DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 30, 2010, 05:48:50 PM
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Media%20Logos/52355379.gif)
The Big Alienation
Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control
MAY 1, 2010
By PEGGY NOONAN
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one?literally, no one?knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."
It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."
All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.
This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.
None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.
Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.
Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.
Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.
But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years?at least?through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform?i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.
Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."
He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.
The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.
The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.
But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?
No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation?actually it's at the heart of the alienation?of the age.
In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law?say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces?and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.
Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.
Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.
If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.
The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion)
-
I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.
[][][][][][][][]
A trend?
-
No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.
Really? 'Cause someone just told me (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9550.msg100027#msg100027) that everyone knows exactly how the law will be executed and interpreted.
-
<<Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence.>>
Well, here's a really radical idea for those fucking morons: how about concentrating your law-enforcement activities on the prosecution of kidnappers, murderers and violent gangs? How about safer streets, more patrols? More jails, more courts, more police? How do police fight kidnapping, murder and gang violence where there aren't any illegal immigrants to blame it all on? Or was America free of such ugly crimes before the Mexicans moved in and showed them how it was done?
-
If immigration without going through the proper channels is considered illegal, then those laws need to be enforced. And one way to enforce those laws is when dealing with apprehended persons, verify their residency status.
End of story.
The alternative is to deregulate immigration and let anyone who wants in, in.
I don't really see another way to consistently apply the law.
-
<<If immigration without going through the proper channels is considered illegal, then those laws need to be enforced. And one way to enforce those laws is when dealing with apprehended persons, verify their residency status.
<<End of story. >>
That's outrageous. Not only is it not the "end of story" it can't even be the beginning or middle of the story - - because it is not the business of the state to legislate the enforcement of federal laws. It is not in their Constitutional mandate.
If they have problems with kidnappers, robbers, whatever - - they have a mandate to go after kidnappers and robbers, and no one will object to them fulfilling their mandate. But they think, Oh these undocumented Mexicans are the robbers and the kidnappers? Fuck that, they are then going after a profile - - undocumented Mexicans - - who as individual human beings with individual human rights may or may not be involved in robberies or kidnappings at all.
The state of AZ has no mandate to enforce immigration law and they can't do an end run around the Constitution by claiming that their enforcement (by new legislation) of immigration law is really an anti-kidnapping and/or anti-robbery measure, whatever the stats are on those crimes. Those same stats could probably justify racist concentration on Indians or blacks.
The legislation is clearly racist in intent and thankfully has been recognized as such by most sane and normal observers. It will not stand.
-
The state of AZ has no mandate to enforce immigration law and they can't do an end run around the Constitution by claiming that their enforcement (by new legislation) of immigration law is really an anti-kidnapping and/or anti-robbery measure, whatever the stats are on those crimes. Those same stats could probably justify racist concentration on Indians or blacks.
Actually, under the new law, the state would not be enforcing immigration laws - they are just mandated to hand over suspected illegal aliens to ICE, the Federal Police charged with handling illegal immigration.
-
<<Actually, under the new law, the state would not be enforcing immigration laws - they are just mandated to hand over suspected illegal aliens to ICE, the Federal Police charged with handling illegal immigration.>>
They were probably mandated to hand over suspected illegal immigrants to the Feds before the new law anyway. What the new law does is encourage investigation of possible illegal immigration status in a widely expanded range of permissible police stops in which it was previously not statutorily mandated to investigate status in the course of the police stop.
It is the law's effect on police enforcement discretion that makes it noxious. A cop who may not be sufficiently interested in a broken tail-light to make a stop on that basis now has a reason to make the stop if it will provide him with the opportunity to investigate driver status, giving racist cops the tool they needed but were previously lacking for the enforcement of the federal laws of immigration and status. Thus under the guise of pursuing broken tail-lights, they now have a statutory reason to infringe upon what is really the Fed's responsibility to enforce.
-
A cop who may not be sufficiently interested in a broken tail-light to make a stop on that basis now has a reason to make the stop if it will provide him with the opportunity to investigate driver status, giving racist cops the tool they needed but were previously lacking for the enforcement of the federal laws of immigration and status. Thus under the guise of pursuing broken tail-lights, they now have a statutory reason to infringe upon what is really the Fed's responsibility to enforce.
You really are clueless. Broken tail lights are like scratch off lottery tickets to cops. Never know what the prize will be. DUI, Drugs, Illegal weapons, top 10 most wanted on the FBI, or a Timothy McVeigh.
