You're most welcome, Lstudent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
:)
Printable View
You're most welcome, Lstudent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
:)
That's a real shame. I'd say the local law enforcement agencies aren't doig their job. They need to do some research, conduct fact-finding, investigate, take tips, follow up, and prepare search/arrest warrants and if successful make the arrests and deport the illegal aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by vortex
Unless 287(g) is mandated, along with E-Verify, there are plenty who will claim "not my yob." How often have I read that here I cannot count.
I used it the word "latino" and "non-english speaking" to highlight the difficulties in obtaining probable cause for an arrest of someone residing in the United States illegally.
Since the majority of Illegal Immigrants are of Latin Descent, and many don't speak English(which are characteristics of many legal immigrants as well), it shows the difficulties in obtaining probable cause.
What is "yob"?
Why would the inability to speak English be a factor in obtaining probable cause? First off, most police agencies have bilingual officers, In addition, probable cause can be gained by any number of factors, including observations, behavior and other factors not dependant on direct examination via conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
Those in the country legally can usually verify that fact through the presentation of Gov.issued identification, irrespective of the language they are speaking.
So in short, I guess I'm somewhat confused by this statement. What does speaking a language other than English have to do with establishing PC?
Please enlighten me.
You wrote:
"The same way they ascertain and arrest US citizens suspected of violating our laws. They either have an exigent circumstance, suspicious behavior, tip, investigation, a search warrant or an arrest warrant."
This is circular because of all of the methods you listed "exigent circumstances, suspicious behavior, tip, investigation, a search warrant or an arrest warrant", SPECIFIC FACTORS are needed in order to employ any of these methods. Please, aside from the tip, list specific factors that can be used to give law enforcement probable cause to ascertain whether an individual is illegally present in the United States.
I shall reply once I get a reply from my latest post. (it will make things less confusing)
What difficulties? Legal immigrants will have visas or green cards. US citizens will have records all the way back to their birth records or naturalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
Law enforcement does their research in advance to establish probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a search arrest which if the search warrant is successful, then they have their probable cause to make the arrest depending on the success of the search.
Are you aware of the difference between reasonable suspicion for a search warrant versus probable cause for an arrest?
Take air travel today. Americans are searched at every airport without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Take daily life. Police knock on doors investigating all types of things, ask all kinds of questions, ask to come in, look all around, as a matter of course. If something looks suspicious or illegal, they call in for a warrant and come back, if they find what they were looking for, they make arrests. If you resist, they arrest you. I give you the professor in Boston.
Take traffic check points today. Americans are stopped all the time without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause. They ask to see your license and registration, shine the light in your eyes and then all around your car and if they want, they ask you to open your trunk, they bring the dogs out, with no reasonable suspicion at all and absolutely no probable cause.
Police have the right to investigate, they have the right to hunt, to seek out, to search for and find criminal wrong-doers on the streets, on the highways, in homes, in businesses, retail stores, schools, public buildings, just about anywhere they want to roam. You have two choices, cooperate or resist, in which they case leave and come back with a warrant. They might find something, they might find nothing, but they'll have the reasonable suspicion for a warrant or no judge will give them a search warrant.
I'm confident that local law enforcement will have both the reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make the arrests on the same level of accuracy that they enforce every other law in our country. Sure, there will be some mistakes, but that happens in every course of law enforement action. That's why we have trials and in the case of illegal immigration, deportation hearings prior to a Deportation Order being issued.
So, you can rest assured that no illegal alien will be wrongfully deported.
:)
you wrote "reasonable suspicion for a search arrest which if the search warrant is successful, then they have their probable cause to make the arrest depending on the success of the search."
reasonable suspicion, in most situations, is not enough to obtain a search warrant. Probable Cause is required.
A search warrant can be obtained if they have "probable cause" to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime may be found there."
Airports are an exception because of exigent circumstances.
Police can knock on doors and ask questions, but without a search warrant obtained based upon probable cause, they cannot go further unless the person they are questioning/wanting to search consents.
Traffic check points are also an exception.
Here, you are simply simply wrong on the law.
No, I wrote that, not NoBueno.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
Government and public record searches, driver's licenses, car registrations, school records, employment records, hospital records, criminal records, police records, court records, tax records, utility records, birth records, death records, inspection records, welfare records, store records, cash advance records, western union records, E-Verify, background checks, business records, etc., etc., etc. to name a few that are all within the jurisdiction of records and the means of cities, towns, villages, counties and states to investigate and ascertain reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.
Of course search warrants must be based upon probable cause. They must also be issued by a fair and impartial magistrate and describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized, in case you want to throw that in as well.
Police don't have to knock on doors to arrest illegals. Why? Because they come into contact with plenty of them during the course of their regular duties. Most reasonable people understand this.
If you pull someone over and they cannot produce any form of gov issued identification, then you now have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to question them further to ascertain who they are and why they cannot produce any identification.
If someone is loitering in front of a Home Depot, in clear violation of the law, then police have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to question those individuals. The questioning can go as far as the PC takes them.
