When a Canadian understands the Constitution better than a lot of Arizonans or teabaggers do:
I haven’t objected to the new Arizona “papers please” law, SB 1070 (PDF), on the basis that its racist, although it probably is. I object to to it because it violates the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution, which clearly states that federal law is supreme and the states cannot override it.Whether SB 107o’s language exactly mirrors federal law or not – and it doesn’t – is immaterial. The fact is that the states cannot and should not be enforcing or prosecuting federal law.
Furthermore, whether the federal government is enforcing its own laws or not is also irrelevant. That is within the prerogative of the federal government under the Constitution. If the people don’t like the fact that administrations going back to Reagan’s haven’t been “protecting the borders,” they are free to elect a president who will. And that, my friends, is all.
Read the rest-he has Arizona State Senator Pearce pegged pretty well.
By the way, illegal immigrants are needed today. I’m just more willing to admit it than most craven Republicans. When all is said and done, illegal immigration is nothing more than the laws of supply and demand at work. American consumers want cheap goods, which forces American corporations to hire cheap labor. And it just so happens that you don’t get any cheaper than illegal. American politicians, being whorish cretins, will do whatever their Wall Street paymasters tell them to.What scumbag demagogues like Pearce are doing is scapegoating the only truly innocent people in the debate: the immigrants themselves. If their country was ravaged by corruption, poverty and a vicious drug war, I can only hope that most Americans would walk across a desert to feed their families on less than minimum wage. They’re not doing anything that you or I wouldn’t do, should the burrito turn.
I firmly believe that the GOP is pandering to their idiot base, but secretly know that no one is willing to pay thirty dollars for a strawberry. So they make the right noises, get everybody all stupid and excited and proceed to do exactly nothing. It’s cynical to the extreme, which is why it’s such good politics.At this point, the debate isn’t about illegal immigration anymore. It’s about the Constitution and how much of it an ignorant public is willing to sacrifice to the whims of the jackals in the political class.
We can get serious about enforcing our borders-other nations do after all-but that also means going after the incentives that drive people here in the first place.
What a complete contemptible idiot.
Why does one suppose that they keep reelecting Joe Arpio? Why do we all of a sudden say that states have no law but federal law? When did that happen? There are federal crimes and stealing a slice of pizza is now a federal crime? Ever hear of 3 strikes and in for life?
You want cheap you do Walmart not gag about having a big box store and Walmart does cheap not by hiring illegals but by buying from China. All illegals do is drive down the wages in the areas where they work, not just geographic but trades and industries.
When one sees people lining up and supporting the LA City Council despite and in spite of the fact that 70% of all Americans are in favor of enforcing the law on illegals that AZ passed, I laugh. I’m pretty sure I can figure out where you both come down on the sickening NYT and Woody Allen suggestion that what this country needs is a few years or just a day of Chinese style authoritarianism. It’s always, always the guys like you two that insist that others must bow and kowtow to their better smarter more reasoned argument even if you know, that means screw the Constitution.
Despite your smart liberal friend’s odd notions, the bulk of law enforcement is done by states, counties, townships, parishes, cities. It is one of those whossname constitutional powers reserved to the states by the whatchamacallit.
and what happens when the feds abrogate their ‘constitutional” responsibilities?
Yes, immigrants flee FROM somewhere because they want a better life and yes, when someone disagrees with you and your Canadien fellow traveller they are”idiots”. which at this point is 70% of the country not just Arizona. I maybe wrong on this but I don’t think all of them are idiot republicans.
By the way, even if you know the constitution and I do, its the Supreme Court that has and will decide what the constitution REALLY says.
Not unlike your favorite preacher. mullah, rabbi, guru et al…
I listen to a few radio shows and I have heard many people call in and say “the illegals are not taking my job” so it is not a problem for them. Skippy, if the problem of illegal immigration is simply a “matter of supply and demand at work” need I remind you that Mexico has both retired military officers and college professors (as I assume the Candian guy is) too. We have all ready seen how the tech companies have shifted programming work off shore to India where highly skilled and college educated people in Dehli can do the job at half the cost of some guy in Silicon valley, so what’s not to stop big defense contractors from hiring retired Mexican military officers into jobs here (yeah I know they have to pass the secuirty clearance, but you know those laws can be easily changed if the company can show it can do the same work at a lower cost). Also, universities would be wise to hire professors (illegally) from Mexico since they can pay them at a lower wage, and they probably will spit out the same anit-American rhetoric just like the homegrown ones.
The Canadian is operating out of logic not emotion.
