Arizona taking away constitutional rights?

[Riot]

Antitrust32 While I did not open the link, Riot is probably referring to the new law proprosal (I do not believe it has been voted on yet) in Arizona that says children born in the United States to Illegals will not be US citzens.. which is unconstitutional, and the Arizona folks would be smart to toss out that law.

Nope

Though I do not believe the other law (asking for ID's) is that big of a deal.

Many, including myself, do. We'll see.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nope



Many, including myself, do. We'll see.

What do you want Police to do? Use tarot cards?

As I said last Saturday I was pulled over for speeding. The first thing I was asked for was my DL, the second was my proof of insurance. I don't look illegal (maybe the tan) so what gives. Lol

BTW got clocked at 83 in a 55 and the cop was nice enough to write it for 70 in a 55 saving about $150 on the ticket. Now if I had been illegal or wanted I'd have expected to be arrested and rightfully so.

Some real simple questions (hint answer is yes or no)

1) Should an illegal pulled over by a police officer (not Fed) and found to have an active foreign extradition warrant be arrested, held and extradited?

2) Should an illegal pulled over by police (not Fed) for a non-detain violation be arrested and turned over to Federal authorities for processing?

If yes to 1 and no to 2 move on to question 3. If not

3) Do you consider foreign laws to be supreme to homeland laws?

[Danzig]

It is standard practice to request identification from someone when they attract a cops attention. Why its now being made into an issue I don't know

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

It is standard practice to request identification from someone when they attract a cops attention. Why its now being made into an issue I don't know

because in some people's minds illegals have it tough enough and deserve a pass?

I will give credit where it's due as locally 26 illegals tied to gangs were picked up on a joint effort of local police and Feds. Incidently most were living within 10 miles of Arlington Park. Wonder if police let other illegals living with the gang bangers alone as it seems odd all were picked up by themselves? Don't understand why they don't release names and addresses as that would help neighbors figure out who are the landlords renting to gang members and illegals. Local papers publish names and addresses of shoplifters for Christ sake.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/24...iens19.article

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

It is standard practice to request identification from someone when they attract a cops attention. Why its now being made into an issue I don't know

Where, and since when, does that identification have to not only identify you, but also prove you are an American citizen? Such business being a function of our federal - not state - government. Only Arizona.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What do you want Police to do? Use tarot cards?

As I said last Saturday I was pulled over for speeding. The first thing I was asked for was my DL, the second was my proof of insurance. I don't look illegal (maybe the tan) so what gives.

Since when did local police become empowered with enforcing federal law, independent of the feds? I think they should also have demanded proof you are not in arrears on your federal income tax.

What did you currently have on your possession that proved you were an American citizen? Not a drivers license. So you would have gone to jail in AZ, until you could have proved it.

[Danzig]

i thought the new law in az was to allow, or encourage, a policeman who suspects illegality, in this case immigration violations, to further investigate? seems like it would be just one more thing to check into-after all, no doubt your local sheriff is supposed to turn you in if the feds want you for other crimes, kidnapping for instance. why is it that local and regional police forces can handle a variety of crimes, but immigration violations are off limits? is this really that difficult a crime to investigate? what makes it so special? feds want you, they turn you over...u.s. marshals, same thing. state wants you, the locals hold you til the state comes and gets you....so what's the big deal about this?

[Riot]

is this really that difficult a crime to investigate? what makes it so special? feds want you, they turn you over...u.s. marshals, same thing. state wants you, the locals hold you til the state comes and gets you....so what's the big deal about this?

All law enforcement agencies are not the same, nor do they have the same jurisdiction and powers. I don't want my local sheriff investigating me for income tax evasion - do you?

Turning someone over to a different jurisdiction when there is a want/warrant already out for their arrest is NOT the same thing as initiating an investigation into a possible violation of federal law by a local law enforcement agency who does not hold federal jurisdiction.

Currently, if a local cop suspects you of violating federal law, they contact the appropriate federal agency: US Marshal, FBI, etc. They do not do any investigation or arrests on that level independently.

Seriously - I find it simply terrifying that any local yahoo sheriff, any cop on the street in Chicago, or a one-horse town in Nebraska, etc could independently - without contacting the currently appropriate authority - initiate a federal investigation into a violation of federal law. RICO, federal income tax, etc. Talk about Big Brother, big government, loss of personal rights and freedoms!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

All law enforcement agencies are not the same, nor do they have the same jurisdiction and powers. I don't want my local sheriff investigating me for income tax evasion - do you?

Turning someone over to a different jurisdiction when there is a want/warrant already out for their arrest is NOT the same thing as initiating an investigation into a possible violation of federal law by a local law enforcement agency who does not hold federal jurisdiction.