If they were racial harassing they would pull them over and break the tail light on the way to the drivers window.
-
<<You really are clueless. Broken tail lights are like scratch off lottery tickets to cops. Never know what the prize will be. DUI, Drugs, Illegal weapons, top 10 most wanted on the FBI, or a Timothy McVeigh.>>
I'm not exactly clueless and I know a lot about broken tail lights and cops. I know about the paperwork they have to fill out for even a broken tail-light stop. I will maintain that considerable discretion is exercised by cops on any traffic stop and they do NOT pull over every guy with a broken tail-light or other technical cause for a stop.
<<If they were racial harassing they would pull them over and break the tail light on the way to the drivers window.>>
That would be an extremely foolish risk to take for a very small gain. Maybe in an ideal world where there was a sufficient shortage of broken tail-lights to frustrate racist cops, your scenario might make a little bit of sense, but in the real world there are enough real broken tail lights, erratic driving, unsafe lane changes, partially obscured licence plates, etc., etc., etc. to give any racist cop the excuse he needs to harass his own self-imposed daily quota of visible minority drivers or passengers, no matter how high he sets it.
-
"....... but in the real world there are enough real broken tail lights, erratic driving, unsafe lane changes, partially obscured licence plates, etc., etc., etc. to give any racist cop the excuse he needs to harass his own self-imposed daily quota of visible minority drivers or passengers, no matter how high he sets it."
So what , White guys are allowed to ride in decrepit cars?
-
That would be an extremely foolish risk to take for a very small gain.
What does the racist cop care about risk. They have the power and their job is to keep the minority in their place. What are a few glass shards to the bigger picture.
That's the way it works, isn't it?
But what the hell, we'll call the cops racist whether they are or not. Doesn't matter if they are black, white or brown. They are racist and that is that. Because Mikey says so.
-
<<So what , White guys are allowed to ride in decrepit cars?>>
Some can, some can't - - it's up to the cop's discretion. I certainly wouldn't argue that no white guy was ever stopped for a broken tail-light. But what are the odds of a white guy being stopped for a broken tail-light and what are the odds of a black guy being stopped for a broken tail-light? My gut feeling, even allowing for the cops who don't want to stop a black guy for fear of a racial harassment suit, there are still more blacks than whites stopped for broken tail lights.
-
<<What does the racist cop care about risk. They have the power and their job is to keep the minority in their place. What are a few glass shards to the bigger picture.>>
Well I beg to differ. In the real world, even racist cops want to keep their jobs and realize the stupidity of getting nailed by a determined victim of their racist persecution. Unless they've been living in a cave for the past 20 years, they've heard the story of the Rodney King beating and can understand how concerned bystanders with cellphone cameras or even camcorders can nail their fat pig ass to the wall at the least expected moment. So they exercise a little caution, a little CYA, before acting out their racist shit. Which is why the broken tail-light has become so iconic - - in the good old days they didn't need ANY excuse to stop and harass those black-assed motherfuckers.
<<That's the way it works, isn't it?>> Sure, in your demented world of fantasy. But not in the real world, I'm afraid.
<<But what the hell, we'll call the cops racist whether they are or not.>>
Absurd, right, because in post-racial America, there is no more racism and no more racist cops. Only crazy liberals think that racism is still prevalent in America.
<<Doesn't matter if they are black, white or brown. They are racist and that is that. Because Mikey says so. >>
Another brain-fart from planet BT in some far-off galaxy. Not only is racism non-existent in a post-racial America, but it seems that it's impossible for blacks and browns, as well as whites, to be racist. Their skin colour must somehow inoculate them against racism since birth.
-
Well I beg to differ. In the real world, even racist cops want to keep their jobs and realize the stupidity of getting nailed by a determined victim of their racist persecution.
Why would a racist cop be worried about losing their job. The power of racism is that it is institutionalized and that the racist cop has a network of management behind him that will cover up, minimize and negate any negative repercussions that could possibly arise from some minority standing tall for their civil rights.
Now you are on record as stating the law in Arizona was written by racist legislators with the intent of their will being carried out by racist law enforcement personnel which indicates to me that you agree that the whole power structure of Arizona has institutionalized the concept of keeping the brother down.
-
Why Arizona Drew a Line
By KRIS W. KOBACH
Kansas City, Kan.
ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law ? SB 1070 ? that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a ?reasonable suspicion? that a person is an illegal alien verify the person?s immigration status with the federal government.
Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it ?misguided? and said the Justice Department would take a look.
Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don?t seem to have done. The arguments we?ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. ?Now, suddenly, if you don?t have your papers ... you?re going to be harassed,? the president said. ?That?s not the right way to go.? But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
?Reasonable suspicion? is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn?t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the ?totality of circumstances? that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official ?may not solely consider race, color or national origin? in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver?s license. Arizona?s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver?s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren?t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn?t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn?t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That?s why Arizona?s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
And it?s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It?s no surprise that Arizona?s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with ?comprehensive immigration reform? ? meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft?s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?pagewanted=print)
-
<<Why would a racist cop be worried about losing their job. The power of racism is that it is institutionalized and that the racist cop has a network of management behind him that will cover up, minimize and negate any negative repercussions that could possibly arise from some minority standing tall for their civil rights. >>
Well, I will just say that in the real world, which I have a considerable acquaintance with, even a racist cop in a racist police force with a racist management network and a racist or do-nothing Police Complaints Commission and a majority white racist consensus among the voting citizens STILL has to watch his ass. It's a measure of the declining power of racism that the racist pig just can't get away with the kind of racist shit that would have been routine and unremarkable fifty or sixty years ago. As racism has declined, it has become more "shameful" so that even hardcore racists feel compelled to deny their own racism. They still hate the same people, but they invent new reasons for a hatred which once needed NO reasons at all - - the illegals "jumped the line," they are robbers, kidnappers, so we aren't fighting Mexicans, we are fighting robbers and kidnappers. And so to maintain the hypocritical facade, inquiries have to be instituted even though we all know what the results of those "inquiries" are going to be, full exoneration for the racist pig, tacit condemnation of his victim, or else just a "tragic" misunderstanding with nobody at fault.
Nevertheless, for the racist pig, there is considerable inconvenience - - he is vilified in the press, which desperately needs stories of heroes and villains, his own kids, the charade of the "inquiries" must be gone through, not only police force internal hearings, but formal police charges if necessary, perhaps even a public trial on criminal charges, with appeals, changes of venue and all that is entailed - - millions of dollars ultimately spent for the dubious pleasure of breaking some Mexican's face. How many times do you think one cop can get away with this shit, with all the sympathy in the world in all the right places, he is still costing his bosses time and MONEY and in America today, we all know that the strongest traditional value is the value of MONEY. This one racist pig can just cost more MONEY than his racism is worth. So there are limits even to his racism, and he knows not to trigger the powers of police and societal hypocrisy any more than is absolutely necessary. Of course there are some cops - - Justin Volpe being one sterling example - - who just don't get it. Even though he ALMOST escaped justice, "almost" isn't good enough for a guy still serving his thirty-year sentence. The closeness of his escape from justice is a measure of the remaining force of institutional racism, but the fact that he ultimately got nailed when one of his fellow pigs turned state's evidence indicates, at least in New York State, that the bad guys don't ALWAYS win.
<<Now you are on record as stating the law in Arizona was written by racist legislators with the intent of their will being carried out by racist law enforcement personnel which indicates to me that you agree that the whole power structure of Arizona has institutionalized the concept of keeping the brother down. >>
Yeah but note how even the racist AZ legislators have to cloak their racist intent behind race-neutral verbiage; they can't come out and say frankly in the legislation what its real intent is or how it is actually intended to be enforced. Racism can only exist today if accompanied by hypocrisy. And that hypocrisy places barriers before racist pigs who previously would not have had to contend with such barriers. The new legislation, still mindful to use race-neutral language, hopes to remove at least some of those barriers that impede racist pigs in their racism.
-
<<For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.>>
Therein lies the essence of the problem. Speeding. A driver going 1 mph over the posted speed limit is "speeding." Does he get pulled over for it in the real world? Of course not. But under the racist AZ legislation, a Mexican going 1 mph over limit can and will be pulled over, especially if his family is in the car with him. The police are encouraged to harass each one by demanding papers ("You're on a highway where lots of immigrants are smuggled." "But we live close by and we're going on a picnic, officer." "Shut up and show me yer papers, beaner.") It's an invitation to harass Hispanics and that's exactly how it's going to play out.
<<While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn?t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn?t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That?s why Arizona?s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.>>
IN all probability the federal immigration statutes did not prohibit US citizens from employing illegal aliens, which is why SCOTUS would have permitted the AZ state law when it was enacted to prohibit such conduct - - there was no conflict between the state and the federal law. The new AZ law seems to be directly related to, and in conflict with, the power of federal immigration officers to investigate (for prosecution) the status of suspected illegals. The argument is that a state of AZ officer has no business doing what the Constitution tells the feds is their duty. Hopefully this legislation will wind up in the Supreme Court and be resolved there.
