Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on April 30, 2010, 05:42:02 AM
-
Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens
By Michelle Malkin • April 28, 2010 12:36 AM
This is what a “police state” looks like
________________________ ________________________ _______
My syndicated column today responds to Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s demagoguery on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Calderon has a long history of bashing the U.S. — and then getting rewarded for it with billions of dollars in foreign aid (see here, here, and here).
I reported on Calderon’s aggressive meddling on behalf of illegal aliens through his government consulate offices in America here. Heather Mac Donald published a thorough investigation of the Mexican government meddle-crats here. Allan Wall has reported on it for years. Mike Sweeney, an Arizona Republic letter-writer underscores my column theme today:
“Having traveled into Mexico last year to various cities on the Baja Peninsula, a distance of more than 1,000 miles round-trip, we were stopped more than 20 times at various checkpoints. At most of those stops, we were told to exit the vehicle and we were subjected to rigorous inspections. Where does Mexican President Felipe Calderón get off with his hypocritical outrage at our Senate Bill 1070?”
Where indeed?
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in “Nazi-zona” last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.
The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?
– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?
– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.
– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).
– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.
– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.
All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.
Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators “Smash the State,” and holding signs that proclaimed “No human is illegal” and “We have rights.”
But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).
As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn’t respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.
Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.
Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing — a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here’s the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:
Hipócritas.
________________________ ____________________
Lets see 240 and the gang cry over this.
-
They'll only say "we shouldn't stoop to Mexico's level" or something equally silly.
We care about human rights. No one wants to speculate about what produce would cost or admit illegals are a form of slavery.
The border problem could be resolved within weeks if doing so didn't have severe political and economic consequences.
-
They are hypocrites.
Mexico can't demand the USA to respect the rights of illegals and give them amnesty, when they themselves are unwilling to do the same.
And before any one says that Malkin is lying. I would like to ask them, how many Guatemalans and Peruvians have you spoken to? I know a few of them and they all say that when it comes to illegal immigration, Mexicans are ruthless and they don't care about any "human rights".
-
Every Guatamalan always says crossing the border into Mexico is far worse than crossing the border into the USA.
-
Not just Mexico, but virtually every other country on earth vigorusly enforces its immigration laws. I am so fucking sick and tired of listening to these cowardly pie in the sky left wing douchebags bitch about how America should be more like the rest of the world..... except in this case. In France do you think everything is written and spoken in French and English? No-- Immigrints have to learn the language to interact with other people. In South America are illegal immigrints who sneak into the country given due process? Hell no. They are thrown in jail and deported. In Mexico, are all individuals that LEGALLY enter the country entitled to stay? NO-- They have to "enrich" the country and they can't be sick or a strain on the Mexican economy.
So there you have it-- America is a police state for enforcing its laws.
-
Exactly right.
-
What? No comments from the liberal windbags of this forum?
What else is new?
But you can bet blacken, 240 and the other morons will put 905282058209480248028028 2 Palin threads.
-
sorry, this person has no credibility to me. she attacked america on foreign soil - she was one of the first 911 truthers - and she did it in the FOREIGN PRESS.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030802.asp
she was a major truther. that's her column.
-
More diversion from 240.
-
sorry, this person has no credibility to me. she attacked america on foreign soil - she was one of the first 911 truthers - and she did it in the FOREIGN PRESS.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030802.asp
she was a major truther. that's her column.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Nice try, but you can't deflect this away. Mexico’s Ley General de Población state these provisions, not Michelle Malkin.
You idiots want USA to be like other nations when it comes to health care and the economy. Why would you be against the USA using the same immigration policies that foreign nations have?
-
i kinda like their policy. Are you familir with my proposal to break their leg and drop them back at the sothernmost tip of Mex, to see if they can make the trip back?
-
You dont want even to allow the cops to find out who the illegals are. Whose kneecaps are you going to break?
-
sorry, this person has no credibility to me. she attacked america on foreign soil - she was one of the first 911 truthers - and she did it in the FOREIGN PRESS.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030802.asp
she was a major truther. that's her column.