Our politicians excel at posturing and inflammatory rhetoric and then fail to address the basic problem. A problem no one really wants to solve.
Illegals are ideal cheap labor. Make them legal somehow and cost goes up. Simple supply and demand. And proetect the interests of campaign contributors.
I think a you are missing some key points:
1) Illegal immigration did not start when Obama became President. It was going on through the last six Presidents if not longer.
2) Arizona may wish to make a statement-but crafting a law that contravenes federal law is not the way to make it. Especially-as my esteemed colleague points out the author of that law wants to go further and do something that expressly out of state jurisdiction to do. (recognize or declare who is and is not a citizen).
3) Powers may be reserved to the states but not at the expense of those powers granted to the federal government. Border control and granting citizenship / visa’s is a bonafide federal power.
4) 70% of the country probably are idiots when compared to me. 🙂
Aha,
You woke up. I see the usual liberals who hang out here have retreated to the shy. Ever notice how they do that?
Your point number 1. Don’t be bashful! The illegal thing started back when Santa Anna did over the Alamo and went on to further exciting adventures in Texas in which Texans stopped and drove them out. Notice, not Americans, Texans. Ring any bells? San Jacinto? stuff like that…?
The little AZ law that has your panties in a wad, is nothing more than a restatement of what the federal law says and your esteemed communist friend, doesn’t actually live in AZ does he, do you? Where did you both grasp the idea that states had no right under this constitution to pass laws into law? Are you on drugs? They turn illegals who cannot produce any documentation over to the appropriate federal authorities for deportation hearings and deportation. WTF is wrong with that? Joe is not taking them down to the border and prodding them across with a stun gun. That’s the Federal Governments job. illegal means go away.
And come on you! Declare yourself a citizen, prove your bonafides, fly through the TSA,where you must produce federal documentation to prove you’re not alaskan or shit. What in the world are you meth heads smoking? Fly recently? You tell us Skippy, did you have to show valid federally approved ID to both the ticket agent and the TSA loser? Seriously, you guys lose your cred when you depart from reality.
Arizona and Texas have reached the point where they will build the fence, dig the moat, import the sharks. It’s their property and they can do with it as they will. If the Fed wants to destructively interfere with the process we can see sparks. The SCOTUS dug the rule just recently on state seizure of land under eminent domain. Be interesting to watch those liberal fools see what the Kelo did when two states exercise the rights they have under the constitution and Kelo and just say enough is enough. With 70% approving I’m thinking they could build their very own Berlin Wall kind of East German Border fence and screw the feds. Put in minefields. Tanglefoot for a mile.
It’s going to be fun.
Sorry sir,
I had the computer on while I was off at an ordination for a friend. This is what I posted in another post here, the next one in fact. System failed to update since we are both torturing each other.
Skippy et al,
I like your day in history today. When one can actually post a bio on Dred Scott and his treatment at the hands of the supreme court and claim that State Rights under the Constitution are totally and completely meaningless because only Federal Law matters….priceless. It’s a liberal’s wet dream. Why the man had no rights at all said the SCOTUS just because he lived in states where slavery was against state law. He must remain a slave.
Seriously, priceless.
Curtis,
I mentioned Dred Scott v. Sandford because that was the predicate for ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place, which Russell Pearce doesn’t seem to understand. The standard of citizenship in the Amendment was very deliberate.
So what’s Senator Pearce’s solution? Reintrepret the Fourteenth Amendment at the state level. I presume that you wouldn’t support that if, say, New York state banned the private ownership of guns for anyone not in the National Guard in the years before Heller.
Moreover, I didn’t say that ” State Rights under the Constitution are totally and completely meaningless because only Federal Law matters.” I said that state law cannot override federal law. Come to think of it, I didn’t say that, the Constitution itself did (see Article VI, Clause 2.)
Besides, the main thrust of my piece is Pearce’s intention to pass a state law affirming or denying national citizenship, which no sane person contends that the states have the right to do. What’s next? Can Utah raise a navy? Can Vermont enter into a treaty with a foriegn state if 70% of it’s residents think it’s okay?
My “odd notions” notwithstanding, I’ve been citing the Constitution itself, which you notably haven’t.
I’m also mystified by your references to Kelo, Curtis.
Eminent Domain is what the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment actually is. Without it, not only would the United States not have an Interstate Highway system, it would have far fewer military basis than it currently does.
The deviously wrong and weapons-grade evil Kelo decision established for the first time that the government can take property solely for the benefit of private industry. Unless you’re actually advocating the privatization of the Mexican border, I’m not sure what Kelo has to do with anything. The federal government has always had that power.