Despite Prof. Kobach's head-in-the-clouds view of how things work on Planet Earth, a police state is EXACTLY what this law will create - - not for the average white guy, but definitely for anyone of Hispanic or Mexican appearance. These people will be subject to incessant police stops for the most trivial infractions, subjected to humiliating and abusive searches, demands for papers, etc. Despite the good Professor's lofty assurances that the need to carry papers is common in "other countries," the fact is that I have traveled extensively in many other countries and never once been asked for papers. The power to demand papers from anyone is limited in practice to demanding papers from the poor, the darker-skinned and the poorly-clad. AZ will become police-state hell for any Mexican or apparent Mexican and continue to be the land of country clubs, golf courses and luxury condos for white-skinned natives and tourists. It was a joke that the statute bars "racial profiling" - - just as racist pigs can always find the broken tail-light or the partly-obscured plate, so they can always find some factor, real or imaginary, other than racial, to account for their actions. Don't undersestimate the craftiness of the typical "dumb racist."
-
Despite the good Professor's lofty assurances that the need to carry papers is common in "other countries," the fact is that I have traveled extensively in many other countries and never once been asked for papers.
You must not look Jewish.
Did you carry the papers with you, just in case?
-
Despite the good Professor's lofty assurances that the need to carry papers is common in "other countries," the fact is that I have traveled extensively in many other countries and never once been asked for papers.
Funny, I've traveled extensively in other countries and in the US, and every time I have been stopped for a traffic violation I have been asked for my papers. How do you get away with not showing id when stopped?
-
IN all probability the federal immigration statutes did not prohibit US citizens from employing illegal aliens, which is why SCOTUS would have permitted the AZ state law when it was enacted to prohibit such conduct - - there was no conflict between the state and the federal law. The new AZ law seems to be directly related to, and in conflict with, the power of federal immigration officers to investigate (for prosecution) the status of suspected illegals. The argument is that a state of AZ officer has no business doing what the Constitution tells the feds is their duty. Hopefully this legislation will wind up in the Supreme Court and be resolved there.
What is the conflict?
Seems very directly to be a ditto of already existing Federal law.
-
<<You must not look Jewish.
<<Did you carry the papers with you, just in case? >>
The most common nationality that I've been mistaken for, when people guess, is German, ironically enough. Or Irish. I don't fit the stereotype. Don't "look Jewish." I carry my passport with me only if there's no safe in the hotel room. I keep anything important (passport, large bills) in a body pouch inside the waistband of my pants if I don't like the hotel security. Never leave anything in the room unless it's in a room safe, no matter how good the hotel.
<<Funny, I've traveled extensively in other countries and in the US, and every time I have been stopped for a traffic violation I have been asked for my papers. How do you get away with not showing id when stopped?>>
I'm a very good driver and I've never been stopped by a cop in a foreign country. My credit cards and Ontario driver licence are in my wallet, and the rental agreement in the glove compartment. That being said, I think the only places I've ever driven in were Germany (Frankfurt to Hanover) Italy (Naples to Sorrento) and France (all over.) A lot of our trips were to big cities where we didn't need a car. Usually we prefer public transit (subways, etc.) or for inter-city travel, trains. Sometimes buses. That's probably the way I've gotten around on over 80% of my trips. Of course if I'm going from one city to another, my passport will be on me because we've checked out of the hotel.
But as I say, I have never once been stopped and asked to show it and that's in over forty years of travel. I'm sure that in those same forty years, plenty of Moroccans, Algerians, Indonesians etc. have been stopped many times in the same places I've been and asked to show ID. The laws that require ID are ONLY for enforcement against visible minorities. They are enacted in the knowledge that they will not be enforced against whites, otherwise they would not be enacted.
Self-correction: I was once stopped for speeding on the road to Buffalo, about twenty minutes before entering the city. Although I had my passport on me (I always used it for crossing the border even before the U.S. legally required it) I was NOT asked for a passport or visa, the trooper was satisfied with the Ontario driver licence. I would have been very surprised if he'd asked me for my passport.
-
<<What is the conflict?