So your point is that because she is a truther she is wrong on everything else,or we should think she is wrong on everything else?Maddow LIED about the census workers death to try to pull ratings[a fail]and was PROVEN a liar but you support her.Wow what a double standard.
-
Not just Mexico, but virtually every other country on earth vigorusly enforces its immigration laws. I am so fucking sick and tired of listening to these cowardly pie in the sky left wing douchebags bitch about how America should be more like the rest of the world..... except in this case. In France do you think everything is written and spoken in French and English? No-- Immigrints have to learn the language to interact with other people. In South America are illegal immigrints who sneak into the country given due process? Hell no. They are thrown in jail and deported. In Mexico, are all individuals that LEGALLY enter the country entitled to stay? NO-- They have to "enrich" the country and they can't be sick or a strain on the Mexican economy.
So there you have it-- America is a police state for enforcing its laws.
The objection here is not America's desire to enforce the law, ...but rather the means they intend to introduce to do it.
Deadbeat parents who don't support their kids result in their kids becoming a drain on the resources of the state.
would you then support a law that gives police the right to arrest you if by a visual inspection, they suspect you may be a deadbeat parent? you're on your way to the grocery store to pick up a loaf of bread and some cop stops you cause he thinks you look like a deadbeat parent, ...and if you are unable to provide proof on the spot that you support your kids... you go to jail? Does that seem reasonable? ...afterall, they're simply trying to enforce the law. ::)
-
The objection here is not America's desire to enforce the law, ...but rather the means they intend to introduce to do it.
Deadbeat parents who don't support their kids result in their kids becoming a drain on the resources of the state.
would you then support a law that gives police the right to arrest you if by a visual inspection, they suspect you may be a deadbeat parent? you're on your way to the grocery store to pick up a loaf of bread and some cop stops you cause he thinks you look like a deadbeat parent, ...and if you are unable to provide proof on the spot that you support your kids... you go to jail? Does that seem reasonable? ...afterall, they're simply trying to enforce the law. ::)
Yes, let's compare American citizens to criminals. Get the hell out of here with that terrible example.
I don't see the Canadians welcoming them with open arms. ::)
-
The objection here is not America's desire to enforce the law, ...but rather the means they intend to introduce to do it.
Deadbeat parents who don't support their kids result in their kids becoming a drain on the resources of the state.
would you then support a law that gives police the right to arrest you if by a visual inspection, they suspect you may be a deadbeat parent? you're on your way to the grocery store to pick up a loaf of bread and some cop stops you cause he thinks you look like a deadbeat parent, ...and if you are unable to provide proof on the spot that you support your kids... you go to jail? Does that seem reasonable? ...afterall, they're simply trying to enforce the law. ::)
But since the Arizona law doesnt say that why worry about it.Let me ask you this AND THIS is the way the Arizona law is crafted.A cop gets a call to go to a house because of a report of a disturbance.He gets there and sees the childeren are in a state of dissaray,dirty,unkept,and unchanged and looking hungry.Do the police have a right to investigate whats going on there?THATS the way the Arizona law is crafted.The police are forbidden to just randomly ask for papers.This is a liberal lie.
-
They cant go based on race alone you morons!
-
Yes, let's compare American citizens to criminals. Get the hell out of here with that terrible example.
No I think that's a very appropriate example. it does the exact same thing. When you leave it to the discretion of the police to question everyone they reasonable suspect, you open up the vast majority of legal citizens to abuse and a violation of their 4th amendment rights.
I don't see the Canadians welcoming them with open arms. ::)
The only country that I'm aware of that welcomes illegals with open arms is the USA. Without them, your economy would collapse, and that is why they are never going away, no matter how much people scream about illegals being a drain on the system. They contribute MORE than they take. If it weren't the case, your government would instantly put a stop to it.
-
They cant go based on race alone you morons!
So what will be the criteria?
-
No I think that's a very appropriate example. it does the exact same thing. When you leave it to the discretion of the police to question everyone they reasonable suspect, you open up the vast majority of legal citizens to abuse and a violation of their 4th amendment rights.