Oh, I think you mean that the states can take federal property, which the border sort of is. You undrstand that that was tried once, right? It was at Fort Sumter, and it didn’t end particularly well for the cause of state’s rights, as I’m sure you remember.
But that’s an interesting argument and one I’d like to explore. Let’s go back to Vermont for a minute. Or Maine will do. Any place northward and ultra-liberal.
Let’s say that one of those states thought that much to much was being made of immigration law and used your logic to assert local control of the Canadian border on their terrtory. Let’s further assume that they decided to let everybody in, regardless of national origin or terrorist leanings. Would that be acceptable under the Curtis School of Constitutional Theory? Your argument seems to imply that it would be. If some states can go one way, surely others can move in the opposite direction, right? Isn’t that what federalism’s all about?
Your assertion of state’s rights regardless of federal law is also worth testing. Do your support Oregon’s assisted-suicide law, which violates DEA standards for drug distribution? How about the fourteen states that have passed medical marijuana laws in violation of the Contolled Substances Act? What if a state decided to decriminalize heroin? How about child pornography?
Let’s say that an individual governor disagreed with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Could he or she legally resist federal activation of the National Guard for deployment? After all, the Guard is primarily answerable to the governors.
It doesn’t seem that I’m the one opening a can of worms here, sir. But let’s get back to the issue at hand, shall we?
SB 1070 is decidedly not “a restatement of what the federal law says.” The fact that it provides for six months in an Arizona pokey, above and beyond any federal penalty seems to affirm that the act is a uniquely Arizonan enforcement of a federal prerogative.
That’s interesting in and of itself. Let’s suppose that the federal case of sedition against the Hutaree Militia fails for whatever reason. Since the goal of the Hutaree seems to be the violent overthrow of the U.S government, could the state of Michigan then file sedition charges against them? How about treason? What if Michigan obtained an indictment after a federal conviction and sought a greater punishment, above and beyond what is stipulated in the federal code?
Could an individual state seek to break up Citigroup or Bank of America, using as a predicate the economic damage their practices caused in that specific state? Could they do so relying exclusively on state law? You seem to suggest that they could.
By the way, using the Berlin Wall as an example is adorable, especially when you do it in the same comment that refers to Skippy-san and I as communists. Couldn’t you have used the gulag as well, Curtis?
Sadly, I won’t be around until Friday evening to continue this debate. I’m having an awful lot of fun exploring the Wild World of Curtis and the constitutional principles and practices that live in his head.
And the supremacy of the court during FDR tenure was one of constant frustration for him as they struck down one new deal program after another and yet..
in 1944 the supremes upheld his executive order 9066 which gave him legal cover for his internment of Americans in concentration camps. ( the non- nazi kind of course)
Individual states, this is a shocker, have gone after companies like Citibank,,,like New York and AG Cuomo.
” Supreme Power”..by Shesol talks about FDR and the Court etc.
See NPR and his interview. Podcast.
Deju vu all over again.
Skippy, the Dred Scott decision was not one of the predicates for ratifying the the 14th Amendment, it was ratified more so to protect the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which made everyone born in the US full citzens. The 14th Amaendment added this to the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.
I guess those Radical Republicans had a much better insight into what would lay ahead in the future than we seem to have now.
Maurice,
An act of Congress declaring people to be full citizens is sort of meaningless when there’s a Supreme Court precedent saying otherwise. Dred Scott, which specifically stated that “negroes of the African race” were not citizens, was such a precedent. And the only way to get around that is by constitutional amendment. Were it otherwise the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration could have passed laws outlawing abortion and flag burning between 2001-06.
The fact is that Supreme Court had ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1866 unconstitutional … in 1857. Remember, by the time Dred Scott reached SCOTUS, the issue wasn’t about slavery as much as it was about citizenship and access to the courts. And that’s why I brought it up in my post about Senator Pearce’s Arizona proposal regarding the citizenship of “anchor babies.”
In a roundabout way, I find it tragically funny that the Radical Republicans of yesteryear were dedicated to the proposition of expanding citzenship, whereas those of today are all about contracting it, irrespective of what the actual Constitution says.
Also, I’m not a college professor, retired or otherwise. In fact, I dropped out of both high school and college. Mostly because it made me look cool, sorta like smoking does.
Richard,
I’m aware that individual states have “gone after” the banks, as is their legal right. That’s why I specifically used the phrase “break up,” which is a federal task.
That’s not to suggest that I think that they can or even should. But Curtis seems to. I’m trying to get a bead on exactly how far his view on state’s rights actually goes. I was also going to ask him if Syria face the imminent threat of invasion by Arkansas, but I didn’t want to give him any ideas.
