drug cartels to exist. The Mexican drug cartels can exist solely because the US banned a number of illegal drugs in the early 20th century, which reduced availability and domestic production as well as creating brand new criminal enterprises. Then to put the nail in the coffin, Nixon and Reagan went crazy for the war on drugs. Realistically, so long as there is a demand for drugs in the US that exceeds domestic production, you are going to have cartels smuggling them into the country. The only way you're ever going to be able to definitively remove cartels from existence is if there is legal product available for less that is as good or superior to what they're bringing in now. And I don't think I really need to spell out why legal crack and heroin at the QuickMart down the road could be considered a bad thing.

this video was put out by Arizona's governor, so not exactly a random youtube video

So? The Pope is a respected figure, much more so than the governor of Arizona. He can still post a video tomorrow saying if you touch yourself you'll go blind, doesn't mean it's true. Blindly accepting facts because someone said it in a youtube video is about as stupid as writing a term paper based off what someone posted on their Myspace page. Since datamining has already been brought up, I'll point out a nice little half truth in the right honorable governor's video itself. He says people with under 500 lbs of narcotics are often not prosecuted. Bullsh*t. When speaking specifically of illegal immigrants, they may not be prosecuted for the drug charges. It's more cost effective to prosecute them for immigration violations and deport them, and the US will do it's best to send them back with enough info to get them put in prison in their home country. They'll do that quite a bit, rather than burn through thousands of dollars on prosecuting and then imprisoning them for the duration of their term.

And sgreger1, I like you buddy, but I'm going to have to disagree with you that waging war on Mexico would bring anything close to justice to dead soldiers. Abandoning two half baked wars in order to start a third before having satisfactorily concluded the first two amounts to pissing on their graves as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe we should have started them to begin with, but we'd be foolish not to finish them. If the US withdraws before Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilised and those countries revert to theocracies, you've just handed Osama bin Laden the single best bit of propaganda he could have dreamt up. "The infidels thought that they had defeated us, but by Allah's strength we managed to reclaim these nations and form pious Islamic governments." That's basically what you're giving him. You paint everyone in Mexico with a pretty wide brush too, saying the people of Mexico have done us more damage than bin Laden ever did. A specific set of people in Mexico have harmed the US, but the entire country isn't rabidly crying for American blood. The narcos best friend is the DEA and the war on drugs. Without those two things, the narcos would not have a job. You reap what you sow, and the US planted all these things a long time ago. I'm not saying they're justified in killing civilians, but it really shouldn't have surprised anyone that it came to this.

[danielan]

I do not foresee this Arizonan miscarriage of justice surviving a District Court, much less making it alive all the way through a Supreme Court decision.

I looked into this a lot, you have an interesting position, but I don't see where illegal alien issues would be subject to strict scrutiny.

Now, I agree completely if the law was aimed at Hispanic people or Mexicans, that would be a problem.

I think, under Plyler v Doe this is subject to intermediate scrutiny and not as clear cut as you make it (or me for that matter). The remaining question would be whether or not AZ has a "substantial state interest ".

IMO, they probably do.

Moreover, in general, what they passed has simply echoed Federal law that has already been held to be Constitutional.

[danielan]

Luckily, aliens are a suspect class

Can you cite a case on this so I could look it up?

I agree that Mexicans or Hispanics are, but generically, illegals doesn't appear to be.

[Owens187]

Call me an asshole, but I believe the border should be treated like the "border" at a maximum security prison - cross that line without the proper paperwork, get shot on sight.

Problem solved.

Like Texas' monkey example above - eventually nobody will want to go anywhere near that "staircase".

[timholian]

Call me an asshole, but I believe the border should be treated like the "border" at a maximum security prison - cross that line without the proper paperwork, get shot on sight.

Problem solved.

Like Texas' monkey example above - eventually nobody will want to go anywhere near that "staircase".

Oh, you mean like the Berlin Wall. Very insightful.

[danielan]

Oh, you mean like the Berlin Wall. Very insightful.

The Berlin wall was to keep people in - so this would be the exact opposite.

[Owens187]

Oh, you mean like the Berlin Wall. Very insightful.

Not even close. You need to do some more research before you try to be "insightful".

[timholian]

The Berlin wall was to keep people in - so this would be the exact opposite.

Okay, I'll bite.

Semantics.
I never used the word exactly. Yes, it IS LIKE the Berlin Wall but not EXACTLY. LMAO

[danielan]

[timholian]

Not even close. You need to do some more research before you try to be "insightful".

Using insults to "trump" my statement is rather amusing and very telling of your own intellect. LOL

[Owens187]

I was gonna reply to the post above, but this guy is very obviously a waste of my fu*king time.

[Judge Faust]

Can you cite a case on this so I could look it up?

I agree that Mexicans or Hispanics are, but generically, illegals doesn't appear to be.

This was established in Graham v. Richardson, 403 US 365 (1971), and reaffirmed in Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 US 634 (1973)

Key quote from Graham: "Classifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect."

[sgreger1]

sgreger1: I'm not sure if this is simply valid when you're only being questioned and not under arrest, but I believe it is. Just to throw it out there, the idea that you must show ID to police officer isn't necessarily true. I know that at least when you're only being questioned, in some states it's a crime to not show it, but in others it's considered protected freedom of expression to refuse to present your ID.

The law specifically says that they can only ask for your identification if you are lawfully being detained etc. As in, if you have done something where you are getting handcuffed or if you have been pulled over for a traffic stop. You have to show ID, and a state drivers license is sufficient to prove citizenship, according to this bill however, if you don't have any paperwork at all, then that may be cause for reasonable suspicion, and they will verify your name in a federal database. not the police state if you ask me,and it's been the law for years. The law even goes so far as to say they they may not question someones identity using race or nationality as a determining factor. So even if you illegal, if they can't probe reasonable suspicion, than the illegal wins and court throws it out. This is to deter against racial profiling, though it's hard not to profile when 99% of people breaking the law you wish to enforce are all of the same general nationalist, i.e. south american.