No, it doesn't do anything close to the exact same thing. An American citizen is an American citizen. An illegal immigrant is a CRIMINAL. ::)
I don't see you welcoming them to Canada. Why don't you do your part and offer them residence at your shanty? I'll even pay for the bus tickets for every illegal immigrant your shanty can hold.
-
No, it doesn't do anything close to the exact same thing. An American citizen is an American citizen. An illegal immigrant is a CRIMINAL. ::)
And an American citizen who fails to provide child support is a criminal.
For that matter, a man who rapes a woman is a criminal. Should police have the authority based upon a visual reasonable suspicion that someone is a rapist, be allowed to detain them, ...and unless they were able to prove they hadn't raped anyone, be subjected to arrest?
Again, what would be the criteria? ...an anonymous tip? Good Luck with that!
If you want to stop the bees, you need to rid yourself of the hives. the way to squash illegal immigration is to crackdown on the hives (employers) not waste your time trying to swat individual bees.
I don't see you welcoming them to Canada. Why don't you do your part and offer them residence at your shanty?
I told you, the only country welcoming illegals is the USA. I don't live in a shanty thanyouverymuch!
-
Here is an example:
Cop gets call to a house on a domestic violence call. Cop gets to house and finds wife screaming and man drunk on the steps. LDetains the man and asks him his name and who he is and for some type of id. Suspect gives a phoney id or information that does not add up. For example suspect speaks no english, has no home address, and has no id of any type. Cop inquires with woman who stays silent. Cop asks neighbors who claim the place is a flop house for illegals. Cop talks to landlord who claims he never saw the guy before and has no idea who he is. Cop now has reasonable suspicion to investigate whether the guy is an illegal alien so he can refer him to ICE.
-
And an American citizen who fails to provide child support is a criminal.
For that matter, a man who rapes a woman is a criminal. Should police have the authority based upon a visual reasonable suspicion that someone is a rapist, be allowed to detain them, ...and unless they were able to prove they hadn't raped anyone, be subjected to arrest?
Again, what would be the criteria? ...an anonymous tip? Good Luck with that!
If you want to stop the bees, you need to rid yourself of the hives. the way to squash illegal immigration is to crackdown on the hives (employers) not waste your time trying to swat individual bees.
If child services shows up at a house and it's ridden with trash, the children are dirty, etc, etc, etc then yes, it usually leads to arrests. Are they not "profiling" these criminal parents? Do you think those parents are getting an unfair shake? I mean, they were only investigated based on physical appearances. Does that bother you? Doubt it does.
Again, this law has nothing to do with visual representation. So you can try to parlay your interpretation of it (which is just wrong) into some all encompassing police state bullshit but your little example holds no water.
And if you're not willing to welcome illegal immigrants to your country then you should shut the fuck up and stop telling us how to treat them in ours. Talk about a hypocritical dirtbag.
-
Every Guatamalan always says crossing the border into Mexico is far worse than crossing the border into the USA.
I was on a mission trip in Guatamala, and this is definitely true. We heard some terrible stories while we were there. Even in Guatamala it is strict. We got stopped three times just going from the airport in Guatamala City to Panajachel. And the soldiers were strapping with AK-47s.
Michelle Malkin hits it on the mark in her article.
-
Here is an example:
Cop gets call to a house on a domestic violence call. Cop gets to house and finds wife screaming and man drunk on the steps. LDetains the man and asks him his name and who he is and for some type of id. Suspect gives a phoney id or information that does not add up.
What do you mean information that doesn't add up. He says his name is John Smith. What about John Smith does not add up? That's not reasonable suspicion that he's illegal.
For example suspect speaks no english, has no home address, and has no id of any type.
Not speaking English doesn't automatically equate to being illegal. he could be a tourist, or a legal resident who speaks no english. not having id could mean he left his wallet and ID at home. no home address? he could be homeless. not providing any of these could also mean that no speaking english, he had no understanding of what was being asked for.
Cop inquires with woman who stays silent.