The balance of powers under your constitutional system, while a giant pain in the ass to people like FDR, Curtis and Russell Pearce is probably the only thing that stopped the United States from being destroyed by lunatics a long, long time ago.
You know, the only thing that makes me more of a cutie-pie than my extensive knowledge of foreign constitutions that have almost nothing to do with my day-to-day life is the way I look in cut-off shorts and a purple construction helmet. Ben Kingsley isn’t anywhere near the sexy beast I am.
Am I rambling?
Oh, and I got Supreme Power last week, but it’ll likely be awhile before I get around to reading it.
🙂
Even though the piece I wrote that Skippy-san originally cited didn’t have all that much to do with SB 1070, this debate has gotten me to thinking about it further.
Firstly, 1070 only allows for “reasonable suspicion,” which is at some variance with the Fourth Amendment standard of “probable cause” when it comes to the cops getting all investigatey.
Secondly, will folks with, say, Irish accents be asked to produce papers? There are hundreds of thousands of them in the U.S illegally.
How about Canadians, who don’t require visas to be in the United States at all? Without a visa stamp, how do I prove to some Tucson cop that I haven’t been in the country too long? How is that cop even supposed to know how long is too long? Do I really get to indulge Joe Arpaio’s pink underwear fetish for six months for any of those reasons? Are you fucking kidding me?
Third, if being in the United States illegally is now a violation of Arizona state statute, shouldn’t a suspect be given a Miranda warning against self-incrimination before being asked the question in the first place?
Fourth, didn’t Miranda also have something to do with Arizona? I’m old and I drink a lot, so I might be wrong about that.
Christ, I’m adorable.
Discuss.
skippystalin, The Radical Republicans in their day were not dealing with a massive influx of people demanding entitlements. the decision to pass the 14th Amendment was due to the fact that as the Southern sates (who had tended to lean Democratic party, go figure) were being admitted back into the Union, they kind of knew that those feelings that they had were come back up and try to erase the gains that had been made as a result of the Civil War. One could look at history and see that they were spot on. Need we discuss the Plessy v. Ferguson case.
I don’t think the Republicans of today are not trying to contract citizenship. The case of slavery was differnt. You had a whole race of people who were brought here (up until 1809 when importing of slaves was outlawed) and their remaining generations that grown here and to incorporate them into the general citizenery and give them full rights. In today’s case, people are coming here willingly, and are doing so to find jobs which is fine by me, but they are ignoring the process that is in place, and the Federal Gov. itself is not enforcing its own laws. Let’s face it, the illegal aliens are not US citizens, so the Republicans are not trying to take away their rights as one. They are unauthorzed persons here, and in my opinion both the people who come here and the people who hire them are guilty of this crime.
Skippystalin,
I apologize. I hadn’t realized that Skippy-san had imported a piece of yours and I did not read the full article just the paragraph that he had to the left of the page back when I posted my replies near the top.
I’m a little too clever to discuss the minutia of the Constitution or Supreme Court activities with a liberal. Only a liberal could twist the clear meaning of the Bill of Rights into the crap we have today.
I just thought that in the context of Skippy-San’s article about the states having no rights whatsoever in the regard of passing laws that apply within those states that having Dred Scott juxtaposed right, particularly humorous because we were discuss topical state rights.
You asked about Kelo and flat stated that the feds ‘own’ the border. Sure dude, they may own the square foot or two right along the border but down here in the south, ranchers and what not own property right up to where the feds have exercised domain and Kelo made it clear that what the feds could do with eminent domain was also a right reserved to the states and townships etc. So the new State border would start with a minefield, tangle foot, a moat, a fence etc.
Naturally, there would be some gaps where fed land miles inland but that was how the border fence in San Diego worked. We pushed the border jumpers miles inland, way into the desert. Our problems were, for a while, greatly reduced but then the fence fell into decline and the BP started using technical means. See how Napolitano and DHS canked the electronic fence since it didn’t actually stop or prevent crossings, all it did was DOCUMENT it? They could hardly claim that things were hunky dory with their new improved fence when a FOIA act could ask for capture rates and videos of all cross border activity.
I’m pretty sure you don’t actually know how things work here. You keep citing all this irrelevant BS on law, supremacy, etc. Here’ how it works here. I’m a fed and I operate certain equipment for the feds in a state which has established an Air Quality Resource Board to undertake to hold everybody to the state air quality standards which are considerably more stringent than federal/EPA standards. Who do you imagine gets fined $3K a day for operating a single generator, much less a hundred of them that exceed State Law but comply with Federal Law?
