Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Taking Down Obama

The day after the 2008 elections I placed the front page of the Deseret News high on the wall of my class room. The majority of the page is filled with a picture of Barack Obama; arm extended in a wave or salute, below a huge headline – Obama Wins, “Change Has Come to America”. I put it up next to my pictures of Kenneth Starr, Horatio Hornblower, and George W. Bush on my wall of heroes. I told my students Obama would stay there until I knew whether he would be a hero or not. I am thinking of taking him down.

.

It has been a gradual process. For over a month now a flood of oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. For a long time this disaster did not seem to affect us directly, we were assured that it would be handled, given hope that it would soon be over, distracted by party politics and political partying. Now the slime is washing ashore, things are dying, the suffering has begun, and we are told there is nothing we can do but suffer the consequences of this obscene neglect. The Gulf Oil Spill is more than Obama’s Katrina, it is a metaphor for his presidency. A disaster we have been lulled into ignoring until, at last, the unrelenting and unstoppable filth fouls America from sea to shining sea.

.

Here are ten failures of Barack Obama:

  1. The failure to act to stop the Gulf Oil spill or to protect the American coast line from the oil slick now befouling the beaches and wetlands of the Gulf of Mexico.

  1. The Iran Hostage crisis. Three American hikers have been held for months in Iran – they are as much hostages as those of Carter’s disaster – yet Obama does nothing. At least Carter tried; Obama trumpets his weakness, America’s limitations.

  1. Iranian nuclear weapons. The fanatic Islamic rules of Persia beard Uncle Sam and beat us about the head – demonstrating to the world our impotence, while Obama holds out his hand. Obama looked the other way as Iranians demonstrating for their freedom were shot down in the streets of Tehran and continues to remain dumb as protestors are executed.

  1. The American Economy is far worse off than it was when Obama came to Washington. Unemployment at 10%, banks failing, trade in record imbalance, gasoline prices shooting back up, a debt that is four times that of the entire eight years of the Bush administration; the list goes on and on.

  1. North Korea commits open acts of war against our allies, confident that with Obama as Commander in Chief, they have nothing to fear from America.

  1. National Health care was crammed down the throats of the American people, ignoring their will, saddling the U.S. with a crushing entitlement this country cannot afford and spelling the end to American excellence in medical advancement and care.

  1. Failure of immigration policy. Ridiculing the state of Arizona’s attempt to curb an invasion of illegal aliens, Obama stands shoulder to shoulder with the President of Mexico as he condemns America for doing what Mexico and every other nation does to defend their national integrity.

  1. Failure in the War against Terrorism. The Obama Regime remains impotent in its actions against the mounting terrorist assault on America. They failed to deter the murder of 13 American service men in Texas, lucked out with the Christmas Day panty bomber and the Times Square truck bomber.; Obama emboldens our enemies by playing word games, tying the hands of our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and bringing aid and comfort to the Taliban by promising to desert our Afghan allies within the year.

  1. They offered a bribe to Joe Sestak and now refuse to answer questions about it in a way that would make Nixon blush. Remember Blagojevich?

  1. Shutting down the manned space program. Turning the exploration of the last frontier over to the Russians and placing the space station and the future of science in the hands of our enemies.

The relentless spew of failure creeps in with the tide. I am forced to wonder if it is time to take my picutre of Barakd Obama down from my wall of heroes and consign him to the wall of shame, along with Bill Clinton, Saddam Hessian, and the Three Stooges.

64 comments:

constantia said...

I would vote for the move. A president who fails to perform his duty the hours of his county's need, and belittles the nation he is sworn to protect is hardly a definition of heroism, no matter what his political views. I agree.

Dan said...

I'll just make one point.

To your #7.

AZ's law is ridiculous, and should be abhorred by all who have a problem with racism.

Lysis said...

constantia,

It’s great to get your comment. I am inclined to agree with you. I’m looking for a place to fit him in a little closer to the floor.

Dan,

You do NOT make a point! You give no support let alone justification for your claim that the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 should be abhorrent on grounds of racism. Have you read it? It seems unlikely, in view or your comments. I have read it carefully.

It is not ten pages long – it is sixteen. Most of those do not relate directly to unauthorized aliens. From page 6 on, beginning with Section 6, the text deals almost entirely with employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. (I note that this is one of the things Obama claims needs to be done.) The law is full of protections and constant references to federal laws already in place. In fact all enforcement appears to be tied to administering already existing federal laws. Two length sections are specifically written to prevent entrapment.

Unauthorized Alien is specifically defined in Sec. 5 E. 2 – “ ‘Unauthorized alien’ means an alien who does not have the legal right or authorization under federal law to work in the United States as described in 8 united states code section 1324a 9h0 930.”

The only reference to race in the law, that I could find, is from Sec. 6 on lines 28 & 29 of page 6. “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color, or national origin.

The Law Arizona Senate Bill 1070 seems to have these goals:

1. To insure existent federal laws are enforced and that no jurisdiction in the state be allowed to ignore enforcement of these federal laws.

2. To require courts to enforce federal law.

3. To define terms.

4. To outline penalties and provide for their increasing severity for repeated violation.

5. To prevent the exploitation of workers and children.

6. To control drug and gun trafficking.

7. To end the smuggling of humans beings for profit or commercial purpose.

8. To prevent racial profiling

9. To utilize already existing federal agencies such as ICE and to require the implantation of already existent federal laws relating to the employment of unauthorized aliens.

10. To prevent entrapment of employers by overzealous law enforcement officers or their agents.

11. To prevent frivolous complaints.

12. To support the implementation of already existent e-verify programs.

13. To provide emergency exemptions to punishment.

14. To provide funding to fight gangs and support immigration intelligence teams.

Lines 20 – 24 on page 16 are instructive:

“B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of the United States citizens.”

It amazes me that political hacks in the Obama regime and others, who pretend to have some authority or credibility on this subject, continue to make outlandish claims of racism against Arizona and this law. This is cold blooded political opportunism. Confident that the stupid people who voted them or theirs into office will never read or attempt to understand the truth, they make unsubstantiated claims to stir fear and hate in order to garner power. They are the racists and the exploiters of racial hate. They are the evil ones in this case.

Dan, please read the law, and then provide some examples that support, what appears to me to be, a baseless accusation against something you seem to know nothing about. I would love to be corrected.

Dan said...

You say you would love to be corrected. I highly doubt that considering the flame with which you responded to me.

You make a few assumptions.

1) That I know nothing about the law. I have read it, in its entirety, and I do know something about statutory interpretation, up to and including having crafted statute that is now on the books.

2)I 'pretend to have some credibility' as quoted from you on those who proclaim this bill is racist. Well, I have a J.D. I work with statute every day, I have read this statute in its entirety. Whether we agree or disagree at the end, I believe claiming I have no credibility at the least strains common sense.

But lets get to the meat of the statute. It reads:

"B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

Now, lets look at some terms. First, lawful contact. This means any contact of any type with a law enforcement officer. Traffic stop, officer comes to your home for any number of reasons, officer stops to talk to you on the street, again for any number of reasons. Up to here we are fine, I am incredibly pro-cop and prosecution, I have never had trouble with stops etc., Terry v. Ohio is one of my favorite SCOTUS rulings.

Then we move on to reasonable suspicion. It is here that we run into trouble. Here is where we have a judgement call by the law enforcement officer. Lets look at an example by an incredibly pro AZ bill journalist with the Washington Examiner.

"Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status."

Seems fine right? Okay, what if the people in the car are white, and in their teens? Is the cop going to detain them to determine their immigration status? Of course not. So then there must be one more variable beyond what this journalist has laid out. Overloaded car, smuggling corridor, speeding, evasive, no id....hmmm. I wonder what that one more variable could possibly be that would give that cop reasonable suspicion.

Please, show my how stupid I am. Give me a variable that goes in that equation that isn't a) skin color, or b) grasp of the English language.

Once an individual is arrested for any other crime, I have zero problem with their immigration status being checked. None. But at this stage in the stop, the only thing that the cop would have to go on would be race/ethnicity. You can list out all the other things, but again, I would love you to give me any list of variables that a cop would get reasonable suspicion over that does not have to include race/ethnicity.

Dan said...

Okay, so, now we have our basis. I have read the law, so you can quit being condescending on that note. And, I believe I have established that I do have some credentials when it comes to reading, interpreting and discussing statute, though you should have already known that, so maybe we can bypass all the vitriol on that basis.

I maintain. AZ's law should bother everyone who has a problem with racism. It doesn't, because I know several people who have big problems with racism, and don't seem to see the problem with this bill. My only conclusion is that not being as conversant with the legal terminology, or the nicities of criminal procedure, they don't understand the racial ramifications. Or, maybe, as you claim of me, many of these people who have no problem with the bill merely get their opinions from the Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's of the world.

Clearly, you have read the bill. So I await your answer to my posed question. And, I'll do you the courtesy of not declaring you must be stupid, corrupt, or unqualified to speak on the subject merely because we disagree. Maybe you can do the same.

Reach Upward said...