As for "in some states you don't have to show it", well like all things, this is a state issue, and state law varies from state to state. This state has decided to require that you show ID. States can make their own laws, after all.

Also, Faust does have something of a case for saying that illegal aliens are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th amendment. It rather explicitly says no person under the jurisdiction of the US can be deny equal treatment of the law, it doesn't say citizen.

I like his take on it, however I don't think that will be the case with this law. Judge Faust is a lawyer so frankly I would trust him over me when it comes to legal issues.

Now, for all the conservative leaning folks on this forum, I have a big question. You guys love to bitch and moan about how Obama wastes money flagrantly, but how exactly are we supposed to fight and fund three wars on vastly different fronts, and also maintain the heightened security and cost that goes with it that we've had since 9/11? Don't tell me you're honestly expecting the notoriously corrupt Mexican government to be much help.

We should not be funding a war on 3 fronts, and I don't believe I have ever advocated any such thing. I said we need to quit wasting money overseas since there is no tangible victory to be obtained in the near future. We cannot "wait until they are stable" before we withdraw because that region has not been stable for 1,000 years, and nothing short of a prolonged (if not indefinite) occupation could ever bring any level of stability. Even with a full active war-time force over there we can't bring stability after nearly 8 years, so unless we want to stay there for the next 100 years, it's best to cut our losses. As for the mexican drug cartels and illegal immigration, I do not suggest we wage a war, I just suggest we enforce our border laws. Our president Obama has ordered national guard troops there, but they have been ineffective since actually engaging an illegal or drug smuggler is racist and even our border patrol officers go to jail if they actually enforce the border (this was happening way before Obama, bravo to Obama for actually sending some troops). Do you not recall the 2 border patrol agents that were imprisoned for shooting a drug smuggler after they were shot at? He got a million dollar settlement, free medical treatment (ala the tax payer) and the border guards went to jail until Bush pardoned them last second prior to the end of his administration.

And is anyone else noticing a pattern here with the wars conservatives would have the US fighting? We're now constantly waging war with people we supported either materially or through our own policies that have grown to be a nuisance to the US. The US supported Hussein's rise to power since he wasn't a communist. We trained and gave material aid to the Taliban in order to help them fight off the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and we created the market that allows the Mexican drug cartels to exist. The Mexican drug cartels can exist solely because the US banned a number of illegal drugs in the early 20th century, which reduced availability and domestic production as well as creating brand new criminal enterprises. Then to put the nail in the coffin, Nixon and Reagan went crazy for the war on drugs. Realistically, so long as there is a demand for drugs in the US that exceeds domestic production, you are going to have cartels smuggling them into the country. The only way you're ever going to be able to definitively remove cartels from existence is if there is legal product available for less that is as good or superior to what they're bringing in now. And I don't think I really need to spell out why legal crack and heroin at the QuickMart down the road could be considered a bad thing.

Your absolutely right, most of our enemies today were our friends yesterday. We armed and trained the taliban and segments of alquaida, as well as many other militant groups, saddam hussein, etc etc. Our government has propped up drug smugglers when it was politically expedient (see reagan and the contras). I have been saying what you said above for a long time. The conservatives "started" this war but the democrats are continuing it, so no one has any real wiggle room here to not take some blame. plus the democrats in congress authorized the iraq war so to blame the conservatives is a logical fallacy, since it was not their choice. Also the dems have had majority power in the house and senate since 06, so they've had a few minutes to figure out what their plan is. The problem is that the 4th estate is behind them so they may spew propaganda at will and there are no watchdogs to keep them in line.

And the drug war is the same thing. The cartels exist as a direct result of US domestic drug policy. The black market is always the freest and they are filling an insatiable demand for drugs that America has had for some time now. I don't believe in decriminalizing hard drugs, but I am pro marijuana legalization. We make laws, if criminals choose to break it, that is the criminals fault. Could the US fix it? Yes, but our laws still must mean something and must be enforced.

Please don't categorize me as a conservative, because if you read what i've read above and have said here for a long time, we disagree (the conservatives and I) on several fronts. There are more independents than anything in this country and we care about these issues to.

So? The Pope is a respected figure, much more so than the governor of Arizona. He can still post a video tomorrow saying if you touch yourself you'll go blind, doesn't mean it's true. Blindly accepting facts because someone said it in a youtube video is about as stupid as writing a term paper based off what someone posted on their Myspace page.

The Arizona governor is the legal representative for this thing, she was elected and her job IS to take care of these issues. The pope is a religious figure and does not need to be elected and does not need to follow criteria to make laws, nor is he required to serve his constituents. The governor of a state however, is tasked with these thing, and her constituents (a whopping 70%) wanted this law. I love how people will blindly believe what Obama says but anyone on the "right" must automatically be wrong.

Since datamining has already been brought up, I'll point out a nice little half truth in the right honorable governor's video itself. He says people with under 500 lbs of narcotics are often not prosecuted. Bullsh*t. When speaking specifically of illegal immigrants, they may not be prosecuted for the drug charges. It's more cost effective to prosecute them for immigration violations and deport them, and the US will do it's best to send them back with enough info to get them put in prison in their home country. They'll do that quite a bit, rather than burn through thousands of dollars on prosecuting and then imprisoning them for the duration of their term.

Look you guys can look this up anywhere, go meet the googles, it is a common thing because, like you listed above, we would rather shove it off to mexico than deal with these criminals here. Mainly because of the cost to our prisons (Though they do make up a decent percentage of people in our prisons)