"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith
ON the section of the AZ law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, the "papers please" bit - there is one major aspect that I don't see mentioned here. The AZ police are no longer allowed to detain someone without prior federal approval of such detention.
Also, nobody has mentioned the fact that Native Americans have also been stopped and questioned under this AZ law - are they also "illegals" or do they just look like they are?
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
I believe that's a gross exaggeration, because we all know, as I previously posted, looks are just one of the descriptives, a beginning point to continue observing for one or two other narrowing-it-down criteria prior to momentarily detaining the individual(s) (over-use of non-English, lack of English comprehension, loitering near Home Depot, loitering near warehouse districts, driving junkers, cramming cars, not wearing seatbelts ...) the list goes on and on and on, that will hone in on likely perpetrators, eliminating American citizens from the list.
So the number of real Americans momentarily detained will be teeny tiny compared to your gross exaggeration.
But you state " ... should not be suspect ... ". What do you mean by "should not"? "Should not" under what "discipline", suspect profiling? Not even! "Should not" under some political/party ideology? Meaningless. What's this "should not" and what is your foundational argument for it?
20 million illegals have violated the laws of American citizens, trespassing, identity-forging, and job-stealing -- we should do all we can to apprehend them, I mean, if justice for all Americans is of value.
I doubt the few true Americans who get momentarily detained will be anything but thankful that law enforcement is on the job.
I don't at all "seem to agree with you" -- where do you get that?
You then contradict my obvious position saying you "don't condon it [detaining American citizens while searching for illegals]", while I'm quite fine with the teeny, tiny percentage of time that will truly happen.
As for "pursuing" someone else with that point, I'm not "pursuing" anyone, though I find your term revealing, considering the discussion content. I'm merely debating the matter with someone of an obviously differing opinion.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
And you didnt quite explain how it is a 'win' for anyone considering the fed refuses to enforce illegal immigration while leaving the states on the hook to deal with the mess...no suprise there.
I have never gotten the AZ immigration law. What is the purpose for arresting someone? Because they are suspected of committing a crime and its the FIRST STEP in a process to hold the suspected criminal accountable, right? The state of Arizona has absolutely no legal structure in place to indict, try and carry out immigration law violations sentences. The state AZ prosecutors did not and cannot have trials for people expected to illegal immigration. So what do they do with the people they arrest, if they are here illegally in the first place? ? Catch and release anybody who looks Mexican. Arrest them, make them spend the night in jail then let them go in the morning. The AZ courts can't hold a trial on immigration law violations. They can't deport anyone since state governments have no relationship with Mexican or whatever country counterparts. All this law did IMHO was make police harassment of Hispanics legal and told the fastest growing minority in America who will eventually be citizens as well as their children, grand-children and great-grand-children to never vote Republican under any circumstance. Gotta be the dumbest law passed in America in my lifetime.
Last edited by Smeagol; 06-25-12 at 12:56 PM.
An irony of the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday on Arizona’s immigration law is that the chief part President Obama and his top advisers complained about is the one part the court upheld.
As Arizona was debating the law, Mr. Obama, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and other top officials said it would lead to racial profiling by allowing police to stop and demand the legal status of those they suspected to be in the country illegally.
But that’s the one part of the law the Supreme Court upheld unanimously, with the justices saying they will give police a chance to see if they can implement the law properly without violating civil rights.
“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [that section] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
The law had four chief components. Three sections that set up state criminal penalties for immigration violations were struck down in the 5-3 ruling.
But all eight justices upheld the provision allowing police to check the status of those they had “reasonable suspicion” were in the country illegally, and then report their identity to federal authorities. The federal government could then decide whether it wanted to pick up and deport the illegal immigrants or let them go.
Justices' split decision preserves contentious section on police check power - Washington Times
You don't agree with me, fine. There are a greater number of legal American citizens of Hispanic and Native American heritage who will be subject to being stopped and questioned about their citizenship based merely on suspicion. I am a true American and given the lack of good reason to stop my relatives other than they resemble, in a broad and non-specific way (like gender, height, hair or lack of it) suspected illegals, they and I would not be thankful. Especially when children could be involved.
While you may be fine with it, doesn't make it right.
Revealing? In what way. I thought you were expressing an extreme view point or sarcasm about "Real Americans". My mistake.