Wives are not required to provide evidence against a spouse.
Cop asks neighbors who claim the place is a flop house for illegals. Cop talks to landlord who claims he never saw the guy before and has no idea who he is. Cop now has reasonable suspicion to investigate whether the guy is an illegal alien so he can refer him to ICE.
So basically you're saying that someone's claim that the residence is a flop house for illegals is reasonable suspicion?
Bottom line is that in quite a few jurisdictions in the US, immigration matters are federal in nature, and local poliice are not only not required to report suspected or confirmed illegals... in some cases they are prohibited from doing so.
This could very well be a trial balloon to change legislation giving those at the local level some ability to do something in what was traditionally federal jurisdiction. Could be a scenario like the girl scout who sold cookies by offering expensive symphony tickets. When perspective buyers balked at the idea of paying $150 for symphony tickets, she offered them a $3 box of cookies instead which they gladly took her up on. Had she first led with the cookies, her cookie sales might not have been so brisk.
No one is objecting to a crackdown on illegals. the objection is to the methods proposed to do so.
There are far better and far more effective ways that do not infringe on the 4th amendment rights of people.
-
okay 33,
if a year goes by and we don't see a SINGLE person asked for their papers who hasn't committed a crime, I will admit I was 100% wrong on this.
Will you admit you were wrong, if we see a legal american citizen, who did not commit any crime, who was forced to show their papers?
I think what is on paper and what is about to happen in reality - are 2 diff things.
-
If child services shows up at a house and it's ridden with trash, the children are dirty, etc, etc, etc then yes, it usually leads to arrests.
First off, child services do not just "show up" at a house. They are summoned there.
Secondly, deadbeat parents who fail to pay child support do not have custody of their kids. that's why they are paying child support to the custodial parent.
Are they not "profiling" these criminal parents? Do you think those parents are getting an unfair shake? I mean, they were only investigated based on physical appearances. Does that bother you? Doubt it does.
The physical appearances of an environment (unsafe / unsanitary home) is a far cry from the physical appearances of a person.
Again, this law has nothing to do with visual representation. So you can try to parlay your interpretation of it (which is just wrong) into some all encompassing police state bullshit but your little example holds no water.
So again I ask... what would be the criteria? that's something neither you, 333, the proponents of this discriminatory legislation including Sherriff Arpaio refuse to answer.
And if you're not willing to welcome illegal immigrants to your country then you should shut the fuck up and stop telling us how to treat them in ours. Talk about a hypocritical dirtbag.
You've clearly missed the point. I'm NOT advising you on how to handle illegals.
I'm advising you of how NOT to handle legal American citizens and law enforcement.
In the quest to catch illegals, you will be infringing on the 4th amendment rights of citizens with NAZI tactics...
...at the personal discretion of cops. That's a kettle of worms you don't want. It's rife with opportunity for abuse, and it opens up police officers to too much liability in the form of civil charges. The cops are put in a no-win catch 22 situation requiring them to violate the 4th amendment rights of everyone in order to cover their asses from potential civil suits... which opens their asses up on federal charges of violating a citizens constitutional rights. if he doesn't violate a citizens constitutional rights... he opens himself up to civil charges. The biggest losers in this proposed scenario are legal American residents and cops. The consequences for them far outweigh the consequences for the few illegals that could potentially be ferreted out, and it's enforcement would prove a far greater drain on resources than the illegals presently pose.
If there are any cops on here, please speak up and tell me if you think I'm off base in my assessment.
-
okay 33,
if a year goes by and we don't see a SINGLE person asked for their papers who hasn't committed a crime, I will admit I was 100% wrong on this.
Will you admit you were wrong, if we see a legal american citizen, who did not commit any crime, who was forced to show their papers?
I think what is on paper and what is about to happen in reality - are 2 diff things.
he will never admit it...cause people like him can never be wrong.....by his theory i should be able to pull over every black i see and ask for they're papers, to make sure they aren't a immigrant from Africa, or every white to make sure they aren't a immigrant from Russia...