This is not rocket science!
No, I'm not. We have 20 million or more illegal aliens in the United States which is an exigent circumstance unto itself, and all the cause any police officer needs to find them and remove them, by conducting research, fact-finding, check points, door to door investigations, record searches, tip hotlines, rewards, scouts, stings, moles, undercover operations, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. all the tools they use to seek out and hunt down any lawbreaker to gather enough information adequate to secure a search and/or an arrest warrant and make the arrests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
The crimes of illegal immigration have already occurred. The hunt is on for those responsible which can employ any and every law enforcement technique used to investigate, hunt down, find and arrest every illegal alien in the country.
You're "simply simply wrong on the law".
:)
Exactly. Police do it every day in full accord with our laws and have been doing since the day we became a nation complete with a Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoBueno
For clarification, a "yob" is the same as a "tschob", depends on the pronunciation of "job" by those from around the world. The Germans giggle at me butchering their language with a Scandinavian pronunciation, the Scandinavians giggle at my American accent. I am trying to learn Gujurati from the guys at the gas station, and Spanish from the local grocery.
It matters not where we came from, what we spoke, but it matters greatly that those we come in contact with are here legally. That differentiation has landed in the laps of local law enforcement, some whose superiors decide that it is not their "yob."
:lol: "yob" = job .. that's funny! Never heard that word before.
Can we/I sue the city where I live, for not enforcing the law of the land?
Yes, I believe so. They have an obligation to enforce our laws and if they are deliberately refusing to and in many ways conspiring not to do so, then absolutely you can sue for dereliction of duty, breach of oath of office, failure to protect, defend and secure your blessings of liberty, breach of contract, gross negligence, civil rights violations, unequal treatment under the law, etc., etc., etc.. You pay taxes, those taxes are allocated for law enforcement, that's a contract, they've breached it, they've used your money protecting, serving, aiding and abetting, the very people you paid them to protect you and your family from, that's also fraud, taking money from you for one purpose and then using it for another. To me, every US citizen in the country has this claim against every law enforcement agency in the country that hasn't lifted a finger to arrest, detain and deport illegal aliens. Same with the schools, Americans pay taxes to educate American children, not have their money diverted to the education of foreign nationals who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. Same with health care, Americans pay taxes and insurance premiums to provide health care for Americans, not to pay for or absorb the cost of health care to illegal aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorguy
What these people are doing is absolutely accountable for under civil litigation as well as prosecutable under criminal law. It's aiding and abetting, smuggling, harboring and conspiracy ... in direction violation of the US immigration law which is criminal law no different than anti-drug law, tax law or any other criminal law. Officials are absolutely responsible for the consequences of both their actions and inactions to the people of the United States.
It would be interesting to get Lstudent's viewpoints on what our country should do with our 20 million illegal aliens.
Sorry for continuing the conversation, but the computer screen was burning my eyes out. Sunlandbob, I am not entirely sure what to do with the 20 million illegal aliens. But, once my last final is over(December 8th) I will come give you a provisional answer.
Judy: the 20 million illegals as an exigent circumstance is interesting, but I don't think that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the U.S. yet as to make it legally valid in regards to the 4th amendment requirements.
I understand, overall, that there are many different tactics that law enforcement can employ to ascertain whether someone is here illegally. However, even with all the methods listed, including the specific factors you mentioned, judy, I will maintain that it is still not possible to deport all illegal aliens. Therefore, a more practical solution is required. That practical solution is, I suppose, the answer to Sunlandbob's question of what I would do with all the illegal aliens. Till December 8th.
Who said anything about having to deport all illegal aliens! Just enforce existing immigration laws and many will leave on their own accord. That would be an excellent start.
Why do we need to wait until the end of your final to get a reply from you. You seemingly had no problems yesterday engaging in this discussion?
Do you believe illegal invaders should be deported? A yes or no reply will suffice for now.
How about we start there?
Haha. I had no trouble yesterday because I was neglecting my studies. Judy wrote: "Just get them out of there. Deport them all."
No, not if they have committed no other crime than the unlawful entry. I will further explain why when I am done with my final on Tuesday.
So are you neglecting your studies today as well?
In any event, good luck on your final and also trying to build a compelling argument against not deporting those who have committed no crime other than unlawful entry; which by the way, is impossible to do if they are also working in this country.
Good point NB. And let's not forget this from our good friends at CIS:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoBueno
[i]Illegal immigrants are not “undocumented.â€
Good point NB. And let's not forget this from our good friends at CIS:Quote:
Originally Posted by Populist
[i]Illegal immigrants are not “undocumented.â€
Of course it's possible to deport 20 million illegal aliens. It's not only possible, it's actually required by the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
"Article 1
"Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
______________________
The states have always had the right and responsibility to deport illegal aliens invading their state and the US Government has had that right and responsibility since 1808. It's why we have US immigration law, it's why US immigration law requires deportation, it's why local, state and federal agents or even citizens under their right of citizen's arrest, have the right to arrest and deport illegal aliens. The only requirement prior to a deportation of an illegal alien is a hearing to confirm for public records that they are in fact an illegal alien, an ascertainment of fact that can only be confirmed by our governments, because governments both states and the federal government are the only entities that establish legal residency either through citizenship or immigration and travel permits to enter or remain in the US.