Take a quick look at the California Coastal Commission on their complete total control of what they used to call ”Bay Fill” on the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay et al. Bay Fill were boats and ships that they thought they had to right to regulate in Federal Waterways.
Firstly, 1070 only allows for “reasonable suspicion,” which is at some variance with the Fourth Amendment standard of “probable cause” when it comes to the cops getting all investigatey.
Complete argle bargle!
Secondly, will folks with, say, Irish accents be asked to produce papers? There are hundreds of thousands of them in the U.S illegally.
Prove it! Round them up, deport them! How hard was that. You construct some of the most ridiculous strawmen arguments. That was too easy.
How about Canadians, who don’t require visas to be in the United States at all? Without a visa stamp, how do I prove to some Tucson cop that I haven’t been in the country too long? How is that cop even supposed to know how long is too long? Do I really get to indulge Joe Arpaio’s pink underwear fetish for six months for any of those reasons? Are you fucking kidding me?
Dude, you need to produce a PASSPORT to get IN. Our little Patrol Cops in their little COP cars can query that database and find out if you extended your stay. Round you up, deport you!
Third, if being in the United States illegally is now a violation of Arizona state statute, shouldn’t a suspect be given a Miranda warning against self-incrimination before being asked the question in the first place?
Nope. Cops can ask for identification, haul your ass to jail, run your ‘name’ through the system and when they find out that you lied or misled them just take you to state court or drop you off at the nearest federal deportation center. Ever cross the border into the US? Did you insist on your Miranda rights and refuse to produce the REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION? Thought not.
Fourth, didn’t Miranda also have something to do with Arizona? I’m old and I drink a lot, so I might be wrong about that.
Who here gives a shit about Miranda? Raise your hand. I don’t see any hands here SS. Looks like you struck out on point 4 too.
Christ, I’m adorable.
Discuss.
I did. Welcome to Curtis’ world.
Curtis,
I can’t say that I’m not impressed by your constitutional and legal scholarship. Phrases like “argle-bargle” make you formidible indeed! Are you sure that you’re not a lawyer? Professional debater?
Having said that, you did manage to write my favorite two sentences in the history of the English-speaking peoples: “I’m pretty sure you don’t actually know how things work here. You keep citing all this irrelevant BS on law, supremacy, etc.” That assertion is so idiotic that it might actually be brilliant, in an Andy Kaufmann sort of way. Do you wrestle in your spare time, sir? Can you lip-synch the Might Mouse theme for us while you’re here?
You’re actually engaging in a debate about law enforcement while asserting that the law is “irrelevant BS.” That might make you the most magnificent bastard of all, my good man.
Let’s take a look at comparative political world views, shall we?
Conservatives have long held that Constitutions and laws mean exactly what they say, nothing more and nothing less. Liberals, on the other hand, take the broadest possible intrepretation to reach their desired result. If that doesn’t get them what they want, they’ll deem the entire process “irrelevent.” If there’s a part of the law that they don’t like, “Who gives a shit?” Liberals are of a mind that nothing makes for a legal constitutional democracy quite like a show of hands.
Yet, somehow I’m the liberal. Not only do I like the way you think, I admire the way you get through life in your straightjacket. Those things look itchy.
Then there are your factual errors, which abound in your comments. You’re not only wrong, Curtis, you’re complelling so.
First, how would your “little Patrol Cops in their little COP cars can query that database and find out if you extended your stay” if visas aren’t required for Canadians to enter the United States in the first place? Also, Canadians weren’t required to have passports to gain entry until July of 2008.
Oh, you know who else doesn’t need a visa to get into your country? The Saudis. After all, it isn’t like they’ve ever done anything to harm you, 9/11 notwithstanding.
Second, you said that “Cops can ask for identification, haul your ass to jail, run your ‘name’ through the system and when they find out that you lied or misled them just take you to state court or drop you off at the nearest federal deportation center.”
I would be fine with that, if that’s all that SB 1070 provided for, because that would make 1070 utterly unnescessary since it’s already the law. 1070 carries fines and jail time, which is above and beyond the federal law. So the Arizona taxpayers, already pissing and moaning about the cost of illegal immigration, now get the added expense of trying and jailing said illegals.
Third, you insist on continuing to be wrong about what the Kelo decision actually said and did.
Here’s the tail end of the Fifth Amendment, which I can’t imagine that you’ve ever actually read. ” … nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The federal government and the states have always had the power to take private property “for public use,” as your interstate highway system demonstrates. That’s actually in the Constitution itself, son.
