Compassion for lawmen? Sure. I have compassion for lawmen. I have no compassion for idiots who pass laws that don't do a thing for the real problem. If you note what I wrote, it wasn't a slam against those who enforce- it was a slam against those politicians who wrote the law that good lawmen now have to go out and enforce.
If you are for enforcing the law, then you would be against sanctuary cities that do not enforce the federal immigration laws. Those are your "idiots" who pass laws that don't do a thing for the real problem. Not allowing local or state police (that includes jails as well) to check immigration status is the same thing as not allowing those same officials to see if a detainee is wanted for other crimes. Ask any immigration official who has worked prosecutions and they will tell you that they could spend all their time picking up illegals from jails (they get put there on local charges) and taking them to federal court on immigration charges.
No- I am defending the rights of human beings in the United States. The rights under the Constitution. That are more and more being taken away in the name of "security".
The Constitution grants no rights to human beings, it grants rights to citizens of the United States. Human beings present illegally in the United States are only provided limited rights by the courts.
Do you think it's ok for a law enforcement officer to pull you over for no reason? I don't. I don't think DUI roadblocks are within Constitutional boundaries either. Luckily, in my state, neither does my government. In other states it's not the same. That's not right.
That's a good point. But it involves the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in most and expressed that this is more of a state policy thing. If the state legislatures are expressing the will of the people, then the people decide if preventing DUI via roadblocks is worth the infringement of the 5th amendment. That's a safety vs. individual rights issue best handled on the local/state level as a matter of public policy.
Either it's within, or not within, the guidelines of the Constitution.
So, let me get this straight. In James' reading of the Constitution, the government is perfectly within its powers to mandate that an individual purchase health insurance and the government is allowed to enforce that law by whatever means necessary. But the government is not allowed, again according to James' reading of the Constitution, to enforce immigration laws because they violate the 4th and 5th amendments? Please reconcile this if you can.
I can speak my mind, and in my state, thank goodness, the courts agree with my position.
I'm sure you can't speak your mind if that involves screaming, "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. But, that's a First Amendment individual liberty vs. public safety argument and not extremely relevant.
I won't be traveling to Arizona anymore. I was last there last year. I will do what I can to choose to go elsewhere, when I can.
How much is "enough" border patrol? 50,000? 500,000? No one has said what they think it will take to close the border.
There's not a number, what it takes is the will to enforce. The number is irrelevant. Allowing all law enforcement to enforce is the issue. It's about the interdependence of police agencies.
My point is that much of the problems faced by our border patrol is because of the laws we now have.
I would say it's about enforcement of the laws.
People flood across the border in hopes to find a better life.
Many flood across for a better life. Not all. Let's not make statements in absolutes, OK.
Now, we can do one of three things here.
1. We can try and block the border- in which case it may take 500,000 border patrol agents to do. That has a price tag. Are you prepared to pay that kind of price tag? If so, then we need to get serious about it. If not, then it's all for show, not for real. There is nothing as senseless as putting lives on the line for political posturing and show. Our law enforcement officers deserve far better. No officer should be asked to do a job, and then not given the resources to do it with. Same as our military. If you want them to accomplish a mission, you better be prepared to give them every resource needed to fulfill the mission. That's not being done now for our Border Patrol and law enforcement officer community. Something about the price tag, I hear.
I can appreciate the sentiment and the allusion to the military. But the commitment, I believe, must be to enforcing the law not necessarily in unconditionally providing every resource available. It's about commitment, not dollar figures.
2. Or we can pass immigration reform legislation, that includes temporary worker visas, that allow people to come in and work. Costs far less that option #1. But you can't even bring that up in Congress without critics screaming.
People live in Mexico and work in the U.S. on what amounts to "day passes" already. This "solution" is not solving the big problem.
3. Or you can try and raise the standard of living in other countries, so that not as many people want to come here. That was supposed to be one of the great benefits of free trade under NAFTA. Central American countries and Mexico wages were supposed to rise, and give less reason for folks to come here. That's how it was sold by the politicians at the time, anyway. How's that working out, anyway? Oh yea- Mexico's wages didn't rise. They went down.
Big surprise!!! News flash: Minnow and James Agree in not liking NAFTA... although I don't think raising the standard of living in other countries is really any business of Congress or the government in general.
Do you want to end smuggling of drugs across the border? It's easy to do. Simply legalize and tax it here, and the crime and violence will disappear. It won't cost taxpayers a dime. It will greatly enhance revenue for the government. But that solution isn't being talked about seriously. Why not? Why is pot illegal, anyway? Think about that.
You are aware that there are other illegal drugs being smuggled across the border, right? You OK with legalizing heroin?
Do you want to end people coming across the border in the dead of night? With no papers? How do you do that? Easy- give them a way to get legal papers. But that solution isn't being talked about seriously. Why is that?
No, there's a way to immigrate legally to the United States. Believe it or not, there's been a big bureaucracy and government agencies created to do this very thing. That system is in place. Illegal aliens just don't want to do it.
No- I'm not about to give up Constitutional rights easily. I spent way too much time leaning them, thinking about them, and understanding them to simply turn them off in the name of law enforcement stops.
Law enforcement officers are people just like you and me. They have a job to do. So do I. I just hope they can do theirs within the bounds of the Constitution. When laws are passed which cross that line, I am going to speak up against it. That's just who I am.
Well, you are free to express your opinion but, frankly, cops don't care about your opinion other than making sure you are free to express it. Want to know what opinion matters (and this is key) when it comes to stops and the constitution? A judge's opinion. That's right, all that matters when it comes down to it is whether a judge believes there was probable cause. You don't have to hope a cop has probable cause, because, he's not endowed with it. That's why judges are there in law enforcement stops. You can't "give" probable cause to a cop. A judge determines if it was there or not. Need to go and watch Schoolhouse rock about the 3 branches of government/Checks and Balances again?
You got a better idea on how to solve the problem of illegal immigrants? I'm all ears. But simply saying you should pass laws to arrest them if they have cars up on blocks in their yard, or if too many of them are crammed into an apartment, is nothing more than
profiling, racism, and it's wrong.
