I Thought The Feds Handled The Border
by Big Dog on May 27, 2010 at 04:59 Political
The Arizona law has a lot of people in a snit. The opponents of the law that allows police officers to check the immigration status of anyone who has some interaction with police (a traffic stop, etc) continually mischaracterize the law and spread fear that it might lead to racial profiling.
This is hogwash but it has not stopped groups who advocate illegal activity from spreading the lies and the fear anyway. The Attorney General of the US, Eric Holder, is looking into challenging the Arizona law in court on Constitutional grounds. Holder, who did not read the law before condemning it (a common trait in the Obama regime), believes that enforcement of immigration laws is a federal government job and that states do not have the authority to enforce federal laws. As an aside, Arizona’s laws is a state law that makes it a crime to be in the state illegally. The only way to establish that is to check and see if people are in the country illegally.
This position is somewhat ridiculous. State and local police officers enforce federal laws all the time. Bank robbery is a federal crime but if a bank in any state is robbed the local police respond and have the authority to arrest the bank robbers. Can you imagine what would happen if FBI agents showed up and were told that the criminals were there with the police but they had no authority to enforce federal laws by arresting them so they let them go?
Kidnapping is a federal crime but state and local police respond to that crime. The same holds true for a number of crimes and no one seems to care that local officers are involved. For some reason though, people get uptight when the law deals with securing our borders or illegal immigration.
Surprisingly, Barack Obama has ordered 1200 National Guard troops to the border in Arizona (looks like the law is working) but has ignored a similar request from Texas. I don’t understand why Obama needs to give the order. If he takes charge of them they are not allowed to perform police functions. The NG belongs to the states so the governor of the state is in charge of them. If Texas or Arizona need Guardsmen on the borders then they should just deploy them. States have the right to keep people from crossing their borders illegally and if the governors deployed the NG then the soldiers could perform law enforcement functions. They could detain illegal entrants.
The federal government has been bellowing about the federal functions and how the security of the border is their job blah, blah. But an interesting thing happened today.
Texas was warned about the possibility of terrorists trying to enter the country illegally across the Mexico-Texas border. If stopping these illegal entrants is a federal job and the feds are the ones who should be enforcing their laws, why alert the local police? Why not send federal agents to guard the border and look for the terrorists?
One could make the argument that the state has the right to stop people at the border but that once they are here illegally the states have no authority to check immigration status or to detain people for being here illegally. Immigration being a federal job and all.
So if one of these terrorists crosses the border unseen but two days later an officer recognizes him from a photo, is the officer allowed to confront the guy and ask for identification? Can the officer check the immigration status of the terrorist?
If the answer is no then why alert Texas law enforcement and ask them to be on the lookout? If the answer is yes then why is the Arizona law wrong?
I have been thinking about the Arizona law and even though I have no problem I have a solution that will guarantee that no one is profiled. It will not please the left or any of the illegal immigrant groups who are aiding and abetting the criminals but it will work.
They should have immigration checkpoints. These would be just like sobriety checkpoints, would be random, would move from place to place and would require all people in every car that passes through the checkpoint to provide proof that they are here legally. Children would be considered legal if the adults in the car are legal.
The police could have cruisers set up to look for people who turn around to avoid the checkpoint. That would be probable cause to check their status.
The people who do not like Arizona’s law will not like the checkpoints but the courts have ruled sobriety checkpoints legal so long as they are random or everyone is checked. Illegal immigrant checkpoints are a great way to go. The law says that to check for immigration status the people have to make contact with police for some other reason first. No problem, just say the checkpoints are sobriety checkpoints and then ask everyone, and that is the key, for proof of status.
This could obviously be tweaked to work without violating the law or the Constitution.
The stops could also serve another purpose. Police could hand out literature explaining that there are sanctuary cities not far from Arizona and include a list of those cities and directions to get to them.
Arizona would be happy to send its illegals to California. Hell, the federal government will probably not take any referrals to ICE so Arizona might as well send the illegals where they are wanted.
As for Texas. It should tell the federal government to come look for the terrorist so that the state does not run afoul of federal immigration laws…
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arizona, eric holder, illigal immigrants, lies, national guard, terrorists, texas
There’s really no substitute for a good stout fence. It would surely be a lot cheaper than all the government-supplied services illegal aliens currently receive (e.g., free schooling, care in municipal hospitals, welfare support, accommodations in comfy, well equipped prisons at a rent of $0.00, etc.).
“Good fences make good neighbors.” — Robert Frost.
You mean like the Great Wall of China? That worked real swell…
But maybe we could make it an electric fence? Like in Jurassic Park?
Yeah! I am on that idea!
Why waste the electricity? A nice deep trench filled with nuclear-reactor byproducts and pig offal would do just fine.