What Kelo did was expand the definition of “public use” to include the greater tax base that comes from the commercial use of property. So unless you’re suggesting that Arizona take the land of ranchers near the border, give it to, say, Sears, and let them lay your beloved land mines, I’m not sure what the fuck you’re blathering on about. Come to think of it, Home Depot would probably be better equipped to put down mines. They’re handy over there.
Fourth, just because you don’t “give a shit” about the requirement of giving a Miranda warning to a criminal suspect doesn’t mean that that requirement doesn’t exist. Because it actually does, despite your shit-hoarding.
Fifth, the “argle-bargle” of the Fourth Amendment’s “probable cause” requirement is sort of important in that it’s the only thing keeping the ATF from going into your house and taking your guns away because you’re a psychopath.
I don’t know how to break this to you, son, but I’m not a citizen of your country and I haven’t set foot in it in over five years. It really isn’t my responsibility to know “actually know how things work” there. But it is yours, and you’re failing at it to the point that foreigners have to correct you about your own law in public.
You know that your civic duty doesn’t include being as embarassingly ignorant as possible, right? On the other hand, there might be by-laws in “Curtis’ world” that I’m blissfully unaware of.
Maurice,
You seem like a good guy and I like you, so Imma be civil.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, the government actually relied on illegal immigration to build what you have today. That’s why there was little, if any, immigration law at all, the exclusionary laws against the Chinese notwithstanding. The Irish and Italians on the east coast and the eastern Europeans in the upper Midwest just sort of showed up. And they built things. Things like New York City, Boston and Cleveland. Those actually were the existing circumstances when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
As for those immigrants “expecting entitlements,” those didn’t exist for actual American citizens at the time, and wouldn’t until the New Deal. But the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment knew precisely what they were saying when they wrote 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.”
It’s important to reiterate that I wasn’t writing about SB 1070 in the piece at my place that Skippy-san so generously quoted, although this debate has become almost exclusively about that. I was writing about Senator Pearce’s “anchor babies” proposal, which is wildly unconstitutional. I think everybody can agree with that.
I should also point out that I’m not defending illegal immigration. Far from it. All I’m suggesting is that your borders and laws be enforced within the Constitution. If that’s too much of a burden, amend the Constitution. It’s already been done 27 times. As you may have figured out already, I’m a pretty big fan of the law.
There are volumes of case law that stipulate that even illegals have the same constitutional protections as natural-born citizens. Laws like 1070 ignore that and, if Curtis is to be believed, they should be. If that’s not a situation like Plessy, I’m not sure what is. But it sure is popular!
Furthermore, a government that is big enough to round up and deport between 13 and 20 million illegals is also big enough to do anything to whomever it wants. Remember, only one country has tried moving that many people around at once, and it wasn’t a friend to anyone else’s civil liberties.
What annoys me is that matters of fundamental constitutional rights are now temporary campaign issues created by cheap politicians who have nothing in common with the founders at the expense of the Constitution itself. Does anybody really think that Russell Pearce has anything in common with Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton , who was actually an immigrant himself and probably an illegal by today’s standards?
It might well be that because I’m a foreigner that I love and appreciate your Constitution so much. And it saddens me that it’s being drowned under waves of debt, panic and stupidity.
Having said that, it’s your country.
skippystalin, so when you say America was built with illegal immigration I guess then the whole story of Ellis Island and Angel Islands were just that, fairy tale stories. If you want to get on who built America, well my forefathers came here, but shackled at the ankle and sold to the highest bidder, but I digress.
The thing about the groups of people you describe that came into places like the midwest and others is that after the first generation that was born here, they kept some ethnic pride but considered themselves Americans. Many of those so called Irish illegal immigrants to Boston and New York fought in the Civil War to protect the union. So I am not buying your argument that all of America was built on illegal immigration.
Skippystalin adores me!
Mostly on account of my accurate and absolutely devastating unbeatable near-on incomprehensible use of impeccable advanced language skills.
WRT your second and third para about how things work. You don’t seem to understand it yet. If folks like Thomas Friedman or the liberal elite could just run America the way China is run for a day or a few months poor guys like Joe Arpio would have been nailed to a wall and shot by a fine jackboot liberal firing squad. Liberals and progressives support the China way and the Tea Party crew kind of think they got it all wrong.