...people like him have never been behind the scenes in US government, so they just repeat what the radio tells them...
bench
-
First off, child services do not just "show up" at a house. They are summoned there.
Secondly, deadbeat parents who fail to pay child support do not have custody of their kids. that's why they are paying child support to the custodial parent.
The physical appearances of an environment (unsafe / unsanitary home) is a far cry from the physical appearances of a person.
So again I ask... what would be the criteria? that's something neither you, 333, the proponents of this discriminatory legislation including Sherriff Arpaio refuse to answer.
You've clearly missed the point. I'm NOT advising you on how to handle illegals.
I'm advising you of how NOT to handle legal American citizens and law enforcement.
In the quest to catch illegals, you will be infringing on the 4th amendment rights of citizens with NAZI tactics...
...at the personal discretion of cops. That's a kettle of worms you don't want. It's rife with opportunity for abuse, and it opens up police officers to too much liability in the form of civil charges. The cops are put in a no-win catch 22 situation requiring them to violate the 4th amendment rights of everyone in order to cover their asses from potential civil suits... which opens their asses up on federal charges of violating a citizens constitutional rights. if he doesn't violate a citizens constitutional rights... he opens himself up to civil charges. The biggest losers in this proposed scenario are legal American residents and cops. The consequences for them far outweigh the consequences for the few illegals that could potentially be ferreted out, and it's enforcement would prove a far greater drain on resources than the illegals presently pose.
If there are any cops on here, please speak up and tell me if you think I'm off base in my assessment.
as a police officer i am telling you....that a lot of officer will lose everything over this....nothing good will come from it...
bench
-
Oh please, this is such bs.
The hyperbole is beyond anything I have seen in years on this.
-
okay 33,
if a year goes by and we don't see a SINGLE person asked for their papers who hasn't committed a crime, I will admit I was 100% wrong on this.
Will you admit you were wrong, if we see a legal american citizen, who did not commit any crime, who was forced to show their papers?
I think what is on paper and what is about to happen in reality - are 2 diff things.
LOL one person who abuses this law doesnt make this law bad or your view point right...
if that was the case EVERY SINGLE LAW on the books is wrong in your view point ::)
a few things that I think need to be fixed with this law...
citizens should not be able to sue law enforcement if they deem the officer isnt doing his job ::)
they need to AND THEY ARE defining reasonable suspicion under this law...
-
Oh please, this is such bs.
The hyperbole is beyond anything I have seen in years on this.
Now who is the plagiarist?
That's what we say everytime you post one of your stupid threads. :-*
-
Oh please, this is such bs.
The hyperbole is beyond anything I have seen in years on this.
ok, continue living in your radio talkshow/fox news world...and join the civilized world when you grow up, or have anything usefull to contribute...
bench
-
LOL one person who abuses this law doesnt make this law bad or your view point right...
if that was the case EVERY SINGLE LAW on the books is wrong in your view point ::)
a few things that I think need to be fixed with this law...
citizens should not be able to sue law enforcement if they deem the officer isnt doing his job ::)
they need to AND THEY ARE defining reasonable suspicion under this law...
And that definition of reasonable suspicion would be...
-
Sorry - but I took advanced criminal procedure, have handled criminal cases, and know the law on reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Based on the bogus claims of some on this board any cop, whoever arrests a minority could or should be accused of making pretext stop based on race. Why should any cop enforce any law ever than?
-
Sorry - but I took advanced criminal procedure, have handled criminal cases, and know the law on reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Based on the bogus claims of some on this board any cop, whoever arrests a minority could or should be accused of making pretext stop based on race. Why should any cop enforce any law ever than?
judged by your off based theories i call complete bullshit on this....who's gimmick are you? no one can naturally be this stupid...
i am out....too many rush/hannity wannabes on here...
bench
-
Sorry - but I took advanced criminal procedure, have handled criminal cases, and know the law on reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Based on the bogus claims of some on this board any cop, whoever arrests a minority could or should be accused of making pretext stop based on race. Why should any cop enforce any law ever than?