I won't comment on the AZ law, except to say that our nation has a severe problem with its immigration system. I think that most Americans simply want a rational system that actually works.

While I welcome removing Pres. Obama from the wall of heroes until such time as he proves himself to actually merit such a position, there are darn few politicians that I think should ever be considered for such an honor.

There is a hunger among the electorate for human saviors. Politicians step up to claim the title, seeking to meet demand. While they hide behind the facade of "doing what's best for the country," politicians are no less likely to be driven by avarice and hunger for power than the corporatists that they so often lambaste. (And from whom they constantly beg campaign funding.)

Nearly all politicians are driven chiefly by their craving to satisfy their own personal desires. To ignore this fact is to ignore reality. Very few that take on the role of politician can honestly be called heroes. Most that are billed as such are very good self promoters.

There are a few politicians that actually have done heroic things. Very few.

constantia said...

okay, it looks like we have a few different arguments to respond to here.
First, on the wall of heroes.
Personally I am a big supporter of placing politicians on the wall of heroes. We aught to be putting people of good standing into office, and those people who we support as our leaders should be the closest thing to heroes that we can find in our communities. Whether you voted in the current president or not, he has been declared a hero by the majority of Americans in this respect. As such, I also believe that the President should be considered a hero until we are given sufficient evidence to prove him otherwise.

constantia said...

In regards to the immigration debate: Dan, I can see why the bill causes worries in the public about racism. However, I have two responses to your concerns.
First (and I admit weakly) there are plenty of illegal immigrants that come from other countries, and federal regulations respond to this by requiring that even the white people in your example be checked if they exhibit other criteria
Second, reasonable suspicion is a part of our daily lives. we have no complaints about profiling if i seem suspicious and an officer asks to search my car, I see no difference in this situation BECAUSE the preconditions for the check are the conditions surrounding the stop. it's one thing if the officer makes a decision to check immigration status because of the race of a person, it is quite another to meet someone and check their status based on behavior. i think we are really sensitive about this issue, but the legal causation for a immigration check makes a lot of sense to me. by all means, though, I would love the discussion.

Lysis said...

Dan,

I would love to be corrected – I ‘m waiting.

First – I didn’t say you didn’t know anything. I said you SEEM to know nothing about the Arizona law. My assumption was based on the FACT that you gave nothing to support your claim that it was a “racist law”. You have now given an argument or at least a explanation for your claims.

Second – I did not say your lacked credibility. I said that political hacks in the Obama regime and others make outlandish claims about the Arizona law for political purposes. If that was the intent of your original unsubstantiated claim, you are the judge of that, not me.

The criticism you finally present boils down to the words “reasonable suspicion”; let’s conceder that concern.

First note, in section E, lines 37 – 39 of the same page you sight above, it also states that: “A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PORBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.”

I feel that “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are justifiable reasons for an officer to act. All actions of law enforcement justly proceed within these constraints.

You present Mr. Kobach’s a hypothetical. Hardly an argument “in fact”, but let’s consider it. Why would a bunch of white teens in an overloaded, speeding car with a driver acting evasively be free of suspicion? Sounds like a probable child sex exploitation ring to me. It would be perfectly reasonable for the law officer to demand documentation - and if they could not produce any, he should detain them until they can, to do otherwise would be gross negligence on the part of the police. You, or perhaps Mr. Kobach, are the ones who injects race into the equation. It is not necessary.

A second thought: why would a car load of “white kids” care if they were asked to show they were Americans? Why would a car load of brown Americans mind? Producing identification is not a violation of any human right I can think of. I produce identification every time I buy gas or a book at Barns and Noble. And if this car load of white kids turned out to be South Africans in the U. S. without authorization, they should suffer the full penalty proscribed by the federal laws enacted to defend our nation.

Mexican is not a race; it is a nationality. I believe Mexicans come in all colors, and speak an assortment of languages. In the United States, one can speak any language they choose, they can be any color.

Just a question; I am forced to wonder how indigent Mr. Kobach and his ilk are over racial profiling in pursuit of affirmative action. I wonder if those who are stirring the race hate pot are consistent in their outrage. So you won’t need to ask; I agree with the Supreme Court that race can be considered as one of several factors in making REASONABLE decisions regarding opportunities in certain narrow circumstances.

I would not call you stupid. I said that people who buy the lie that the purpose of Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” is to attack anyone because of their race are stupid and that their stupidity is being exploited by Obama and his flunkies in order to get votes. I remind you that the law twice states that, “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color, or national origin.”

Lysis said...

Dan,

I am glad you have read the law – that puts you ahead of the Secretary of Home Land Security and the Attorney General of the United States. I am still waiting for any of you to provide a reasonable argument why Senate 1070 should bother anyone who has a problem with racism. So far you have only provided racial ramifications that are in your own head.

To put things in context of my post: whether the Arizona law is raciest of not – Barack Obama has done nothing to secure the boarder or to solve the illegal immigration problem that threatens our country. Sending a dribble of unarmed national guardsmen to the boarder is another political ploy. I wonder how these guardsmen are going to enforce any kind of boarder if they are not allowed to act reasonable in the face of probable cause.

Finally, I would rather spend the afternoon in a dentist’s chair than listen for a minuet to either Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck.

Dan said...

1) Besides the driver, Lysis, no one in a car when it is stopped has any legal obligation to have id.

2) Reasonable Suspicion, and Probable Cause are two distinct, and very different levels of legal protection. I have no problem with probable cause being used in this equation, because that means they can be arrested. By all means, check someone's immigration status after they have been arrested.

3) You comment, "Why would a bunch of white teens in an overloaded, speeding car with a driver acting evasively be free of suspicion? Sounds like a probable child sex exploitation ring to me. It would be perfectly reasonable for the law officer to demand documentation - and if they could not produce any, he should detain them until they can, to do otherwise would be gross negligence on the part of the police."

Here is where it is clear that you are not familiar with reasonable suspicion and what requirements and abilities it entails. A cop is not allowed to 'detain' someone for the length of time you speak of without probable cause. Second, having an overloaded car, that is speeding, and the teens don't have any id isn't reasonable suspicion of anything on its own, it would have to have another variable.

You say you think its suspicious of a sex exploitation ring, beyond the fact that I'm not sure where that leap in logic comes from, that is a different crime. I asked you what variable would have to be added to this example to give reasonable suspicion of illegal status. There is not one that can be added that isn't racial profiling (your argument that Mexican isn't a race is a straw man, I don't believe there is such thing as race period, as many anthropologists argue, only cultures and ethnicities, but in this country targeting someone because they are hispanic would be racial profiling.)

Dan said...

Constantia I would ask you a question.

What behavior gives reasonable suspicion of immigration status? You say you are fine with it because it is used every day. I agree, reasonable suspicion is a standard that is used everyday. Not for arrests.

It should bother you if a cop is using someone's ethnicity as suspicion of a crime.

I reask my question, as it has yet to be answered. What would be reasonable suspicion of illegal status? In what way would a cop come to this conclusion without taking into account ethnicity? If you can come up with a way that can happen, then it is not a racist law, if you cannot, the law is racist.

Lysis said...

Reach,

That some politicians appeal to the mob for base motives does not mean that there are not many who seek to serve their country for noble and just reasons. I am inclined to agree with Cicero, himself a politician – senator and consul – said, “. . . let us regard those who theorize about ethical principles [Reach Upward] as great men, which indeed they are; let us grant that they are scholars and teachers of truth and moral excellence, provided we acknowledge the fact that this other branch of study [politics] is by no means contemptible. . .” There have been many other of my heroes who were in politics, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Winston Churchill come to mind at once. I recall that even Joseph Smith ran for president and Brigham Young was Governor or Utah. I have recently, as you know, received great service from my congressmen, and I will be forever grateful that George W. Bush chose politics. I would argue that most politicians are inspired by a desire to serve their fellow men. It is true that many become corrupt, but this is also true of business men, teachers, even religious leaders. I will choose my heroes by their actions not by their choice of profession. I think “Constantia” has made a good point and we must evaluate the motives of voters as well as leaders.

constantia,

I am particularly impressed with your arguments on the immigration debate. As the police officers are expressly forbidden to act solely on race and prosecutors forbidden to act without probable cause beyond race, it seems to me that the attack on this statute is race bating, fear mongering, and politics of the kind of which we should be ashamed.

Dan said...

Finally, Lysis, my post isn't a defense of Obama. You are right, nothing has been done to fix the problem. Nothing has been done through the last 3 presidents.

The last president to do anything was Reagan, a great president, who signed amnesty legislation. If the system of entry had been fixed at that point so that those who want to come legally can do it, and an increase in enforcement and border security had been put in place at that time we wouldn't have this problem.

Unfortunately, because people have become angry about this issue, they wish to make it worse, rather than fix it.

Lysis said...