<<Seems very directly to be a ditto of already existing Federal law.>>
A ditto is a conflict. Which is why I assumed that existing Fed law did not, at the time the AZ workplace law was before the SCOTUS, deal with American citizens who employ illegals. If it had, then the AZ law would probably have been struck down as a ditto, which means a conflict. You can't have two separate entities ruling on the exact same topic, otherwise they'll bump heads. They won't always make the same calls on the same issues.
-
A ditto is a conflict.
Since when?
-
The laws that require ID are ONLY for enforcement against visible minorities. They are enacted in the knowledge that they will not be enforced against whites, otherwise they would not be enacted.
Guess I must look browner than you. I was asked for my passport while driving in Ontario. And I don't even get a rental car issued to me in other countries unless I show my passport.
-
<<Guess I must look browner than you. I was asked for my passport while driving in Ontario. And I don't even get a rental car issued to me in other countries unless I show my passport.>>
What can I tell ya? Maybe I look more Aryan than you do. I'm really surprised the cop asked you for a passport, probably when you showed him a Minnesota permit, or if you were driving a car with Minnesota plates. But my family often drive here from Michigan and I can't recall any of them being asked for passports. Until recently, citizens didn't even need a passport to cross the US-Canadian border. That cop sounds like a real asshole, unless he was acting under new standing orders.
I can't recall whether I show the passport to rent the car but even if I did, it's at the airport so I'd have it on me anyway. A passport is one of the commonest forms of photo ID, so I wouldn't know if showing the passport was on demand for a passport or just on demand for photo ID. Then also it's with me on the drive to the hotel. But once in the hotel and as long as I stay there, it's in the room safe if there's a room safe, or it's on me after I check out. I used to take it with me if I planned to pay for an evening with Travelers Cheques, because they often ask for the passport and copy the number on the back of the traveler's cheque, but that was all before ubiquitous ATM's and the ATM does NOT ask for passports.
-
What can I tell ya? Maybe I look more Aryan than you do. I'm really surprised the cop asked you for a passport, probably when you showed him a Minnesota permit, or if you were driving a car with Minnesota plates. But my family often drive here from Michigan and I can't recall any of them being asked for passports. Until recently, citizens didn't even need a passport to cross the US-Canadian border. That cop sounds like a real asshole, unless he was acting under new standing orders.
I had a NC driver's license and was driving a car with Maryland plates.
-
NC plates made you fit the profile of a gun smuggler.
-
<<Since when? [is a ditto a conflict?]>>
Since forever.
If the godfather tells Joey Thumbs he can have a monopoly on selling coke in the Anchors Aweigh bar and he then tells the same thing (ditto) to Vinnie the Chin, when one of them finds the other selling coke in "his" joint, you can bet your ass there is going to be one hell of a conflict arising out of that "ditto" grant of authority. It's an either/or proposition, not a "both/and."
-
Since forever.
That's why there is no state level laws against murder - because the Federal government has already preempted that space of the law.
::)
And there is no conflicting firearms laws between the Federal Government and that various states.
-
(http://www.lucianne.com/images/lucianne/DailyPhoto/2010-05-02.jpg)
-
GA
Murder
16-5-1 (http://w3.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp)
Federal
Homicide
18 USC Chapter 51 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/toc.html)
-
How dare Georgia try to preempt Federal Law. It's obviously totally unconstitutional...
-
How dare Georgia try to preempt Federal Law. It's obviously totally unconstitutional...
Certainly they knew about the famous Scotus rulings on ditto laws.
-
LOL
-
Georgia and the U.S. have similar definitions of murder.
BFD.
Some murders fall within Georgia state jurisdiction and others within Federal jurisdiction.
There is no "ditto" here - - If the state and federal prosecutors cannot agree, the courts will decide which murders are federal offences, which ones are not.
In the area of immigration, there is no STATE jurisdiction to investigate immigration status and then to prosecute illegalities. That belongs to the federal government exclusively.
-
Some murders fall within Georgia state jurisdiction and others within Federal jurisdiction.
Every murder I've ever heard of fell under BOTH of those definitions.
-
<<Every murder I've ever heard of fell under BOTH of those definitions.>>
The definitions could both fit the same crime, but the circumstances of the crime would be such as to provide one or the other authority with jurisdiction. In some relatively few cases there will be jurisdictional tugs-of-war between the Fed and State prosecutors but in most cases the jurisdictional lines between federal cases and non-fed are fairly distinctly drawn and not in dispute.
-
Congress has already given authority to the states to enforce existing federal immigration law, both in 1986, and reinforced under Clinton in 1996. You have no tree to bark up, Tee