A nation that doesn’t enforce its borders is not a nation. If that’s the sort of place you want to live, move to France. The rest of us will defend America.
I have no problem supporting a stronger border even though virtually nothing we do will ever stop all people. The trouble is that studies suggest between 1/3 and 1/2 of illegals are from overstayed visas. We could put up 2 fences with an army and dogs in between it (a real suggestion from the buffoons at Blogs For Victory) and we still would have an illegal immigration problem.
This problem (much like abortion) has simply become a political weapon: Which candidate can read the tea leaves and take the strongest stance possible before the election. Once the election is over and it’s time to act we see that the subject is far too complicated for talking points and sound bytes. Of course don’t tell kooky Arizona that. They have no trouble passing laws to put a 3rd of their population under suspicion. After all the people who don’t look illegal (whites) love that bill…
We could get the Soviets to build one like they did in Berlin. No one got over it.
We can curb the illegals (note that the illegals are the only concern) by being brutally hard on them. If you come here illegally you spend time in jail before you go home. Over stay a Visa, stay in jail. And then punish employers who hire illegals, $10 grand per infraction.
Jail if they do it again.
Make it unpleasant and people will not want to do it.
The overstayed visas are a Fed failure- perhaps if Barrie can get every fed employee with their $70,000 a year job and cadillac health plan to quit porn surfing, then things MIGHT get done, whether it is the SEC, the MMS, or the ICE- progressives and fed bureaucracy like them some porn.
Heck, the porn industry would have to fold up and slink away if not for the federal employees who are addicted.
Your examples (is like abortion)isn’t even purely anecdotal.
It is just stupid.
Like your stupid blue hat. Like your stupid wire frame glasses.
Like your stupid fat self-indulgent liberal retard face.
Overstayed Visa, once again a federal failure…
Just as an example of WHY we should ask for documentation, and check for illegal entry is the amount of crime done BY illegals- case in point- an undercover sting in Houston, Texas culminated in the death of the undercover officer, shot to death by ILLEGAL criminals, an altogether too common occurance in our country these days.
Another- a US Rep. , himself an advocate for illegal immigration, was rear-ended by a drunk Mexican (.25 on the scale, or three times the legal limit)- now there’s Karma at work.
But all of this just points out how ridiculous this border situation now is.
If you, as a private citizen, were to purchase a house, would you not want, perhaps even demand, that the front door AND the back door both close and lock, all the better to ensure that you and you alone can say who is allowed in or not?
Of course you would, unless you are an idiot- and since this country is in essence, our house, the borders should be absolutely as secure as we can make them, BEFORE we invite people in.
Remember, the best parties are those over which there were invitations- not party crashers.
Your examples are purely anecdotal. Please direct me to studies of illegal immigration and crime compared to anybody else living in the country legally.
Please educate yourself. It isn’t not our job to inform you of what is obvious to everyone else.
Dolt.
We do not need examples to show anything. The very presence of illegal aliens is in and of itself ILLEGAL. They are illegal from the time they come and if they were not here they would not be committing crime here. Even if it is less than anyone else (and it is not) they are here illegally and that is the end of the story.
Big Dog:
Don’t play games. You know that when folks like Blake suggest illegals commit crimes they don’t mean the crime of being in the country. I would just like for once to see Blake back up a claim with some form of evidence instead of the faulty anecdotes he lives by.
I certainly don’t know why the reasoning would be faulted except with some liberal logic that excuses the reality. Illegals are a small part of the population and commit a lot more crime.
And being here illegally is a crime so ALL of them have commit a crime. 100% of them committed a crime in the US. 100% of citizens have not committed crimes.
You’ve got faulty stats from one county. The realty you pretend to like doesn’t back up the myth you spread around to demonize illegals. It’s easy to hate criminals and killers. It’s a lot harder to hate folks working hard and raising a family. That’s why you choose to spread lies.
Right Adam, some reporter with an Hispanic last name reports on this without the data.
Look at percentage of population and then how many crimes. Give us the per capita numbers. Explain why a huge number of prisoners are illegals.
And like I said, 100% of the illegals here have broken the law. No matter how you slice that they have a higher crime rate than citizens.
The problem with you and the rest of the anti American crowd is that you ignore this when talking about crime.
Let me write it again for you:
100% of all illegals have committed a crime. They ALL have committed a crime which means they have a higher crime rate than citizens.
You cannot refute that.
And if they only committed 1 crime a year that crime would not be committed if they were not here. Crime, burden on tax system, social welfare programs, SS, medical facilities, housing, wages, you name it.
They cost money and everyone of them is a law breaker….
“Right Adam, some reporter with an Hispanic last name reports on this without the data.”
Excuse me?
“Explain why a huge number of prisoners are illegals.”