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/answer_the_question.gif)
Why do you persist in dodging this direct question?
How can you legally define reasonable suspicion under this legislation when Sherriff Arpaio himself is unable to?
-
And that definition of reasonable suspicion would be...
it is being developed...why dont we all wait until that comes out to judge it?
although youre stance that it will be on race or looks is false b/c the law itself says that reasonable suspicion cannot be based on race... ;)
-
judged by your off based theories i call complete bullshit on this....who's gimmick are you? no one can naturally be this stupid...
i am out....too many rush/hannity wannabes on here...
bench
Tell me factually where I am wrong on the law on any post I have made.
-
True, but the failure of the Federal Govt to crack down on this crap is what is leading state to take matters into their own hands.
Should the test be "probable cause" over "reasonable suspicion"? We could have that debate.
However, many localities are being overrun by these people and the refusal of the federal govt is going to lead to stuff like this happening.
So if you want to blame someone here, blame the Feds, not the state of AZ who is dealing with this chaos.
-
benchmstr
I have read your posts for years - you've done it all as a cop and props to you for it.
it's interesting to hear about this bill from a LEO perspective.
-
benchmstr
I have read your posts for years - you've done it all as a cop and props to you for it.
it's interesting to hear about this bill from a LEO perspective.
its a fucking nightmare from our point of view.....
the only people who are supporting this, are the people that wont have to clean up the huge mess its about to cause...
i am not saying we shouldnt do something about the illegals.....but there are better ways...
bench
-
benchmstr
I have read your posts for years - you've done it all as a cop and props to you for it.
it's interesting to hear about this bill from a LEO perspective.
The bottom line is that the local cops will probably have a hard time dealing with this unless the Fed and ICE help deport people they arrest.
The biggest problem is the Federal Govt not doing their job and now the states having to take matters into their own hands in dealing with these problems.
-
The bottom line is that the local cops will probably have a hard time dealing with this unless the Fed and ICE help deport people they arrest.
The biggest problem is the Federal Govt not doing their job and now the states having to take matters into their own hands in dealing with these problems.
i have worked for ICE...they are a fucking joke...if i need coffee i will call them, but for immigration? give me a fucking break....
...if this bill goes into effect here in texas, i will go back to my federal job so i dont have to actually touch this soon to be "cluster fuck"...
bench
-
That i completely agree with you on. i just got off the phone with my friend who is a NARC and he told me ICE doesnt do dick. He told me that unless it is a major bust or you have an in with someone in partcicular, they never show up.
So, look, ideally the Fed govt would address this, but now the states are acting on the pleas of the citizens who have to deal with this crap.
-
That i completely agree with you on. i just got off the phone with my friend who is a NARC and he told me ICE doesnt do dick. He told me that unless it is a major bust or you have an in with someone in partcicular, they never show up.
So, look, ideally the Fed govt would address this, but now the states are acting on the pleas of the citizens who have to deal with this crap.
they arent doing it for the plea's of the citizens....they are doing it to insure a re-election...this was just the first, best idea they could come up with to do so...
bench
-
i didnt get to suck msnbc's cock all day, but I did catch something late last night that the dems are coming out with a new immigration plan shortly.
-
i didnt get to suck msnbc's cock all day, but I did catch something late last night that the dems are coming out with a new immigration plan shortly.
somebody was talking about it today at work....but i honestly try not even to pay attention to it anymore...
bench
-
bench, i know you get irritated by some things here easily, but you really should post more. we could use your point of view. We have a group of lawyers, and we have a bunch of limp dicked libs like myself. We could use your insight more often.
-
bench, i know you get irritated by some things here easily, but you really should post more. we could use your point of view. We have a group of lawyers, and we have a bunch of limp dicked libs like myself. We could use your insight more often.
the reason i don't post here more is because i actually know what go's on behind the scene's....it is easier for me to just not care, than try to explain to people that there belief system is just a illusion.....libs, conservative...it doesn't matter..if you label yourself on, or the other you really have already lost the message...
bench
-
Michelle Malkin, :D :D :D :D :D now she a sorce of information :D :D :D :D
-
Blacken we have had a good discussion back and forth on this topic and you have to chipe in w that bs?