Currently, if a local cop suspects you of violating federal law, they contact the appropriate federal agency: US Marshal, FBI, etc. They do not do any investigation or arrests on that level independently.

Seriously - I find it simply terrifying that any local yahoo sheriff, any cop on the street in Chicago, or a one-horse town in Nebraska, etc could independently - without contacting the currently appropriate authority - initiate a federal investigation into a violation of federal law. RICO, federal income tax, etc. Talk about Big Brother, big government, loss of personal rights and freedoms!

this is untrue. if someone is stopped, they're found to be wanted, they're arrested and then turned over.

and i'm sorry, i'm not terrified at the thought of a sheriff, deputy, or other trained law enforcement officer with probable cause investigating a suspect. rico, federal income tax? lol when the irs starts issuing warrants because you evaded taxes, i'd imagine they'd appreciate the local law enforcement officer picking up anyone with an iou. you might not find this is a big deal, but for az, it is. they are stranded out there on the mexico border, and are dealing with this issue on a daily basis, and aren't getting any help from the feds, who are supposed to be taking care of this problem. but they aren't, so az is caught between a rock and a hard place.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this is untrue. if someone is stopped, they're found to be wanted, they're arrested and then turned over.

You misunderstood what I said, which is true. You are blending two separate things together. Yes, if a want or warrant already exists, the appropriate federal (or other state, etc) department is contacted, and an arrest can be made by a local agency. But that warrant already exists - it was issued under the different department, or by the feds.

But a state or local agency does not initiate federal investigations on their own - they do not have the jurisdiction.

And yes, I would be very concerned about our federal government extending their reach and influence down into the local police department.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Since when did local police become empowered with enforcing federal law, independent of the feds?..

when the local Federally insured bank's alarm goes off local police beat the Feds to the scene by hours and sometimes a day.

Originally Posted by Riot

I think they should also have demanded proof you are not in arrears on your federal income tax..

This statement gives great insight into your reasoning as you equate being in arrears with taxes to being in the country illegally despite the fact being in arrears with Federal taxes is not a crime.

What happpens when in the future, an illegal is found without health insurance? Do we fine him for not having insurance? Deport him for being illegal? Or give him health insurance and leave him alone?

[dellinger63]

WTF?

http://www.thefoxnation.com/illegal-...ght-fair-wages

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

WTF?

http://www.thefoxnation.com/illegal-...ght-fair-wages

Hey, the Dems want the economy to be in the crapper....so here ya go!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Hey, the Dems want the economy to be in the crapper....so here ya go!

I'm very confused

An illegal can now call the U.S. Department of Labor to file a complaint and they will go to bat for him? How? Is there a fair wage law on the books for illegals? What will the expense be to taxpayers?

No wonder States and towns are taking on the illegal situation themselves, the wonder lies in why the Fed is taking the side of illegals over States and ultimately the American citizens, paying taxes and living here legitimately?


and if anyone is confused why some side with deportation I offer this quote by the Lake County IL Sheriff. ""We're in this federal holding pattern … and it undermines the credibility of local law enforcement," said Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran, whose jurisdiction includes Waukegan. "It makes us look like we … have no interest in upholding the Constitution."

In the past four years, Lake County has seen its foreign-born population jump by nearly 19 percent to about 13,000 residents. Curran estimates that 20 percent of his jail population is in the country illegally."

How many crimes against society would be eliminated by eliminating this source?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

when the local Federally insured bank's alarm goes off local police beat the Feds to the scene by hours and sometimes a day.

I guess she never thought about that.

[Riot]

when the local Federally insured bank's alarm goes off local police beat the Feds to the scene by hours and sometimes a day.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? The point is, that robbery of all banks (all banks are FDIC insured) is a federal crime. The feds prosecute it.

This statement gives great insight into your reasoning as you equate being in arrears with taxes to being in the country illegally despite the fact being in arrears with Federal taxes is not a crime.

Sigh. You've missed the point (again). Being in arrears isn't a crime, true, not paying taxes is, indeed. And it's a federal crime. That is not investigated by the local police.

My "reasoning" is that there are matters of law under Federal jurisdiction, under state, and under local.

Citizenship, immigration, naturalization isn't "local" - our federal government is in charge of it.

We'll all find out when it goes to court.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What in the world does that have to do with anything? The point is, that robbery of all banks (all banks are FDIC insured) is a federal crime. The feds prosecute it.

So if the Feds decided bank robbery was not a problem they would sue local police for responding and making an arrest?

All AZ wants is for the Fed to prosecute and deport based on existing Federal law. They are willing to take on the ground work themselves similar to how they handle bank robberies. If Obama & Co. don't like the law try and change it. Hey he passed healthcare despite the majority why not another?