|
|
If there is no probable cause or if it is not justified by law enforcement purposes, then it is a violation of the 4th amendment. Also: being Hispanic isn't a probable cause, "blanket" searches are also violations, and any search based on suspicion is considered worse by the court than those that are random and is therefore not justified for use even for law enforcement purposes.Originally Posted by FishingBack
1/10 of the US population(30 million) may be in the country illegally. "May be" because you can't take the US government's numbers as accurate.
For those who oppose this law, what do you suggest? Enforcing the federal law is not an option because it is not happening.
It's a hard problem for which I, as only 1 of 3 who voted against in the poll, do not pretend to know the solution. However, until I am shown otherwise, I believe there are Constitutional issues with the AZ legislation. No single issue is worth the revocation of freedom regardless of scope or benefit.
LEO put up road checkpoints all the time. Some of them are DWI, some are just for insurance and registration (and screening for active warrants of course).
As for the red part, that is the case with the AZ law as I understand it. They aren't just running down any latino they see.
No, unless they have been arrested for breaking an AZ law.
The constitutionality of actions like roadblocks is limited to motorists and borders.
Arrested? If they stop someone for speeding and they do not have proper identification, they can't be held for investigation and/or deportation?
But according to Federal law, aren't you suppose to carry your green card on you at all times?
It mirrors the federal law. The "unconstitutional" criers will lose that argument
Yes. That's why I think existing law provides AZ what proponents say the new legislation provides.
Two points:
1) Saying it mirrors federal legislation doesn't provide any new information to the debate. What makes it necessary if it mirrors existing law?
2) Unconstitutional criers? Seriously? The Constitutionality of laws and policies should be the focus of any critical analysis. Any possible violation to the Constitution of the United States sends up huge red flags in my head (as it should in any conservative). Libertarians who believe in the benefits of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and its limits to federal power should relate on this. I am not against the idea of addressing illegal immigration in this country. I am against doing so with any disregard for the foundation of this country. If the Constitution can be exempted for the purposes of limiting illegal immigration, what other purposes can be exempted? Who will be doing the exempting?
I'm not sure. I'd be willing to bet that many illegals don't have DL, but as it is I think the state just makes a call to INS. The state won't bust 'em or anything.
There are many crimes that are committed without using transportation requiring ID. Trespassing would probably get used a lot. These illegals sneak across private property at night for the most part.
The problem is that AZ can't make the feds enforce the law, and they can't act effectively under AZ law. I think it's a valid point concerning constitutionality. If it's ok for the feds then it should be ok for the state.
So it's ok to setup a road checkpoint and screen for illegals in addition to license/insurance/registration?
Absolutely. Crimes. Those people could be (and far too rarely are) picked up and shipped back.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