-
just pointing out shes not credible, she just a hack
-
First off, child services do not just "show up" at a house. They are summoned there.
Secondly, deadbeat parents who fail to pay child support do not have custody of their kids. that's why they are paying child support to the custodial parent.
The physical appearances of an environment (unsafe / unsanitary home) is a far cry from the physical appearances of a person.
So again I ask... what would be the criteria? that's something neither you, 333, the proponents of this discriminatory legislation including Sherriff Arpaio refuse to answer.
You've clearly missed the point. I'm NOT advising you on how to handle illegals.
I'm advising you of how NOT to handle legal American citizens and law enforcement.
In the quest to catch illegals, you will be infringing on the 4th amendment rights of citizens with NAZI tactics...
...at the personal discretion of cops. That's a kettle of worms you don't want. It's rife with opportunity for abuse, and it opens up police officers to too much liability in the form of civil charges. The cops are put in a no-win catch 22 situation requiring them to violate the 4th amendment rights of everyone in order to cover their asses from potential civil suits... which opens their asses up on federal charges of violating a citizens constitutional rights. if he doesn't violate a citizens constitutional rights... he opens himself up to civil charges. The biggest losers in this proposed scenario are legal American residents and cops. The consequences for them far outweigh the consequences for the few illegals that could potentially be ferreted out, and it's enforcement would prove a far greater drain on resources than the illegals presently pose.
If there are any cops on here, please speak up and tell me if you think I'm off base in my assessment.
Was I right? ...or was I right?
... and 333 calls it hyperbole. ::)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=329236.msg4693508#msg4693508
-
Was I right? ...or was I right?
... and 333 calls it hyperbole. ::)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=329236.msg4693508#msg4693508
They should all be kicked out.
-
Some of you people are such fucking idiots it makes my hair hurt. I'm not going to explain for the 20th time what constitutes reasonable suspicion and why the AZ law ( and all laws in this country) does not allow the police to generate reasonable suspicion based on race alone. 333 has explained it, I have explained it and the more intelligent people who post here have explained it. The rest of you need to get a clue.
There is nothing more pathetic than observing people spout off on topics they are utterly ignorant on. Unfortunately, having people who do know what they are talking about explain it to you guys ad naseum doesn't work. Keep the circle jerk of stupidity and misinformation going! Great job guys!
-
Oh and just for good measure since one of the idiots who posts here brought up the concept of pretextual stops. In Wren v. United States the Supreme Court held that Pretextual stops ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND DO NOT VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
By law the police can pull someone over who has committed a minor traffic violation and use the stop to build probable cause ( and reasonable suspicion) that eventually leads to an arrest.
Sorry to burst everyones bubble.
-
Oh and just for good measure since one of the idiots who posts here brought up the concept of pretextual stops. In Wren v. United States the Supreme Court held that Pretextual stops ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND DO NOT VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
By law the police can pull someone over who has committed a minor traffic violation and use the stop to build probable cause ( and reasonable suspicion) that eventually leads to an arrest.
Sorry to burst everyones bubble.
this is true..... when i worked patrol , and was bored i used to pull people over just to make sure they had a texas drivers license......
bench
-
Some of you people are such fucking idiots it makes my hair hurt. I'm not going to explain for the 20th time what constitutes reasonable suspicion and why the AZ law ( and all laws in this country) does not allow the police to generate reasonable suspicion based on race alone. 333 has explained it, I have explained it and the more intelligent people who post here have explained it. The rest of you need to get a clue.
There is nothing more pathetic than observing people spout off on topics they are utterly ignorant on. Unfortunately, having people who do know what they are talking about explain it to you guys ad naseum doesn't work. Keep the circle jerk of stupidity and misinformation going! Great job guys!
judging by most of your post on here i can assume that you just graduated from some type of criminal law study......the problem is that in itself...you understand the theory, but you dont yet understand the practice.....you will understand what i mean soon enough...
bench