Dan,

As for the sex ring – a bit of a stretch I will admit. Remember that no individual can be stop or an investigation without the probable cause of the commit ion of a public offense. The scenario you relate would come under Section 5, which deals directly with human smuggling. The provisions of the law relates to the smugglers. The crimes which they are committing are transport, concealment, and encouraging or inducement. It is the driver that the law seeks to punish. Your interpretation of racism would make it impossible for a police officer to apprehend human traffickers for any reason, so long as they had a valid driver’s license. If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a car load of people is being transported for any illegal purpose he has the obligation to intervene.

Lysis said...

Dan.

Oh, not quite finally.

I agree with you entirely on the final point you make. Stirring up anger has made this worse. A hero would fix it.

Dan said...

"Your interpretation of racism would make it impossible for a police officer to apprehend human traffickers for any reason, so long as they had a valid driver’s license."

Not true. Cops arrest people all the time for crimes such as this, and they do it without profiling.

This AZ law seeks to force cops to go one step further, and try to divine someone's immigration status from things that you can only observe. This is impossible to do, without making assumptions based upon ethnicity or how they speak.

"If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a car load of people is being transported for any illegal purpose he has the obligation to intervene."

True. Completely. Fortunately, race cannot be used for this. You can disagree, but thats the Constitution.

Dan said...

By the way. You can say all you want that you aren't accusing me of anything, but your words speak up to loudly.

"As the police officers are expressly forbidden to act solely on race and prosecutors forbidden to act without probable cause beyond race, it seems to me that the attack on this statute is race bating, fear mongering, and politics of the kind of which we should be ashamed."

I am not race bating, or fear mongering. But I will continue to attack this statute, because even if it says that cops 'cannot' use race, it sets forth requirements that leave no alternative.

Iasthai said...

Dan this bill is constitutional.
On constitutionality:

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Arizona law does not, as some have claimed, usurp that power. The Arizona law deals with those who are not naturalized and are here illegally.

Article I, Section 10 states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.". Arizona has been invaded by some half million foreign nationals, its citizens are being murdered by foreign nationals, Congress hasn't done squat to deal with the problem. Arizona is in "imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".

Article IV, Section 1, states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State".

Article IV, Section 4, states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion".

Article I, Section 9, states: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended , unless when in Cases of... Invasion the public Safety may require it.". Invading hoards of foreign nationals enjoy no special privileges or rights. They may be rounded up and detained as needed.

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Iasthai said...

Lysis,

Excellent post. I loved all of your examples.

Dan said...

Lasthai, your misunderstandings of the constitution are multitudinous, but I will answer each of those points you raise.

1) Keep reading section 8, it goes on to say the follwing, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States"

All laws necessary to carry out the federal governments role of naturalization, deciding who can and can't be here, who is legal or illegal, is a power vested specifically in the federal government.

You say AZ isn't usurping, because these people are here illegally, but its just that, AZ doesn't get to make that call, the feds decide who is and isn't here legally, and they are the ones who enforce it.

2) The words used in that section have actual meaning, you can't just say hey, invasion, hey imminent danger. There are murders that have happened in AZ, as part of the drug trade. The two are not connected, it is a logically fallicy to say some drug trafficers are illegal, therefore, illegals are drug trafficers. AZ has every right and power to fight against murder, kidnapping, drug trafficing, human trafficing, etc.., unlawful entry is not a crime, there are no criminal punishments affixed, or possible. Invasion, in terms of war, is a specific word, you can't just bandy it about. Imminent danger has specific meanings. What, I ask, is the imminent danger to AZ?

3) Please explain what your point is with the full faith and credit clause, not sure where you are headed with that one.

4) Again, Invasion has specific meaning. If we are to assume you are correct, then that would mean AZ can declare war against Mexico? Honduras? someone I guess, that still doesn't mean they gain powers over immigration or naturalization. Also, this section speaks to what the feds will do for the state, protect them, not what the state can do.

5) Undocumented individuals enjoy all the rights under the Constitution, you are just flat out wrong, that has long been decided. Plus, that section is about limits on Congress, not powers given to the States, so its not only wrong, but irrelevant.

6) These powers are specifically delegated in the Constitution, so the tenth ammendment does not apply.

Lysis said...

Lasthai,

Thank you for your analysis. The interesting thing about the American Judicial system is that everything is open to interpretation. Hence, Dan – a trained jurist – can claim that “reasonable suspicion” equals racism and therefore invalidates a law which bends over backwards to avoided racism, and you can list powerful Constitutional support for the same law. I imagine this law will go to the Supreme Court, and the court and the country will be divided on whatever decision they come to.

Dan,

When I point out that police officers could not apprehend human traffickers for any reason under your stipulations; you said, “Not true. Cops arrest people all the time for crimes such as this, without profiling.”

This is my point exactly. When a policeman stops a car full of people for driving erratically he can look for reasonable suspicion of other crimes. If he were looking for teenage sex slaves and the car is full of a bunch of old men with fishing gear, he would not have a reason to question them further, but if they displayed the signs of being a sex peddler and his wares, he would be justified in examining the situation more closely. I don’t know what the signs of sex peddlers are – a police man would.

If the same policeman were looking for a coyote smuggling unauthorized workers from Mexico, he would be justified in examining the occupants of the car legally pulled over to determine if they fit the description of unauthorized workers. If he were in Arizona that reasonable description might – and I admit that I am not trained in this so I don’t know – but might, as you suggest be that they are Mexicans. The policeman could be a Mexican/American himself. How would he then gather probable cause to investigate a human trafficking crime? If the people on the car appear to be Mexicans – for example, they don’t speak English – he could surely ask to see their identification without being a racist. If they could not produce any documentation, he would have probable cause to continue his investigation until he was satisfied.

As you say, policemen do this all the time to stop similar crimes.

If the car load of people proves to be legal residents or citizens of the United State, they will go on their way. The car load of young ladies would have to undergo the same sort of scrutiny, they would not have to prove anything about their race; they only had to prove they weren’t sex slaves. The Spanish speaking people in the car would not have to prove anything about their race; just that they were not undocumented aliens. Innocent people had nothing to fear – and as you say, guilty ones are arrested all the time for crimes without profiling on racial basis.

Would it be humiliating for chaste young women to be required to give evidence that they are not a sex slave? Perhaps, but if such crimes are reduced by such investigations, reasonable people will reasonably accept the nuisance. Could it be humiliating for American Citizens to prove their legal status, perhaps, but if it stopped the enormous evil of human smuggling; surely, all reasonable people will respond with reasoned support.

Lysis said...

Dan,

You point out that it is impossible to determine someone’s legal status form what one can observe. I agree; therefore officers of the law must be allowed to go further. Even as it is impossible to ascertain weather someone is a pimp or sex slave based solely on what one can observe, thus there must be further steps. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are at play in both situations, race is not.

There are those who assume that everything involving minorities is racially motivated, there are also those who use the “race card” as a trump for anything they are trying to avoid. This tactic is particularly effective against those who are driven by “political correctness”.

There are also those who use accusations of racism as a bludgeoned to batter their political opposition and a whip to drive the ignorant into action and support for their ends.

The first year I taught school, 8th grade U. S. history, I had a beautiful black girl as a student. It was impossible for me not to notice she was black. It was also impossible to give her a passing grade. Her mother came to see me in a conference. Before I had a chance to show her, her daughters missing work and failed tests, she squinted at me across the desk. “You’re pretty young to be a raciest,” she said. I was flabbergasted. For weeks I had struggled to motivate and facilitate her child, and yet this woman’s only explanation of her daughter’s failure was that I was a raciest. Mindless! Fortunately, I had plenty of documentation to demonstrate the real reasons for the daughter’s F and the mother was sensible enough to accept the facts.

We are not a color blind society. We exalt in the election of a black president, we count the color and gender of his cabinet and tally the ethnicity of justices of the Supreme Court and of our congressmen. Our textbooks revel to reveal the race of “great” men and women of the past, from Harriet Tubman to Alexander Dumas. Is this racism? Millions of Americans take pride in their racial and ethnic heritage, love their cultures, however reconstructed, or delve into those we admire. Is this racism?

I say NO!

Racism has to do with hating, with hurting people because of their race; with treating one group unfairly.

Is racial profiling racism? At the airport everyone must be screened to prevent hijackings. Is this a good idea? Should everyone in Arizona be required to prove their legal status? Why not?

I’ll think some more.

By the way; I accept that you are not race-baiting. I continue to maintain that you fail to see legitimate ways in which the law can be enforced without racism. But many who fully understand the truth, or who have neither read the law or tried to understand it are using racism to garner political power and frighten people for their own ends.

Dan said...

The problem, Lysis, is that in this country we are not required to carry 'papers', or any other form of identification. If a car load of white people were pulled over, in a human trafficking zone, and only the driver had id, the lack of id is not reasonable suspicion, or probable cause (two completely different standards under the law that you keep interchanging).
In the same vein, a car load of hispanics are not required to have id, if that is the reason that a cop detains them, then he is doing it because the are hispanic, not having id is not illegal or proof of anything.

Dan said...

We are arguing in circles about reasonable suspicion. A policeman must have reasonable suspicion to detain an individual long enough to determine their status in this statute. Never before has reasonable suspicion been good enough to detain for this amount of time. Before its been probable cause to arrest.

