Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they can. But they see an additional distinction that those who jump to the legal/illegal argument seem to miss -- respecting civil rights! Yes, as an "illegal" immigrant in America, you have civil rights (thank God). According to the U.S. Constitution, a person's residency status takes a distant second seat in priority to the first priority -- assuring protection of civil rights. For the people who are protesting Arizona's new law, one of the things they're protesting is the erosion of this first priority in America's Constitution.
There is no "civil right" that protects one from having to declare one's country of citizenship. If there were, it would be illegal to require us to do so at the border when entering the U.S. If that's the case, my civil rights have been violated every time I've traveled abroad. Border officials have to respect all U.S. policies including equal protection under the law when processing petitioners for entry at the border.
But some people want to treat immigration like a kids' game where once you get past the border, you earn some kind of "olly-olly-oxen-free" status that protects you from the scrutiny you would have been subjected to at the border (had you gone through at the legal crossing station). Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Any form of questioning and detention that can be legally used at the border can also be used inside the border. There's no difference; it's all U.S. territory.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Any form of questioning and detention that can be legally used at the border can also be used inside the border. There's no difference; it's all U.S. territory.
Benjamin Franklin said a long time ago,
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
Remeber, once laws are passed, they apply to citizens as well. At the border, the constitution does not apply-they need no reason to search your bags, possession, strip search you, interrogate you, provide you with a lawyer etc etc.-which is as it should be when you are entering a country. This actually extends for a 100 mi zone from the border too. Do Americans wan't to live under those conditions everywhere in America?
There is no "civil right" that protects one from having to declare one's country of citizenship. If there were, it would be illegal to require us to do so at the border when entering the U.S. If that's the case, my civil rights have been violated every time I've traveled abroad. Border officials have to respect all U.S. policies including equal protection under the law when processing petitioners for entry at the border.
But some people want to treat immigration like a kids' game where once you get past the border, you earn some kind of "olly-olly-oxen-free" status that protects you from the scrutiny you would have been subjected to at the border (had you gone through at the legal crossing station). Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Any form of questioning and detention that can be legally used at the border can also be used inside the border. There's no difference; it's all U.S. territory.
The system of checks and balances exist for a reason. When you a give extremely wide latitude to police without any checks for one particular reason(say illegal immigration), remember they have that power to use against anybody. All those expansion of laws to get terrorists is fine-but why use those laws to catch married men cheating on their wives with escorts(Elliot Spitzer)? That was certainly not the intended purpose. Now because it was the Gov of New York, it came out-but how many people doing stuff are being swept up by laws intended to combat terrorism? What is next, cameras intended for security and combating terror will now be catching speeders, out of date registration plates, vehicles with unpaid parking tickets etc ?
I guess the older I get, the more I admire the founding fathers and the vision they had for this country. Rather unique for a country to be found on such lofty prinicples.
Now if you wan't to combat illegal immigration, fine. Just do it the same way you combat people who commit any crime in this country-with full protection and respect for the rule of law and due process. There is a reason they are here-jobs. They can't survive on thin air-go after the employers too. I myself am neutral on this, I do agree they are breaking the law coming here. But trampling on the constitution and giving up our rights is not the answer.
Giving police all over America the same right as border patrol can get you way more than you bargained for.
There is no "civil right" that protects one from having to declare one's country of citizenship. If there were, it would be illegal to require us to do so at the border when entering the U.S. If that's the case, my civil rights have been violated every time I've traveled abroad. Border officials have to respect all U.S. policies including equal protection under the law when processing petitioners for entry at the border.
But some people want to treat immigration like a kids' game where once you get past the border, you earn some kind of "olly-olly-oxen-free" status that protects you from the scrutiny you would have been subjected to at the border (had you gone through at the legal crossing station). Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Any form of questioning and detention that can be legally used at the border can also be used inside the border. There's no difference; it's all U.S. territory.
You don't think there is something wrong with a system where the civil police can stop anyone at any time and ask to see residency or citizenship status, or worse, ask based on some kind of profiling? And, you don't see how allowing this could lead to injustices? Maybe you don't agree that someone who is in the country illegally has a right to be protected from abuses. If that's the case, you're at odds with the Supreme Law of the Land. If someone is in the country illegally, they should be deported. I don't dispute that. What's at question is the process by which that happens. According to the U.S. Constitution, it's not ok to put people in situations where they are subject to treatment contrary to the core values of this land -- regardless of residency status. If you don't like it, lobby your elected representatives to introduce a change to the Constitution.
You don't think there is something wrong with a system where the civil police can stop anyone at any time and ask to see residency or citizenship status, or worse, ask based on some kind of profiling?
For those with little experience outside the U.S., "show me your papers" conjures up visions of Hollywood Nazi movies and totalitarian rule. The truth is, showing proof of citizenship is a routine task in most of the global village we live in. It's only in the U.S., with its relative isolationism, that proof of citizenship raises concerns of Big-Brother phobia. It's no different from having to show your driver's license to write a check or show a picture ID to get on a plane.
I lived in Brazil for a time and had to show my documents several times each week. Sometimes to law enforcement officials (for no apparent reason), sometimes to bank tellers, bus ticket clerks or hotel management. None of this damaged me or impuned my reputation in the least. Caucasian visitors to Mexico are asked to show their tourist visas to police on a regular basis. People who work for state or federal government agencies have to show proof of citizenship as a condition of employment. Those who work in private-sector defense and security industries face the same requirement.