To refine your understanding; down here we have a vast gulf between how one set of Americans serve and obey the law and how other Americans perceive and obey the law. Sanctuary cities, ritual non-enforcement of the law, ridiculous nuclear free zones, Berkeley. Remember Gavin Newsome deciding the the City of San Francisco, in complete violation of state law, had the right to perform gay marriages and so did hundreds? How long did it take the state cops to arrest him and toss him in jail? Law really is irrelevant BS if it IS NOT ENFORCED. You seem to miss that part of my argument each time.
More argle bargle in your self decided description of conservatives. No need to answer here. Don’t wrestle my good man.
Viz your First comment on the cops inspecting your entry dates. I presume to assume that you’re joking. They’ll run your Canadian license through the system and I’m pretty sure your date of entry will show up and if you exceeded your stay they can take you to the feds for deportation. What? You thought you were a citizen entitled to an unlimited stay?
Remember Napalitano baldly announcing to the press that all the Saudi and Egyptian 9/11 terrorists entered the US through Canada? 🙂
wrt to your argument the third. You are some sort of blithering idiot aren’t you. If the state of Arizona, just for instance, or Texas, decided to exercise imminent domain and use it to seize a 100 foot strip along the border in order to build impediments to illegal entry than why go on about tax base issue crap? If they decide on their own warrant to go ahead and build something legal on their side of the official US/MEXICAN border where do you find that they have no right to do so?
wrt your 4th argument on Miranda. I think you’ll find that if you’re stopped and cannot prove citizenship law enforcement can just drop you off at the federal deportation center where you can then get all the legal rights you’re entitled to and a judicial hearing.
wrt your 5th: Don’t know how to break it to you my old but the ATF or Local Law Enforcement have been making raids on people down here and taking away the guns as fast as they can. Check at Radley Balko and you should really see what a team from the HRT FBI team can do with their marksmen against innocent men and women or even what they do in places like Waco. But at least they can commend themselves for getting the guns.
Here both parties can be right with each party declaring the other is wrong.
I don’t know about you pal but I do know HOW it is supposed to work and the enormous departure from that HOW is what you totally fail to comprehend.
You guys are having a great time-I`m busy trying to figure out how to be a legal immigrant back to Japan right now. So enjoy the discussion.
Skippystalin. Maurice is a great guy, that I can testfy to that myself. Except for an annoying addiction to right wing talk radio-he`s got it on the ball.
Hey Skippy-san! I’m hurt. Deeply wounded.
Try the Skippystalin approach and tell them that since you don’t need a visa to enter you can stay forever. How would they ever know if you were legal or not?
Hope you enjoy your stay in Japan.
I guess in some people’s world all one needs is an Irish lilt to get by and stay forever. Can you do a proper Irish lilt in Japanese?
Nope. And I can’t be an illegal immigrant since they fingerprint me and take my picture on arrival .
I’m shocked!
No VISA and they let you in?
Why do you imagine they took your fingerprint and photo unless……..maybe……you had some sort of time limited allowance to roam Mt Fuji before you overstayed your welcome and the japs hunt you down like a dog?
Isn’t it odd how you’re deliriously happy, as is skippystalin, with enforcing other country immigration standards but leap out to poo-poo American immigration standards and declare that anybody who thinks we have a right to control immigration over the border must be a teabagger or a jackbooted fascist? You’re happy enough to tolerate it for citizens flying home or aliens flying in but when you are asked to define why the same standards should not apply along the border, you just, strangely enough, go silent.
“Kind of disgusting”, he said in a rather contemptuous way.
Designated Entry Control Points get to give the fool [full] jackboot treatment to all those entering including citizens but non-designated uncontrolled entry points are denied any and all of the same rights to control entry. While you twist your minds around that, I’ll have a laugh and try to finish another book on Constitutional Law.
I don`t need a Visa to enter Japan. The reason I get the full cavity search is because I am a stinking Gaijin-and I expect. However, if I recall correctly, you were the one who reminded me that we were supposed to be better than the Japanese.
Also-its federal?law they are obeying here. There is no concept of “states rights” as you are familar with. Prefectures don`t have the right to challenge federal law in Japan and they know it.
Besides comparing Japanese and American immigration policies is apples and oranges-Japan does not want to be a nation of immigrants.
Curtis,
First, I’m not the one constantly referring to Kelo, you are. You’re confusing your eminient domain precedents. I’ll grant you, though, it’s funny to watch.
Second, how does the government trace a license if you enter by air, sea or rail? And for the record, I’m not suggesting that Canadians have the rights of American citizenship. I’m just pointing out that your system is difficult to enforce with regard to foreign nationals who don’t require entry visas.
And I do remember Napalitano’s idiotic comments. Hillary Clinton made similar ones. They fascinated me, since the 9/11 Commission Report is readily available to anyone who wishes to read it. The fact is that the hijackers entered the United States legally through Germany and Malaysia. They were, in effect, guests of the Clinton and Bush state departments.