Again, I have no problem with checking into someone's status if they have been arrested.

But, when you can't even raise the level of proof to probable cause, I don't believe people should be detained.

What you are talking about here isn't a crime. Unlawful entry is a civil rule the feds have in place. There are no criminal penalties available. This is civil enforcement, which local law enforcement shouldn't be involved in.

Crimes like human trafficking, go ahead. But this is civil work, and not for local cops.

Lysis said...

Dan,

First, you are the one who says that, “cops arrest people all the time for crimes such as this without profiling.” How do they do it?

Second, I am not confusing reasonable suspicion with probable cause, I understand that reasonable supposition is a step in developing probable cause. You are the lawyer, help me if I am wrong in this.

**Let us suppose that an epidemic of child sexual exploitation is sweeping a jurisdiction. A police officer stops a car for legitimate cause, erratic driving, and finds it filled with young girls being transported by a driver without any identification; the cop is reasonably suspicious that he has found a car load of young sex slaves. What does he do next?**

Third, I am not claiming, nor does the law claim that any law enforcement officer or agency will be demanding people to produce papers simply to prove they are Americans.. The crime here is human trafficking, and the person who will be held accountable is the trafficker, not the “cargo”. Like the young girls in the sex slaver’s car – they are victims. They should be returned to their homes.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
constantia said...

Dan, 
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in the company of many illegal immigrants? I can think of a lot of things that I have noticed while living in Arizona that give people away as Illegal Immigrants. there is an attitude of evasiveness that goes well beyond a normal, government-distrusting citizen of the United States. Not knowing English could be a start to suspicion, but there are plenty of variables that define one as Illegal. In fact, I would bet that most people in the state of Arizona could point out with some degree of certainty the illegal immigrants as opposed to legal ones. 
especially if illegals know that during routine traffic stops their immigration status is going to be questioned, it will be flagrantly obvious that they have something to hide from the officer. 
as a second point. While in Korea, I lived under racial profiling very day. It really was not a problem to have people ask me all the time whether I was in the country legally. it caused me a few extra seconds of pulling out my identification, but no real problems. We are a more diverse country here, and I realize that, but what we are talking about is asking for someones driver's license or (more likely) green card (which, by the way they are legally obligated to have on them at all times anyway) I go almost nowhere without a license. I am sure most of you are the same. It really is not that big of a problem in my mind.

constantia said...

Dan, 
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in the company of many illegal immigrants? I can think of a lot of things that I have noticed while living in Arizona that give people away as Illegal Immigrants. there is an attitude of evasiveness that goes well beyond a normal, government-distrusting citizen of the United States. Not knowing English could be a start to suspicion, but there are plenty of variables that define one as Illegal. In fact, I would bet that most people in the state of Arizona could point out with some degree of certainty the illegal immigrants as opposed to legal ones. 
especially if illegals know that during routine traffic stops their immigration status is going to be questioned, it will be flagrantly obvious that they have something to hide from the officer. 
as a second point. While in Korea, I lived under racial profiling very day. It really was not a problem to have people ask me all the time whether I was in the country legally. it caused me a few extra seconds of pulling out my identification, but no real problems. We are a more diverse country here, and I realize that, but what we are talking about is asking for someones driver's license or (more likely) green card (which, by the way they are legally obligated to have on them at all times anyway) I go almost nowhere without a license. I am sure most of you are the same. It really is not that big of a problem in my mind.

constantia said...

AND, border patrol does ask me, a white american college student, if I am an illegal alien every time they stop me at the border. so there aught to be something more to it than race...unless I really am that tan.

truth to power said...

OK, so Lysis says they'll only be checking the drivers, not the passengers. Since drivers are already (and the only ones) required to carry ID, we can just set aside traffic stops as an issue. So now it's really about stopping pedestrians.

Back in school they told us how black South Africans under apartheid were required to carry their documents, and told us how blessed we were to live in a country where you're free to walk down the street without ID. Every US citizen--no matter how we look or speak--has this right. Arizona now proposes to strip it away. If the new law's opponents are right, then it's only being taken from those who look or talk a certain way. If Lysis is right, then it's being taken away from every citizen in Arizona.

Lysis also says, "I am not claiming, nor does the law claim that any law enforcement officer or agency will be demanding people to produce papers simply to prove they are Americans."

I see the following in capital letters on the very first page of the statute:

"For any lawful contact...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is [illegal], a reasonable attempt shall be made...to determine the immigration status of the person."

If you're a citizen, producing papers to prove it is exactly what the law contemplates.

Lysis said...

Constantia,

I think you have made your point with Dan. "Qui tacet cosentit." There are other prompts to raise suspicion of a person’s unlawful presence than race. Nor is asking someone to prove legal status an inappropriate action. I have also been required to carry papers while a in a foreign country. While in Japan, I had a companion who was Japanese by ancestry, but an American by birth. He also carried his papers, and was not incensed by the requirement.

Truth to power,

Nice to hear from you.

There will be no stopping of pedestrians. The contact made by law enforcement officials or agents must be lawful. Random search of folks on their way to the ice cream parlor is not lawful.

If we have lost the “blessed” opportunity to commit crimes without ID, we must blame the masses of illegal aliens who are threatening our country. As a young man I carried my draft card everywhere. I am not sure why, but I felt I had to. I did not feel oppressed.

You do need to finish that “capital lettered paragraph” you quote from the first page. “The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373 ( c )” Where is the condemnation of the federal statue? Non existent because the attack on the Arizona Law is a race batting attack on Republican dominated Arizona to give political power to Democrats.

Dan said...

"There will be no stopping of pedestrians."

This is naive, and proves what I have been saying, you do not understand the law enforcement process.

Lawful Contact, does not mean when someone has clearly broken the law. Law enforcement can have contact with people for all sorts of reasons. Terry v. Ohio, that I pointed to in my first post, was about contact with a pedestrian.

"If we have lost the “blessed” opportunity to commit crimes without ID"

No, what is lost is the blessed right to not have to carry papers at all times. This isn't about committing crime, if it was, you wouldn't need the reasonable suspicion, the person would already be arrested, and you could do whatever you wanted to determine identity.

"Where is the condemnation of the federal statue? "

"c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information."

I don't have any problem with that federal statute.

Constantia, yes. When I served my mission in Texas, illegals and legals were interspersed with one another in the hispanic parts of town. There was no way to tell the difference. Any person from AZ that says they can tell the difference by looking at them is a liar, plain and simple.

To Constantia, and Lysis. Just because you both lived in areas were you were required to produce papers, and live under racial profiling doesn't make it right. Just because you two, two white males, have no problem with cops racial profiling, doesn't make it right. And just because you continue to say that pointing to legitimate problems with a law that would require racial profiling is race bating, doesn't make it true.

Dan said...

"it will be flagrantly obvious that they have something to hide from the officer."

But what is it they are hiding? In a traffic stop? Most people are nervous in traffic stops, people may be more nervous for any number of reasons, multiple tickets, unpaid tickets, drugs in the car, other crimes that are attempted to be hidden, etc.. I remember the first time I ever got pulled over I was incredibly scarred, and problem seemed evasive, nervous, all sorts of things. Good thing the Constitution doesn't allow the cop to arrest me for 'nervousness', since he has to have actual reasonable suspicion that I have done something specific, not just acted nervous.

Reasonable suspicion has to be for 'a' crime, not for 'any' crime.

Lysis said...

Dan:
.
Terry v Ohio - 1968
.
Held:
.
1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9.
2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 12.
3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15.
4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.
(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.
(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.
5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.
(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.
(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.
(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.
(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.
6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.
(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.
(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.
7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.

Lysis said...

Dan,

I am particularly interested in 6. (b)

“The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons.”

And you claiming I am the naïve one? I, at lease, can tell the difference between a weapon and a green card. It the law and the ruling is Terry v Ohio both preclude any kind of demand to see papers based on race alone would not be reasonable. The Law specifically forbids investigations of “complaints that are based solely on race, color of national origin.”

What makes asking people to prove their citizenship racial profiling? The point I was trying to make, and that I feel Constantia was implying is that being asked to show your papers is not the same thing as being required to show a pass from an apartheid homeland. Nor are American Citizens of any color or an level of language competence have their rights violated in any way if asked to show such documentation, once they have been Lawfully stopped and there is reasonable suspicion that they are an alien unlawfully present in the United States. All they will have to do is provide evidence.

Because evil people have demanded papers for evil purposes does not mean that requiring identification for a justifiable reason is evil. Because fire can burn down the forest it does not mean that those who use fire are destroyers of forests, because guns can be used to murder does not mean that all who carry guns are murderers. The reasonable examples are endless.

I am interested in this right not to carry ID. Where is that delineated? What are the boundaries set on it? I’m told I have to provide ID every time I buy a pack of cigarettes. Where is the boycott against such abuse of human rights? I have yet to hear Obama decry such an outrage.