Now let's look at the logic of the olly-olly-oxen-free principle...the recently contrived notion that you cannot question someone's lawful authority to be present in the U.S. once they are past the border. If that were the case, you'd have to be an idiot to cross into the U.S. legally at a crossing station. You might not meet the criteria for entry and be denied passage. It would be smarter by far to simply cut your way through the fence, and claim immunity from interrogation on the other side if caught based on your "civil rights." Does that make any sense?
For those with little experience outside the U.S., "show me your papers" conjures up visions of Hollywood Nazi movies and totalitarian rule. The truth is, showing proof of citizenship is a routine task in most of the global village we live in. It's only in the U.S., with its relative isolationism, that proof of citizenship raises concerns of Big-Brother phobia. It's no different from having to show your driver's license to write a check or show a picture ID to get on a plane.
I lived in Brazil for a time and had to show my documents several times each week. Sometimes to law enforcement officials (for no apparent reason), sometimes to bank tellers, bus ticket clerks or hotel management. None of this damaged me or impuned my reputation in the least. Caucasian visitors to Mexico are asked to show their tourist visas to police on a regular basis.
Quite truthfully I think it's worse for non-Caucasian visitors to Mexico.
Afro-Mexicans are often treated badly by the Mexican police and suspected of being illegal aliens from Central America or the Caribbean.
But if you think it's so great to show your documents all the time, why don't you move to Brazil or France?
For those with little experience outside the U.S., "show me your papers" conjures up visions of Hollywood Nazi movies and totalitarian rule.
Now let's look at the logic of the olly-olly-oxen-free principle...the recently contrived notion that you cannot question someone's lawful that you cannot question someone's lawful authority to be present in the U.S. once they are past the border.
Just because someone opposes this law, doesn't mean they have not been outside the US. Except Australia, I have travelled to every continent(including Antartica) and have had extended stays-both work related and tourist. I am semi retired now and still love to travel.
This notion that you cannot question someone's lawful authority to be present in the US is recent indeed-because it does not exist. Every day the border patrol catches thousannds of illegals and deports them. Many states will alert ICE if their prisoners do not have the proper status and they will get deported.
But what many oppose is laws so broad that police have the power to throw someone in jail for really a vague reason-even citizens. We have cherished traditions that have worked for very long time and nothing wrong with keeping them. Due process, the fourth amendment all are cherished traditions and serve a very important purpose. Border patrol already has the right to do pretty much what they wan't and if the proper existing laws were enforced, employment would be tough for illegals.
Yes Mexican police may ask you for id, but from what I gather of many of my friends who used to go to Mexico regularaly-not anymore-is that mexican police also solicit bribes for many things and can make things quite uncomfortable. Brazil has a history of dictatorship and if you go back far enough, even monarchy. They just got out of their last spell of dictatorship in 1985. We on the other hand held our elections even during the civil war!!
We are a different country and have our traditions and culture and history. Yes time stands still for no one, but there are many different ways to handle this, instead of trying to turn our legal system to represent countries with a history of far less protection to their citizens.
It takes two to tango. While all the uproar is over the illegals, when is the last time we heard of business owners being thrown in jail and charged with the offense of hiring illegals?
For those with little experience outside the U.S., "show me your papers" conjures up visions of Hollywood Nazi movies and totalitarian rule. The truth is, showing proof of citizenship is a routine task in most of the global village we live in. It's only in the U.S., with its relative isolationism, that proof of citizenship raises concerns of Big-Brother phobia. It's no different from having to show your driver's license to write a check or show a picture ID to get on a plane.
I lived in Brazil for a time and had to show my documents several times each week. Sometimes to law enforcement officials (for no apparent reason), sometimes to bank tellers, bus ticket clerks or hotel management. None of this damaged me or impuned my reputation in the least. Caucasian visitors to Mexico are asked to show their tourist visas to police on a regular basis. People who work for state or federal government agencies have to show proof of citizenship as a condition of employment. Those who work in private-sector defense and security industries face the same requirement.
Yes, but the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) assigns immigration responsibility to the U.S. Congress. By way of them, no one but a Federal District Court judge can decide who is or is not legally in the U.S. Just like the states cannot declare war or secede from the Union, the states have zero legal ground to assume decision-making of Federal judges on immigration matters. The Arizona law attempts to subvert the U.S. Constitution and give powers reserved for Federal judges to municipal public servants. Again, don't like it, change the Constitution.
ETA: I don't care what they do in Brazil or any other country. The American standard is not measured by what other countries do.
Last edited by Winston Smith; 05-30-2010 at 11:22 PM..
Yes, but the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) assigns immigration responsibility to the U.S. Congress. By way of them, no one but a Federal District Court judge can decide who is or is not legally in the U.S. Just like the states cannot declare war or secede from the Union, the states have zero legal ground to assume decision-making of Federal judges on immigration matters. The Arizona law attempts to subvert the U.S. Constitution and give powers reserved for Federal judges to municipal public servants. Again, don't like it, change the Constitution.
ETA: I don't care what they do in Brazil or any other country. The American standard is not measured by what other countries do.
States cannot secede from the union unilaterally according to the SCOTUS case Texas v. White, but they can secede "with the consent of the other states". This is generally interpreted to mean an act of Congress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