Unfortunately, that also undermines the belief that terrorism can be stopped by immigration enforcement. So far as I’m aware, no perpetrator of a terrorist act in the United States has entered illegally.
Your point about sanctuary cities and Newsom’s gay-marriage spectacle is confusing, given that there is no provision for jail time in the laws regarding either.
As to your argument about Miranda, ” law enforcement can just drop you off at the federal deportation center where you can then get all the legal rights you’re entitled to and a judicial hearing,” That’s already the law. And SB 1070 adds additional penalities on top of that, further burdening the already broke state of Arizona.
Having said all of that, your “use of impeccable advanced language skills” really is “near-on incomprehensible.” Congratulations on that.
Americans overwhelmingly reject being a nation of illegal immigrants by rather a huge margin. Screw ’em right? They don’t know what’s good for them.
Last time I entered Japan they neither photographed me nor took my fingerprints. Forced to spend the night in a hotel enroute Korea about 7 years ago.
SS, the last time I entered and departed Canada it was through Toronto. US Immigration was right there at the airport and they slid my passport through the machine that reads the magnetic data strip. Data fed to the Fed. Now, I’ll be honest, when we hauled the big boat over the Bridge of the Americas so we could do a load test on a C130 at Fort Drum, nobody was scanning passports and it was just mostly a drive through but that was back in 2001. I imagined that the border crossings now all resemble the Toronto schema. You drive up, present a passport, Immigration runs the magnetic strip through the thingy and your data is fed to the Fed including date/time/place of entry. As neither you nor I have done that thing in 5 years, we may both be behind the times. I live about 22 miles from TJ so I suppose I could test drive it and get back to you on how it works now post the Patriot Act.
I said we were supposed to be better than the Japanese? We are. Why would I say such a thing?
SS, the Napalitano comment had one of these things 🙂 which was meant to impart to you that I was joking. She said it, not me. I always knew better than that. What is shocking is that she did not know it. Fairly typical display of the competence of the current administration and its appointees.
As you well know, some terrorists have been stopped by immigration….coming over the Canadian border weren’t they. Seattle/Vancouver? Ring any bells?
Your silliness wrt to Newsome et al and saying that there was no law on such….You sound like Al Gore and his “‘no controlling legal authority.” Kind of reinforces my point does it not that the law is irrelevant BS doesn’t it? Why don’t you do an in depth analysis on existing marriage law in the state of CA and get back to me on that? I mean, there must be some reason San Francisco was forced to halt the illegal practice right? Right? Maybe a law or something?
And SS, I so love your last para. SB1070 already blah blah, ALLOWS LEO TO DROP PEOPLE OFF AT THE LOCAL FED DETENTION CENTER if they can’t prove citizenship. What the hell were you bitching about? If the law allows it, it must be legal? If AZ says they’re going to enforce it it must be legal. Nobody said squat about Miranda.
And what Kelo confirmed was that the powers that be have the authority to exercise those rights reserved to them which is why I brought it up. There is absolutely no impediment to taking private land in order to build a state built border along the border with a foreign power behind the existing federal border. That was the point of my argument. When the progressives and liberals boil out of their hives to complain that such a state action constitutes racism or meanness or is antithetical to the Constitution the state can just invite them all to fuck off. Thanks to Kelo.
regards,
random
Curtis, were you on active duty when you came? If so, you don`t?get?fingerprinted?
I am a retiree, SOFA stamp no longer works. I am treated like any other foerign devil.
Skippy-San,
I showed my passport and boarding pass for a flight departing before noon the following day and got on a hotel shuttle bus that took me to one of the nearer “wedding” hotels @30 minutes. No fingerprints. Yes on ACDU but using a blue passport not the brown. Rather grateful this isn’t one of those trips where I might have been asked to explain the 2 9mm pistols in my luggage. That would probably have sucked a lot.
Still, when I got back the next morning it did give me my one and only opportunity to experience the ‘front end’ of Narita. Nice airport!
Skippy-San,
7 March 2002, on the Blue, entry for 90 days. No fingerprinting or photos. BB Bell didn’t come along until much later to complicate my life and give the pistoleer an upgrade to business class on account of the hassles of flying as double o9.
stalin,
When we agree on an approach.
It’s MY country.
One gets into my country by submitting to the rules.
If one doesn’t then fuck em. They forfeited all their putative rights.
This country has a process that brings in a million legal immigrants a year.
You lose site of that. It’s my country.