You mention a multitude of crimes that could make people nervous at a traffic stop. How many of them are the police allowed to investigate, once they have pulled you over for breaking the law? How silly to claim that such people will be arrested for being nervous. They will be arrested if they are there is probable cause for committing any of the crimes you list. Unlike apartheid South Africa, neither being nervous in a car nor being brown in the wrong side of town is a crime in America. That is a significant difference that those who are using fear and distortion to gin up political power hide with hyperbole and those who are captivated by political correctness pretend does not exist.

constantia said...

lysis, exactly.
dan, the point is that if i was asked to show that I am not an illegal immigrant, the officers were NOT racially profiling, unless you believe that they were profiling against white males who immigrated illegally into Arizona. Personally, though, I do not think that is likely.
these officers are doing their jobs. They ask now about immigration status at federal checkpoints, and no one has complained until this law.

"people may be more nervous for any number of reasons, multiple tickets, unpaid tickets, drugs in the car, other crimes that are attempted to be hidden,"
are not all of these things illegal? I would hope that an officer in the face of any of this is smart enough to make inquiries into the legality of those actions. If illegal immigration be among those statuses, I have no problem with that.

"Any person from AZ that says they can tell the difference by looking at them is a liar, plain and simple."--ouch. I am not saying I am 100 percent accurate. but I will tell you that there are differences in lifestyles and actions that tend to be correlated with illegally living somewhere.

Anonymous said...

Jeff said . . .

Lysis and Dan,

I have quite enjoyed the thread. I am entering late. I don't want to cover ground that has already been covered. It seems to me that this conversation glaringly lacks one point.

The Federal Government has refused to enforce our borders! The Federal government continues to refuse to enforce our borders!

Arizona's respone is in desperation. Something has to be done. I appauld Arizona for their attempt to maintain our national soverignty. I am tired of polititians, lawyers and racist organizations who seek to use race as a method to divide and conquer.

Americans do have to carry papers. Every employer in the U.S. is required to submit completed I-9 forms (proof of citizenship) for each employee. You can't legally get a job without a driver's licence and a social security card.

I am tired of living under circumstances where those who obey are punished, and those who disobey laugh when they are questioned about their disobedience and respond with "you can't question me. If you do, you are a racist."

Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama have made a living (and a pretty good one at that) by playing the race card. It will only end when the majority of the American people reach the point I have and draw the line in the sand.

I have no issue with profiling. I've shown my papers. I'm working two jobs so that my government can take that money under the guise of "fairness" and give it to someone else who is sitting at home, or who will be paid for a government job that he was offered in order to persuade him not to be a political competitor.

Why do we have a law if we are not willing to enforce it? Hurray for Arizona. I hope the other 49 follow suite.

truth to power said...

"Unlike apartheid South Africa, neither being nervous in a car nor being brown in the wrong side of town is a crime in America. That is a significant difference that those who are using fear and distortion to gin up political power hide with hyperbole and those who are captivated by political correctness pretend does not exist."

Captivated by political correctness?! It's always funny to me how my progressive friends think I'm a right-wing nutjob and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal wiener. As for political correctness, I have no problem calling illegals from south of the border "wetbacks". I complain all the time about the proliferation of illegal immigration. But even their presence here isn't a crime--outside of Arizona.

However, the big deal for me is the tremendous weakening of the rules that protect Americans from bad police. Not that I'm afraid of lawful contact with Arizona's finest myself--I'm a gringo.

The two jobs I have held since 1999 have both involved daily personal contact--face-to-face, on the phone, and by mail--with Hispanic people. There's been a good mix of citizens, legal aliens, and mojados (they nearly always come right out and tell me their status). In other words, I have a lot of experience with all three categories.

I have no idea how constantia's magical wetback radar works. With all the experience I have, I can guarantee you I would perform no better than chance in a random test. Constantia's "Not knowing English could be a start to suspicion" reads like bigotry, but is probably just ignorance. There is no language requirement for legal entry, and the language requirements for naturalization are not, shall we say, stringent. Indeed, plenty of native-born citizens of the first couple of generations have a poor grasp of English. As for "evasiveness", guess what? Hispanic Americans distrust the police more than Anglos. Don't we all know why? There's no reason for that distrust to affect only the wetbacks, especially if the police treat all Hispanics like wetbacks.

Constantia says, "I would bet that most people in the state of Arizona could point out with some degree of certainty the illegal immigrants as opposed to legal ones." In my informed opinion, this is utter hogwash. Granted, my experience is with people in California and Utah. Maybe there's something special about Arizona.

I really must insist on an answer to Dan's question: "What would be reasonable suspicion of illegal status? In what way would a cop come to this conclusion without taking into account ethnicity?"

If "being brown" has nothing to do with reasonable suspicion, what is it?

Lysis said...

It has been demonstrated by research and attested by long experience that schools that require uniforms better serve their students. Poor schools that adopt uniforms improve; so do good schools that do the same. With this in mind the administration at my children’s Junior High recommended to the community that their school adopt uniforms. A meeting was held. I was not in attendance; my wife represented our family and told me the tale.

The discussion became quite heated. It seems that many were convinced that uniforms would destroy the freedom and individuality of the students. This is, of course, ridiculous. The most free and individualistic group of young people I know wear uniforms 24/7 all summer long. If anything, uniforms allow those in them to develop other methods of displaying their uniqueness other than with their cloths. But the fact is the Nazis have given uniforms a bad name. One outspoken opponent was more than willing to ignore the evidence. He was convinced that if his child were to put on a uniform she would be transformed in to a Hitler Youth. The Nazis wore uniforms he snarled. My wife pointed that the guys who beat the Nazis wore uniforms too. Unfortunately it was too late for reason to prevail. Visions of Auschwitz and goose stepping jack boots filled the frightened minds in the room and the mob voted against reason and against their children’s education.

Fear comes when reason goes away.

truth to power said...

Your mother wears combat boots.

Lysis said...

Jeff,

You have come to the most cogent point. Obama, the Federal Government, all those who have the responsibility of maintaining our borders, have abrogated their responsibility. There are either no laws to protect or no will to enforce them. Thus, my original point about Obama’s failure and the political exploitation of Arizona’s attempt to do what the President and his cabinet refuse to even attempt. It is indeed like the oil spill in the gulf. Rather than deal with the problem they seek to vilify others and burry their on failure in a pile of prevarication.

I don’t think there is anything inherently evil in having to carry identification. If that is what it takes to protect our country, I am left to wonder why there is an issue.

As for your frustration at government job holders taking your hard earned money; last week the percent of American total income paid out to the public sector surpassed that earned in the private sector for the first time in history. Keep up the good work.

Truth to power,

I understand your challenge with your friends. At school I am considered a conservative and at church a liberal. I promise you I do not change.

I have also heard the idea that once one gets into America they are home free. If that is true, why do “illegals” have such fear of being detected? Why is there a danger that people will be deported? Are there no penalties of being in America without a visa? If not, why do we even issue green cards?

I have some more questions for you. Why would caring ID weaken the rules that protect Americans from bad police? Where are all these bad policemen anyway?

I think you paint with rather a broad stroke when you claim that “Hispanic Americans distrust the police more than Anglos.” Do they distrust them more than African Americans?

If every “legal” America carried an ID card, wouldn’t that preclude the wetback suspicion you claim so many police have and therefore the reason Hispanic Americans have for distrusting the police. If only wetbacks were without papers, wouldn’t that make for less suspicion of American Citizens of all color and language? This would also illuminate the “hogwash” you find in Constantia’s claim – no policeman would have to guess.

So far I see a lot of good and no real harm from requiring all American to establish and verify their citizenship. It would also eliminate the so called “suspicion of being brown” you seem to be so adverse to.

As for your last comment on my mother’s boots – I assume this is an “ad hominem” attack. In my experience, it that indicates one has nothing to say against the argument.

Dan said...

I saw his combat boots comment as an example of something that has nothing to do with the argument, kind of like your example of uniforms.

Dan said...

I'd love to see the part of the constitution that says if the feds don't fulfill their obligations to our standard, we can take back the power and vest it in the State. I must have missed that in all the classes and research I have done with and about the Constitution.

truth to power said...

The bit about the boots was a response to mirror the irrelevant piece on uniforms, Nazis, and fear. And now you have returned to the subject at hand--well done.

I have always been consistent in my frustration with the feds for making really bad immigration laws and failing to enforce them.

Why do illegals have such fear of being detected? Because the price is high, and the risk nonzero. In December 2006, for example, a well-coordinated raid captured hundreds at Swift & Company plants in Hyrum, Utah and five other states. Spouses and children of those illegal workers were left to fend for themselves. Such operations are few and far between, but they're well-publicized and successfully strike fear in the hearts of the wetbacks already here. They know they're not "home free".

"If only wetbacks were without papers, wouldn't that make for less suspicion of American Citizens of all color and language?"

Yes. And without "the right to remain silent", fewer criminals would escape punishment. Without the right to bear arms, we would have fewer gun deaths. Without freedom of speech, people would be offended less often.