No, you first explain how you find that to be true and what you consider a “huge number” to really be.
“And like I said, 100% of the illegals here have broken the law.”
And legal citizens never break the law, do they? You never do yourself, do you? The problem is you think being illegal is such an egregious crime that it deserves harsh punishment but you have to back that idea up with myths about illegals and violent crime and incarceration to justify your bias. You keep saying these things are true but you’re not proving them other than linking to faulty stats from a single county. But yeah, that dude has a Hispanic name so clearly he’s biased. Pathetic…
You explain how the numbers are faulty without using some fudged numbers from LaRaza or an opinion piece from Tampa.
Are you justifying the entry into our country illegally by saying citizens also break the law?
When citizens break the law the police look for them and they are held accountable for their actions. When illegals break the law (upon entry) and any other time you and your ilk excuse the behavior.
Buck up son, they are law breakers who have you as a defender. Are you proud that you support the active breaking of our laws?
“You explain how the numbers are faulty without using some fudged numbers from LaRaza or an opinion piece from Tampa.”
It’s not that I deny illegals commit crimes. They do sometimes. So do legal immigrants and American citizens.
You can point out crime in one county but you can’t point to evidence of a national crime wave by illegals or a glut of incarcerated illegals. I can’t say this enough: Your side has created these myths to spread fear and to demonize illegals so you can justify your bias against them.
“Are you justifying the entry into our country illegally by saying citizens also break the law?”
Nope. I’m all for preventing illegals from entering. I’m just not for overly punishing the illegals that are here. Yes, they broke the law but let’s let the punishment fit the crime. You don’t create amnesty to somehow prevent future illegal immigration. You do it because the alternatives go against American values.
What American values do we go against if we hold them accountable? Before we do anything we must build the fence or wall to secure the border. Until that is done we cannot have a reasonable conversation on what to do with those who are here.
They should not be put ahead of anyone who is doing it the right way and if we catch them before any reform they need to be sent home and they can have a choice as to whether that means breaking up their families. Plenty of citizens have their families broken up when one has to be punished, look at the former Detroit Mayor.
The punishment should fit the crime, we can agree. The punishment we have on the books is deportment…
“What American values do we go against if we hold them accountable?”
It’s the idea that we should have massive crackdowns and raids and even send home anchor babies that starts to go against American values. The Right wing can’t stop one-upping itself in an election year to look tough on immigration. Then they have the nerve to resent Democrats for winning Latino voters every election cycle. Shocker.
Maybe the pols resent not having the Latino vote but I don’t. The issue is ILLEGAL immigration and if enforcing the law makes people vote another way then those people have the problem. I will not bow down to people who have broken the law because they think they have political might.
Anchor babies were never meant to be citizens. Read the history of the 14th Amendment and the words of the guys who wrote it.
If we cannot enforce it as written then we need to change the law.
We need to have crackdowns on illegals, gangs, mob activity, crime syndicates and corrupt politicians. If they are breaking the law we need to hold them accountable.
You can have a bleeding heart because some person who is here illegally got caught in a raid but if they did not break the law there would be no problem.
If it makes you feel better I also support fining any employer who knowingly hires illegals 10 grand per employee. This will keep them from hiring illegals and send them home because the job market dried up.
I also do not want the illegals benefiting from social welfare. Not one dime and they will leave.
We owe them nothing. It is really that simple.
Bernie Madoff just wanted to make a better life for his family. Should we have ignored what he did? Putting him in jail broke up his family and put hardships on them. Should we have no compassion?
I know the libs have a hard time with accountability but the reality is people should be held accountable for what they do.
Protest and boycott all they want. Fact remains they do not belong here.
“Bernie Madoff just wanted to make a better life for his family.”
Sorry. Madoff is not the same as illegal immigrants anymore than downloading an illegal DVD rip is the same as murdering a person.
“I know the libs have a hard time with accountability but the reality is people should be held accountable for what they do.”
That’s what you keep saying, anyway. The truth is still simply that the punishment should fit the crime. You don’t go to prison for life if you get caught speeding. You shouldn’t have your whole life derailed and your family broken up just because you didn’t follow the proper channels to come into the US and make a life for yourself. Your whole argument rests on myths about illegals and crime, social spending, and incarceration. You can’t debate immigration reform on a level playing field.
No Adam, the whole argument does NOT rely on myths. The whole argument relies on the rule of law.
Families need not be broken up, send them ALL back.
The punishment should fit the crime right?
The punishment for being here illegally is deportment. That is already the law so we should follow it.
You are getting better at your Alinsky tactics though.
Do illegals significantly increase crime and/or prison populations? Every single conservative that has commented in this thread seems to believe so. Let’s have some facts to back it up, shall we? Stop blaming Alinsky for your evidence free conclusions and present some facts.