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.
Perhaps that, and those few that believe as you do, is what is causing the problem. Along with a lack of enforcement of existing laws having to prove your legal status when stopped would certainly identify the number of illegals and aid in their deportation.
If you are so concerned, you would carry identification that they would match you to. Instead, you seem to be saying that you would go out of your way to cause a problem so that you could complain about it.
Not really a supporter of any law, are you.
You are opposed to the Constitution? The fourth amendment is insufficiently clear?
You are opposed to the Constitution? The fourth amendment is insufficiently clear?
And you accuse others of not supporting the law?
Supporting existing laws and new laws is against the contitution? The fourth amendment is ignored at will by the liberals who claim that the constitution is a fluid and ever changing document. Is that supporting the strict letter of the law?
Yes, I accuse other of not supporting the law. From the tone of your statement, you are one of them.
Supporting existing laws and new laws is against the contitution? The fourth amendment is ignored at will by the liberals who claim that the constitution is a fluid and ever changing document. Is that supporting the strict letter of the law?
Yes, I accuse other of not supporting the law. From the tone of your statement, you are one of them.
The law is quite clear but you don't appear to like it, Read Hiibel. The minority justices would have held that Hiibel did not have to even state his name. The majority stated that was all he had to do.
And this was in a case where the police had reasonable cause to seek the man's identity as a crime had at least been alleged.
So it is your view that is antagonistic to the law...and it is you who are supporting unconstitutional procedures.
It is an old and hallowed tradition to prevent the state from intruding where it does not belong. Considered sufficiently important to differentiate from the English Common law as to require a specific amendment.
You never know..they could be "potential terrorists" or "potential cartel members".
Maybe local law enforcement should use the same tactics the Fed is doing on citizens.
Everyone could be a potential terrorist..guilty until proven innocent.
The law is quite clear but you don't appear to like it, Read Hiibel. The minority justices would have held that Hiibel did not have to even state his name. The majority stated that was all he had to do.
And this was in a case where the police had reasonable cause to seek the man's identity as a crime had at least been alleged.
So it is your view that is antagonistic to the law...and it is you who are supporting unconstitutional procedures.
I support laws and their enforcement when they make sense. Giving more leeway to already illegal persons does not make sense. I am working to change the law. Do you support laws that give preferential treatment to criminals? You certainly sound as if you do, by your statements. Or are you a sheep that just follows laws that you don't agree with for the sake of not hurting the criminals feelings?
Quote:
It is an old and hallowed tradition to prevent the state from intruding where it does not belong. Considered sufficiently important to differentiate from the English Common law as to require a specific amendment.
Slavery is an old and hallowed tradition. Goes back to the bible times.
Horse theft is an old and hallowed tradition. Plains Indians.
Not knowing what you are talking about is an old and hallowed tradition. Liberals.
I support laws and their enforcement when they make sense. Giving more leeway to already illegal persons does not make sense. I am working to change the law. Do you support laws that give preferential treatment to criminals? You certainly sound as if you do, by your statements. Or are you a sheep that just follows laws that you don't agree with for the sake of not hurting the criminals feelings?
The Constitution and particularly its amendments were written to protect against people with your views. See above in this thread. It is not the robber baron...but the well intentioned zealot who does away with liberty.
Quote:
Slavery is an old and hallowed tradition. Goes back to the bible times.
Horse theft is an old and hallowed tradition. Plains Indians.
Not knowing what you are talking about is an old and hallowed tradition. Liberals.
Your arguments lack credence.
and yours lacks substance. Emotion is a bad way to govern.
I'm continually amazed by those calling themselves "American", but willing to throw away key tenets of the Constitution in a brief moment...
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.