I've never been interested in having a firearm, but I demand the preservation of the Second Amendment. I never leave the house without ID, but I'm not willing to give up the right to do so in order to help the local police catch violators of federal civil rules.

I make no claims about the prevalence of bad cops. I assume they're uncommon. But I'm grateful for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments all the same.

Lysis said...

Truth to power,

I would assume that the raid on Swift and Company etc. was carried out under the federal authority I mentioned above. I suggest you direct your anger against the feds, and particularly the President who consistently find themselves required to see that the laws of this country are faithfully executed.

I imagine the wives and children of drug pushers, of those who embezzle monies for local school districts, along with any number of the relations and friends of criminals of all stripes, find themselves in desperate straits – perhaps on the verge of heart break – when their kin face justice. What is your point? Because the families of criminals might be upset, we should stop enforcing the law?

Let me emphatically state that the fault that we have so many families in the situation you mention is that of the federal government. It has completely failed in its responsibility to maintain the integrity of our borders. I believe that something must be done to accommodate the 12+ million “illegals” who are already in the country. However, the border must be closed and laws put in place to make the situation manageable. I maintain that selective outrage against Arizona is irrational and politically motivated.

I take this chance to point out to you that the “right to remain silent” does not preclude the police from making arrests, asking questions, and proving guilt.

I have found the second amendment; it clearly states that the people have a right to bear arms. You have yet to point out to me the amendment guaranteeing my right to go about without ID. The forth and fifth amendments protect illegal aliens as well as all people wherever they come from when they come in contact with American Law officers. That will continue to be the case in Arizona after the 29th of July. Accepting, as I now do, that officers of the law have every right to proceed with their duties once they have a reasonable suspicion, I continue to beg with you, or our learned friend, to convince me otherwise.

Lysis said...

Dan and Truth,

I’m not surprised that you could not grasp the link between screaming racism over Arizona’s immigration law and screaming Nazi about wearing uniforms. My point, and I am confident many who read here at the Agora got it, is this: when people cannot give reason for their actions by logical support for their positions, they inevitably retreat to scare tactics. Reliant upon the ignorance of so many, they whip up emotions. Hence, unable to refute the facts about uniforms in schools, the opponents scream Nazi. Now when others cannot find any legitimate fault with Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”, they scream racism.

Dan,

You ask for the part of the Constitution which “says if the feds don’t fulfill their obligations to our standard, we can take back the power and vest it in the State”. Rather, let me suggest you examine the 10th Amendment. [Perhaps glossed over in your classes or research on the constitution.], and then point out to me where immigration responsibility is delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and where that power is prohibited to the states.

I did have a chance to speak to my lawyer. He suggests that states do have a right to check legal residency under the 10th amendment and that while states cannot kick illegals out of the country, they can detain anyone (note that detain is different from arrest) and require them to prove their legal status. This would be very simple, requiring no other documentation than a Social Security Number. All such a person needs to do is give their legitimate social security number. If they cannot prove legal residency they can, as the Arizona Law requires, be turned over to ICE.

My lawyer also points out that the federal statute allows federal agents to stop anyone at anytime with no other suspicion than one concerning legal status and require them to prove their citizenship. That, under these administrative powers, such federal offices can hold anyone, you or me included, for a reasonable amount of time until one can produce such proof, and hand those who can’t over to ICE for deportation. In fact the law obligates them to do so.

As in countless cases, Arizona’s law works in concert with federal law, and sets far higher standards on its enforcing officers. Remember, no state of local law officer in Arizona can become involved with anyone until there has been a legitimate interaction based on an infraction of another law.

Please show me where the federal immigration authority noted above originates in the constitution and show me where the outrage against it, in the press and the mob, for its far more intrusive powers granted to federal agents is.

**Section 8 of Article I does allow for uniform Rules of Naturalization [and to] make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers . . . ***

But show me why this should override the tenth amendment in this case. Since, (1 the state is not in any contradiction with the Federal Statue and (2 in fact embraces it, follows it, and relies upon it to enforce any action.

Dan said...

Well. This has officially gotten nowhere.

I understand you take 'your lawyer's' word over mine. You have continually belittled my knowledge of the law and statutory construction. Questioned my 'study' of the Constitution etc..

Thats fine. Please continue to ask the questions I have already answered, and ignore the questions I have asked.

You want this to be a political question, so you can draw you nice bright line in the sand and crow at the demise of a President you can't stand. I don't see it that way. You continue to call undocumented workers criminals, when there is no crime in being here undocumented. There is no reasoning with you, because you refuse to listen, you dodge, then come back again with the same questions that have been answered.

You may feel confident in your opinion, my hope is that some that read your blog may actual read the things that I posted, for more than just trying to find a quote here or there to fight about, but actually read the information given, without assuming that I am a stupid attorney that doesn't understand anything I have studied, as you clearly do.

Either way, this conversation has run its course. I rest my argument with the things I have already said, and the points I have already made. You can continue to characterize them as race bating, and politically motivated. I'll let people who read them judge for themselves. I stand by them.

Anonymous said...

Lysis,

Your profession is noble. Unfortunately, you are paid by the state of Utah and not the federal government. I appreciate the respect you give me for working so hard. It is, unfortunately, not enough. The cuts to your package are coming. It isn't leagal for Utah to print money. Only Obama has that right.

Isn't Utah the same state you work for, Dan?

Thank you for the complement about my point. It is apparent that Obama and the government have abrogated their responsibility to maintain our borders. The important question to ask now, is why?

The illegals represent a huge voting block. The democrats want those votes. The republicans want those votes. The democrats believe that the end justifies the means. The republicans seem to naively believe they can still capture that block. Lost in the debate is the best interest of the American people.

Dan and those who believe as he does fall right into the trap that the democrats lay. We argue about profiling rather than argueing and exposing why the Obama regime is unwilling to enforce our borders. I don't understand.

I do not suggest that our Constitution should be trodden upon. To the contray, the Constitution must be upheld as the law of the land. I don't care about profiling. It is not racist.

Have we forgotten how the times square bomber was apprehended? In his flight, he made it past every security checkpoint. He was on the plane, ready to flea the contry when a ticket agent profiled the man and notified authorities. The Obama regime sang its own praises upon his capture. Let him go! He was apprehended illeagaly! He was profiled!

If race is really the issue behind the regime's ploy to continue to ignore enforcement of our borders, the democrats need to be consistent. Affirmative action needs to be completely abolished. It is racist.

Dan falls into the trap the democrats have so carefully laid. Divide the people with silly argument while attempting to continue to step on their national soverignty and on the constitution. Fortunately, the people still have the ability to stop the madness. Even though I only have B.S. after my name, my vote and my opinion count as much as the J.D. that follows others.

Lysis said...

Dan,

First, for the record; I have great respect for your intellect and your accomplishments. I have watched you grow from boy to man and even falter myself in thinking that I have played some small roll in your remarkable growth and success. I rejoiced in your greatest accomplishment, marrying above yourself, and in the coming of your beautiful children. My legal education is pretty much restricted to reading “To Kill a Mocking Bird” and watching “Gideon’s Trumpet”.

In “To Kill a Mocking Bird” the children watch as Atticus and the county prosecutor clash inthe court room and then walk out arm in arm at the recess. Dill is confused; Scout, on the other-hand, accepts the clash of idea as the natural process of discovering the truth. If I challenged your comments – it was only in pursuit of truth.

In “Gideon’s Trumpet”, Abe Fortas explains to the Supreme Court that even the best of attorneys, Clarence Darrow for example, needs an attorney. My reference to “my lawyer” was meant as a complement to the difficulty of dealing with your arguments. I did not intend to belittle you.

Second, I would suggest you can dish it out but don’t seem to take it very well. I present some of your invectives against me and my opinions; I find them challenging. I do not choose to be personally affronted.

1. "AZ's law is ridiculous, and should be abhorred by all who have a problem with racism." (Here you argue that I have no problem with racism.)

2. "You say you would love to be corrected. I highly doubt that considering the flame with which you responded to me." (Here you doubt my sincerity and accuse me of a flaming response – what ever that means.)

3. "Okay, so, now we have our basis. I have read the law, so you can quit being condescending on that note." (Now I am accused of being condencending.)

4. "you should have already known that, so maybe we can bypass all the vitriol on that basis." (Me spew vitriol?)

5. "My only conclusion is that not being as conversant with the legal terminology, or the nicities of criminal procedure, they don't understand the racial ramifications. Or, maybe, as you claim of me, many of these people who have no problem with the bill merely get their opinions from the Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's of the world." (I suppose I am lumped in here with those who are not conversant with legal terminology and even worse - who watch Glenn Beck!)

Lysis said...

6. Here is where it is clear that you are not familiar with reasonable suspicion and what requirements and abilities it entails. (Who is it clear to?)

(your argument that Mexican isn't a race is a straw man, I don't believe there is such thing as race period, as many anthropologists argue, only cultures and ethnicities, but in this country targeting someone because they are hispanic would be racial profiling.) (My arguments are straw men?)

