U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2011, 12:28 PM
 
52 posts, read 20,881 times
Reputation: 16

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
I am in favor of strict immigration enforcement and I think everyone should carry some form of identification with them any time they leave the house(DL, State ID, Dogtags, etc.) but to stop anyone/everyone and demand to be shown an ID is WAY overboard.
For the most part those "illegals" standing outside a building supply place looking for day labor are not the illegals that are causing us problems.

How about this scenario; the local LEOs go to an area and demand EVERYONE passing a certain building show ID, if they can't they are taken in, that is EVERYONE; race, age, gender, would not be relevant, your 10 year old coming home from school misses dinner.

How about a road block where EVERY car is stopped and the driver is given a Field Sobriety test, maybe include any passengers for public intox, turning around to avoid the traffic jam gets you and everyone in your car automatically arrested(avoiding a roadblock you MUST be doing something illegal).

Now businesses that hire illegals, should be fined out business, any illegals committing a crime should be automatically and instantly deported.

You are asking for mandatory checkpoints lol. WTF?!

Sobriety checks are not constitutional unless you have an option to avoid it once it is seen, meaning there has to be an opportunity to just skip it or it is entrapment. So, your ideas are not going to work. Come up with a new idea that isn't against the most basic ideas of our constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2011, 01:39 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyusslives View Post
You are asking for mandatory checkpoints lol. WTF?!

Sobriety checks are not constitutional unless you have an option to avoid it once it is seen, meaning there has to be an opportunity to just skip it or it is entrapment. So, your ideas are not going to work. Come up with a new idea that isn't against the most basic ideas of our constitution.
Huddlemasses back?

Looks like Trackwatch was stating that "mandatory checkpoints" are WAY overboard. The WTF should be for your lack of comprehension, it is evident in the "scenarios" given - your 10 year old coming home from school misses dinner and turning around to avoid the traffic jam gets you and everyone in your car automatically arrested(avoiding a roadblock you MUST be doing something illegal), which kinda says the same thing you are attempting to imply.

As for the rest of your "legal expertise" on the constitutionality of checkpoints, there are legal guidelines for conducting sobriety checkpoints. Ingersoll vs. Palmer 1987. Legal Requirements, California DUI Laws | californiaduihelp.com
Quote:
The Supreme Court also stated that motorists who seek to avoid a roadblock may not be stopped and detained merely because they attempted to avoid the roadblock. However, if the motorist commits a vehicle code violation or displays obvious signs of intoxication, there is adequate probable cause to pull over the motorist, after which point general principles of detention and arrest apply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 02:58 PM
 
52 posts, read 20,881 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The WTF should be for your lack of comprehension,
oops, I misread his first statements sorry Trackwatch. Other people seem to think this type of thing would be fine though. The basic theme I am hearing here is that it would be dumb to not have your id on you so it's your fault for not having ID or something.
Quote:
As for the rest of your "legal expertise" on the constitutionality of checkpoints, there are legal guidelines for conducting sobriety checkpoints. Ingersoll vs. Palmer 1987. Legal Requirements, California DUI Laws | californiaduihelp.com
OK. I don't know what I said that you are arguing against really. In my city, they commonly set them up right after an intersection so that people have the choice to legally avoid them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 03:10 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,144,640 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
I am in favor of strict immigration enforcement and I think everyone should carry some form of identification with them any time they leave the house(DL, State ID, Dogtags, etc.) but to stop anyone/everyone and demand to be shown an ID is WAY overboard.
For the most part those "illegals" standing outside a building supply place looking for day labor are not the illegals that are causing us problems.

How about this scenario; the local LEOs go to an area and demand EVERYONE passing a certain building show ID, if they can't they are taken in, that is EVERYONE; race, age, gender, would not be relevant, your 10 year old coming home from school misses dinner.

How about a road block where EVERY car is stopped and the driver is given a Field Sobriety test, maybe include any passengers for public intox, turning around to avoid the traffic jam gets you and everyone in your car automatically arrested(avoiding a roadblock you MUST be doing something illegal).

Now businesses that hire illegals, should be fined out business, any illegals committing a crime should be automatically and instantly deported.
Yes, illegals standing outside of building supply places soliciting work are a part of the problem. For one they are breaking the law and another they are undercutting American workers.

As for checking I.D.'s, LE does not stop someone based on their looks. It has to be during lawful contact such as a traffic violation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:04 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,435,858 times
Reputation: 7274
Boo Hoo, chicagonut, I get tired of DUMB threads like this that fail to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is now, and has always been, employers.

Close corps permanently that repeatedly hire illegals, problem will solve itself. Anything else done is fruitless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:12 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,144,640 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Boo Hoo, chicagonut, I get tired of DUMB threads like this that fail to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is now, and has always been, employers.

Close corps permanently that repeatedly hire illegals, problem will solve itself. Anything else done is fruitless.
Boo Hoo, yourself. There have been many threads in this forum putting blame on the employers. Evidently you choose to ignore that or you don't read many threads. There are two guilty parties here however, the employers and the illegal aliens. Most of us in here are for mandating e-verify so that the employers can't get away with this anymore. Guess who the biggest objecters to e-verify are.......the pro-illegals!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:18 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,435,858 times
Reputation: 7274
Employers are 99.9% of the problem, and the cost effective way to greatly reduce the problem. No amount of dealing with the individual would ever work. E-verify is good, but penalties for rogue employers being tiny compared to profits makes e-verify a big so what.

Most employers who hire illegals once , do it again and again, like meth addicts. That means it is still profitable after the penalties. We had one near me with 800 illegals out of 3,200 employees. Their entire group of officers should be jailed, in max security (mixed w/non-whoiite collar), so Ernie can be the bunkmate of some 500k exec. The aftermath of what happens getting around corp offices would do wonders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:29 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,144,640 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Employers are 99.9% of the problem, and the cost effective way to greatly reduce the problem. No amount of dealing with the individual would ever work. E-verify is good, but penalties for rogue employers being tiny compared to profits makes e-verify a big so what.

Most employers who hire illegals once , do it again and again, like meth addicts. That means it is still profitable after the penalties. We had one near me with 800 illegals out of 3,200 employees. Their entire group of officers should be jailed, in max security (mixed w/non-whoiite collar), so Ernie can be the bunkmate of some 500k exec. The aftermath of what happens getting around corp offices would do wonders.
I disagree. Both the employer and the illegals are equally guilty. So as an analogy you would put blame on the bank robber but not the one driving the get-a-way car? Second offenses on violating e-verify should be prison time and the lost of their businesses. Do you actually think they would risk that?

Another proposal to put a stop to illegal immigration is to end all benefits for illegal aliens which includes education and non-emergency healthcare and ending birthright citizenship. Laws such as sb1070 is another way. However, yet again guess who the biggest objecters are to enforcing our immigration laws by these methods or any other for that matter......the pro-illegals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:33 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,435,858 times
Reputation: 7274
Employer hunting is cost effective. Immigrant hunting is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:59 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,144,640 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Employer hunting is cost effective. Immigrant hunting is not.
The topic is illegal aliens, not immigrants. Remove all incentives for them to remain here or to come here and they will self-deport. Very cost effective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top