7. By the way. You can say all you want that you aren't accusing me of anything, but your words speak up to loudly. (Are you calling me a liar again?)

This is naive, and proves what I have been saying, you do not understand the law enforcement process. (And naïve?)

8. Any person from AZ that says they can tell the difference by looking at them is a liar, plain and simple. (More accusations of lies?)

9. Just because you two, two white males, have no problem with cops racial profiling, doesn't make it right. (You attack me on my race and accuse me of supporting racial profiling.)

10. I saw his combat boots comment as an example of something that has nothing to do with the argument, kind of like your example of uniforms. (Now my examples have nothing to do with the argument.)

11. You have continually belittled my knowledge of the law and statutory construction. Questioned my 'study' of the Constitution etc..
Thats fine. Please continue to ask the questions I have already answered, and ignore the questions I have asked. (Here you choose to ignore my repeated efforts to answer your questions and condemn me for questioning you.)

12. There is no reasoning with you, because you refuse to listen, you dodge, then come back again with the same questions that have been answered. (I can’t be reasoned with? What does that say about me? You accuse me of dodging and failing to recognize your answers.)


Dan, these comments don’t hurt my feeling, they serve to spice up the arguments, arguments that are aimed at finding the truth.

Lysis said...

Now to your most damning accusation against me – that I have not answered your questions.

1. The first question you ask is – if a police man stops a car load of white teens is he going to detain them to determine their immigration status? I answer, if they have committed another crime he can and should, I point out that at the air port all sorts of people are checked screened even though so far only one racial type seems prone to use planes as WMD.

2. You ask for a variable, other than skin color or language, which would lead to a police officer asking a criminal to prove his right to be in America. I answer, just ask every arrested criminal to give some ID. The Arizona law does not allow any demand of ID until after another reason for investigation has been established. (You say that you have zero problem with checking the immigration status of anyone arrested for any other crime. This is exactly what the Arizona Law requires. People cannot be stopped unless there is another crime involved.

3. You re-ask your question – What would be reasonable suspicion if illegal status? I re-answer; not having ID.

4. You ask which part of the constitution gives states the prerogative to challenge the federal government’s lack of enforcement of laws. (I suggested the 10th Amendment.)

It seems this is the only question you are asking. I keep answering and you refuse either to accept or refute my reply. Federal agents can ask anyone to prove legal status without any other crime in play, and you say you have no problem asking people who are involved in a crime the question. Since the Arizona law requires that some other infraction be involved I have trouble seeing your problem.

You point out that “what we are talking about here [being illegally in the US] is not a crime. Therefore checking ID to determine it is not finding anyone guilty of a crime – it is simply providing to turn such people over to the Federal Government. Of course I am forced to wonder, as a layman, why we call such people “illegal” aliens if their being here is not illegal.

Lysis said...

I would ask you to consider the questions I have asked you – which remain unanswered.

1. Why would a car load of white kids care if they were asked to show they were Americans?

2. Why would a car load of brown Americans [mind]?

3. Why is “racial profiling” tolerated in pursuit of affirmative action?

4. Why should SB1070 bother anyone who has a problem with racism?

5. What possible good is it going to do for Obama to send 1200 unarmed guardsmen to the Mexican Boarder?

6. How will guardsmen on the boarder be able to find reason for action beyond reasonable suspicion to question those they meet along the boarder.

7. How would a policeman get to the level of probable cause in investigating a human trafficking crime? There is no reasoning with you, because you refuse to listen, you dodge, then come back again with the same questions that have been answered.

8. Would it be humiliating for chaste young women to be required to give evidence that they are not sex slaves?

9. Would “humiliating” American Citizens in order to stop human smuggling be reasonable police action?

10. Is being aware of someone’s race when we study their role in the history of our Country racist?

11. Is racial profiling racism?

12. Is it a good idea to screen everyone, innocent as well as guilty, at the airport?

13. Why shouldn’t everyone in Arizona be required to prove their legal status (when involved in a crime)?

14. I understand that reasonable suspicion is a step in developing probable cause; can you help me understand why this supposition is wrong?

15. If a police office is suspicious that a crime is being committed, what does he do next?

16. What makes asking people to prove their citizenship racial profiling?

17. Just because evil people in South Africa demanded to see peoples papers under Apartheid, why does that make it always evil to ask for papers?

18. Where is the right not to carry ID delineated in the Constitution?

19. What are the boundaries set on such ID checking?

20. Where are the protests against the Federal Government for demanding people produce their papers?

21. Where are the boycotts against America for federal ID checks?

22. Of the multitude of crimes that make people nervous when they are pulled over by the police, how many are the police allowed to investigate once they have made the stop?

23. Because the families of criminals suffer when those criminals are punished, should we stop punishing criminals?

24. I ask why the 10th amendment does not apply to Arizona’s efforts to defend it boarders.
25. I asked you to show me were the federal authority to stop and check anyone in America’s citizenship at anytime.

26. I asked you to show me the outrage against this authority referenced in question #25.

27. I asked you to explain to me how the federal statute overrides the 10th amendment in dealing with nonresident aliens.

There are other questions I might ask, if you were inclined to answer.

Why will Obama meet with the President of Mexico but cannot find time for the Governor of Arizona?

truth to power said...

Woohoo! Once more unto the breach, dear friends.
Finally some responses to the actual questions, so we can have debate again.

1. "So far only one racial type seems prone to use planes as WMD."
Obviously airport screening is concerned with much more than just the use of planes as WMD. They're also looking for the likes of Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; "racial" profiling is not so effective.

2. More misunderstanding. The Arizona law goes well beyond asking arrestees for ID. The standard is "reasonable suspicion" of illegal status in a "lawful contact"—later clarified to "lawful stop, detention or arrest." In other words, not just arrests. Any lawful stop, including those having nothing to do with criminal conduct at all.

3. Under this law, what allows the police to request ID is "reasonable suspicion". Obviously the suspicion can't be based on not having ID before they've asked for ID. So the question of what it can be based on is still unanswered.

4. Here you misrepresent Dan completely. He didn't say aything about "the prerogative to challenge the federal government’s lack of enforcement of laws". By all means, let all the states that care raise a ruckus with the feds about the messed up immigration situation. But they have no more right to start enforcing federal immigration law than federal tax law.

There is a significant distinction between "illegal" and "criminal". Many things that are against the law are civil violations rather than criminal ones. One common example is illegal immigration. Another is copyright infringement. It's illegal for a teacher to photocopy a textbook to avoid having to purchase legal copies for his class. But he hasn't committed a crime. He won't be arrested, imprisoned, or fined for it. Rather, the copyright holder may sue for damages. Now that the distinction has been explained to you, I trust you'll stop referring to illegal aliens as "criminals".

I would be decidedly opposed to a law allowing/requiring the local police to check classroom textbooks for copyright infringement, because it's a federal civil infraction and not a state crime or local ordinance violation. Even if a state (say New York, California, or Washington, with influential copyright interests) were to decide the feds have failed to enforce copyright law properly, that would not give the state the power to usurp the enforcement authority. The 10th Amendment is about those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. So it doesn't touch immigration or copyright law, which are explicitly federal.

Why would anyone mind if the police asked to see proof of citizenship? Cause it's none of their business, that's why. Just like the bureaucrat at the DMV has no business asking to see my federal income tax return, and a census taker has no right to demand to see my public library card. Separation of powers, you know.

Affirmative action is a red herring that has been waved around a couple of times in this conversation. Affirmative action is inappropriate discrimination; it's wrong.

It's pretty unusual to ask "Where is right X delineated in the constitution?" The more usual form is "Where is the government's power to infringe on right X delineated in the constitution?" This is because our rights are prior to and independent of the constitution, which gives the government authority to infringe on them in enumerated ways for the common good. I'm not saying the law is unconstitutional due to making citizens carry papers; I'm saying we should seriously question the further encroachment on our civil liberties.

Lysis said...

Truth to power,

Whoohoo is right. Thank you for your response and for your willingness to debate. In such a clash – one that leads to truth – no one can lose.

Let me attempt to deal with your arguments point by point.

1. I would point out that neither Abdul Mutallab nor Read attempted to fly their planes into buildings. However, in that they surly intended mass destruction, I will accept your criticism. Perhaps it would make my point just as well to have said:

I point out that at the air port all sorts of people are checked screened even though so far only one religious type seems prone to use planes as WMD.

My point, that they are checking everyone still stands unchallenged.

2. You claim that “any lawful stop” includes those having nothing to do with criminal conduct at all. I point out, once again, that the Arizona law is quit specific that the stop can only be made for some criminal act is involved. Once they have been stopped for a crime, then the “reasonable suspicion” for illegal status kicks in. No matter how many times you repeat the misinformation that they will be stopped just to check their immigration status, it doesn’t make that claim true. And that once they have been lawfully stopped for ANOTHER reason, the police acting in their legitimate administrative role, will have an obligation to establish immigration status.

3. Being stopped for a crime allows the ID check. Detention is not arrest – and turning suspected illegals over to ICE not punishment. However, will now be the obligation of any Arizona law officer.

4. (paragraph one)
I stress with you that Arizona is not enforcing any law. They are turning the unauthorized aliens over to the Federal Government who then should enforce the law. I am disappointed that in many cases they will not – that is Mr. Obama’s big failure. Something he has the power and the sworn obligation to fix. Sham on him.

(paragraph two)
I must admit that I am not 100% sure about copyright law as it applies to school teachers – surely a protected class – but I’ve watched enough videos to remember this warning:

“Warning Federal Law provides sever civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video dics. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and constitutes a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and or a $250,000 fine.”

Federal and state governments spend a lot of time and money enforcing copy right laws. Perhaps you sould contact Disney and insist they quit referring to copyright infringers as criminals. Seems to me, we are about to have a trade war with China over this very crime. I don’t care to reread my entire post, but I would be glad to have you point out were I have referred to illegal or unauthorized aliens as criminals.

Lysis said...

(paragraph 3)
I am not sure why you would oppose a law allowing/requiring local police to check classroom test books for copyright infringement, perhaps because you have never written a text book nor had your lively hood stolen by a photo copy happy school teacher. I am force to wonder how you feel about laws against any kind of theft. Why can there be a law against stealing socks from Wal Mart or apples from my back yard, but not to protect someone’s intellectual property or artistic creations? I’m just asking – and again hope you will forward your wisdom to Disney, so they will take that “annoying lie” off the shows I buy for my grandkids. Please re-read the 10th amendment and then show me were the Constitution prohibits states from enforcing copyright law or from exercising administrative prerogative to support federal immigration law.

(On why anyone should mind the police asking to see proof of citizenship.) You say it is none of their business. In Arizona, it is now – there is a law that says it is. The Federal Government asks for state documentation all the time. Just try to get a passport or a federal job without a driver’s license. And by the way, states ask for federal documents all the time too. Try to get a job without a S. S. number or a green card! And the federal government may well have a right to check out your County Birth Certificate. So much for your definition of separation of powers!

(On Affirmative action) Affirmative action is not a red herring. I agree that it is wrong, but it is also wrong to condone racial profiling in one place and use it as an incitement to mayhem in another.

(On asking were X right is delineated in the Constitution) This doesn’t seem so unusual to me. You seem to be playing a game of semantics here. I can tell you were the right to free speech; the right to free exercise of religion and of the press, of assembly and petition are delineated. Were the right to bear arms is protected and the right to due process is defended. Perhaps you want to mince words here – but I would argue that the majority of Americans would understand my words without your clarification. Still, I will change my question to “Where is the government’s power to infringe on the right not to carry ID delineated in the constitution.”

And I continue to ask what civil liberty is being encroached on by the Federal Government that is not offended by the clerk at Seven Eleven, and again ask why those marching against the Arizona law are not also marching against the federal power to demand documentation from any of us at any time?

truth to power said...

1. "I point out that at the air port all sorts of people are checked screened even though so far only one religious type seems prone to use planes as WMD."

Almost as if you can't tell someone's "religious type" or terrorist tendencies by looking!

2. "I point out, once again, that the Arizona law is quit specific that the stop can only be made for some criminal act is involved."

You made that up. It says, "lawful stop, detention or arrest." Nothing about crime there.

"No matter how many times you repeat the misinformation that they will be stopped just to check their immigration status, it doesn’t make that claim true."

Well, that was a strawman. This has always been in the context of "legal contact", later
clarified to "lawful stop, detention or arrest." Stopping someone just to check immigration status doesn't qualify, so I've never been worried about that. Can't find any mention of it here.

3. The law says nothing about "being stopped for a crime". That's your own interpolation. "Lawful stop, detention or arrest" doesn't mean crime. Are we talking past each other here? Do you have some sort of assumption you're not making explicit? The police can make lawful stops for many reasons, only some of which are suspected crimes.

4. Criminal copyright infringment certainly exists, but it's a much more massive sort of violation than my example covered. My example was not a crime--although illegal, which was the purpose of the example. And somehow you took it to be an attack on copyright!

"And I continue to ask what civil liberty is being encroached on by the Federal Government that is not offended by the clerk at Seven Eleven"

Obviously you meant the state government here. And the answer is the right to left alone. If you seek to purchase materials controlled by law, you're initiating the contact, and can simply leave the store without buying them if you're unable or unwilling to provide the required documentation.

Then you mention "the federal power to demand documentation from any of us at any time". I confess I don't know what this is referring to. There is no such federal power.

Lysis said...

Truth to power,

I am glad I could clear up so many of your concerns and thank you for asking for further clarification.

1. Of course you can’t tell a person’s religious type by asking – no more than you can tell what country they are a citizen of, hence the need to check everyone! You make my point exactly.

2. and 3. You’re right – it is a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, crimes must be proven in court. But the stop cannot be based on race. It’s in the law twice.

4. I was not making an attack on copyright. I was just pointing out that your claim that copyright infringement is not a crime was not true.

I am asking you to tell me what civil liberty is being encroached by ANY Government when it asks for my, or any anyone’s ID. You are right, if one cannot provide the documentation necessary at the Seven Eleven, they can just walk out of the store. If a person cannot provide the documentation to prove they are in the country legally, they can just walk out of the country. It doesn’t matter the outcome of the failure to provide documentation my point was that any claim that ID checking violates the Constitution is disingenuous.

In your final point you claim there is no federal power to demand documentation from any one at anytime. I bet the folks in the chicken plant you referenced would disagree with you.

Anonymous said...

I take some issue with truth to power's argument that the states can't enforce federal immigration law any more than they can federal tax law.

Indeed. However, each state is its own sovereign body with powers and rights in this government. They each have their own tax law, and they can and are obligated to protect their territory as much as the federal government is required to protect the United States.

The Federal Government has long let this issue go without taking care of it. It is largely because of the voting issue mentioned earlier upthread in my opinion. Some states are feeling the real pain of it, and, as they have responsibilities to the residents of their state, they are choosing to do what they can. It is an act of desperation.

It is this poster's opinion that Americans were far too hasty to shut down George W. Bush's idea of a guest worker program. That is an argument for another time though.

Lt-33 said...

As I have been a fellow student of yours, and will faithfully follow your beliefs, I must strongly agree with #5 "North Korea commits open acts of war against our allies, confident that with Obama as Commander in Chief, they have nothing to fear from America." As Obama acting on behalf of our country, we can expect nothing to really change on the tides of war. He said 'Now is the time to bring our soldiers home!' yet they are still over there, serving a war that I believe to be a lost cause now...Dont get me wrong, I do believe what we did was right at one point in time, but it has dragged on to long. There was a policital cartoon I once read that made me realize how true life is. The drawing had Obama going down hill on a set of skies, wearing a gold medal, the caption said "Due to changes, we had to give Obama the gold medal because no one has been able to go downhill the fastest!" So i strongly agree he has ruined America, and is driving it downward...well lets not give him the option of Nuclear Power...he just might give us a reason to pull off 3-mile island

Lysis said...

Anonymous:

Excellent point. I would also point out that Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement often, in fact typically, work in concert. Check out any FBI taskforce. The failure of State and Federal agencies to work together was a flaw of the pre- 9/11 mindset. A Flaw President Bush II worked hard to “fix’ through such innovative efforts as the new Home Land Security department.

Lt – 33

It is nice to have your ideas at the Agora. Following your line of thought; today in Greek and Roman History we are discussing Marcus Aurelius. I was reminded how valuable to the survival of Rome the soldiers who served at the boarders of the Empire were. In the same way, our heroes stand in defense world freedom on the boarder of Korea. We should also remember that when the central government became obsessed with its own pleasure, power, and priorities, it allowed the wall to crumble. Once that wall of warriors was broken down, Roman Peace was doomed.

constantia said...

Lt-33
While i cannot agree with your assessment that our conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost (after listening to both General Petraeus and troops who have been on the ground, I actually believe that the conflict is winnable, but will still take longer than many believe.)I do agree with your assesment on North Korea. I have lived in South Korea for several years, and it is amazing how fragile the dynamic is there. even under the Bush Administration, our troops in South Korea were slowly being withdrawn, and tension on the border was not unusual. In fact both sides often provoked conflict and openly threatened each other. But they rarely attacked.
The North's recent attack of the south was totally different, however. It was an act of all out Defiance by the North to torpedo a South Korean cruiser in International waters. one which, according to traditional international law, should be met with a strong show of force, if not a declaration of war. The United State's weak (to say the least) response to the attack, especially after it was proven that the ship was sunk by North Korean submarines, will further embolden a North Korea's military ambitions as an alternative to an economy already struggling under damaging sanctions.
North South politics works over there on a basis of "what you can get away with," not any kind of decency or mercy. I highly doubt that the North will stop their attack now that they know that the west will not respond as aggressively as it did under the Bush administration.

Anonymous said...

Dan,

clearly you haven't read the AZ law and know little to nothing about federal immigtation law. There are actually more safe guards against racism in the AZ law than there are in Federal immigration law. Put the cool'aid down.