So our governments including our law enforcement agencies, both state and federal, not only have the right, they have the duty and obligation, to enforce immigration laws, specifically provided for in our Constitution, to remove from our US soil, anyone who is not a US citizen or here with our unexpired permission to protect the public safety, health, well-being, economics, property interests and political system of the American People.
So our governments have the constant and perennial duty in all matters at all times to ascertain whether anyone is present in the US according to US law, and if they aren't, they have the absolute unmitigated duty to remove them through a deportation. Our government doesn't need probable cause to research someone's citizenship or immigration status. They have the duty to research it and ensure that all residents and visitors in the US are either citizens or permitted guests at all times. It's why we have identification requirements for almost everything we do, to get a driver's license, to receive health care, to go to school, to go to college, to get a job, to collect a benefit, to vote, to get a loan, to get utilities hooked-up, to sell a property, to buy a property.
It's why we have health screenings and background checks on immigrants and visitors.
US immigration law supported totally by the US Constitution since the day it was written and ratified is to protect the people of the United States from an invasion of foreign nationals we don't want occupying our country.
The only time a law enforcement officer or court would or could violate the constitutional rights of someone arrested for being an illegal alien is if they arrest someone as an illegal alien, when they knew or should have known they weren't an illegal alien and they wrongfully arrested and deported a US citizen either in honest error or through negligence or bad intentions, the same as government from time to time arrests US citizens, prosecutes them for crimes and sends them to jail or death row for crimes they didn't commit.
Let me ask you some questions on civil rights Lstudent:
Was slavery constitutional in our little free nation of free people before it was specifically prohibited by the 13th Amendment?
Did the United States have the right and obligation to free the slaves held in bondage in the South during the Civil War?
Did the United States government need probable cause to search for slaves and escort them from their homes in the South?
Was the Emancipation Proclamation constitutional in your view?
Was the US Supreme Court Ruling that sent poor Dred Scott back into slavery constitutional?
Was the US Supreme Court Ruling of 1883 that over-turned the US Civil Rights Act of 1875 constitutional?
Until you first understand the purpose of our Constitution which is plainly stated in a little paragraph called the Preamble, it's probably best not to try to explain its provisions established for the people of the United States through US Supreme Court Rulings on the subject of Illegal Aliens.
The entire purpose of the Constitution of the United States is to protect the people of the United States:
"United States Constitution
"Preamble
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now, where in our Preamble to the US Constitution do you find any purpose at all regarding illegal aliens in our country in violation of US law? Where in the US Constitution do you find the right of our government to ignore their violations of law and force Americans to underwrite their presence? Where in anyone's clear-thinking mind do people come up with the conclusion that our government has the right to imperfect our union, destroy the domestic tranquility of our people, jeopardize the common defense of our nation, compromise the general welfare of our citizens and steal the blessings of liberty established and ordained by this Constitution solely for the people of the United States and our posterity and transfer those blessings to criminals from other nations in violation of our law?
Our country is short 12 million jobs for the people of the United States because of illegal aliens. The people of the United States are hundreds of billions of dollars short of their blessings of liberty because of illegal aliens. The people of the United States are short their common defense, general welfare and domestic tranquility our Constitution guarantees them because of the presence of illegal aliens. Americans are on welfare because illegal aliens stole their job or business. Americans have moved from towns and states they loved to get away from illegal aliens. Americans are in debt up to their ear-lobes for the next 5 generations because of illegal aliens if we deported every single one of them today. Americans are in their graves, over 40,000 of them, since 2001, because illegal aliens killed them.
If the invasion of our country by 20 million or more illegal aliens isn't an exigent circumstance, then I'd like to know what you think would be? Some pot seeds under the floor mat of a parked car or a discarded bong in someone's Friday trash pick-up?
:)
Good luck with your final on Tuesday, and I look forward to learning what constitutional authority upon which you base this biased unequal treatment of illegal aliens. Our law dictates that all illegal aliens be deported without bias, prejudice or preference. Under US Law, you can't prefer to keep 1 group of illegal aliens while deporting another just because you like 1 group better than another for your own arbitrary reasons or purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
US law dictates that if you are in our country illegally, then you are entitled to a deportation hearing to confirm your illegal alien status, after which you shall be deported forthwith, and the US Constitution supports that law 100% and has since the day our Constitution was ratified.
In addition, state criminal laws provide that illegal aliens be prosecuted for other crimes and jailed, not deported, just like anyone else who commits other crimes under our other criminal codes.
So what you're suggesting is that we not deport those who haven't committed other crimes, whether we know whether they have or not, but deport those who have allowing them to escape penalty, which means both aspects of your view conflict with US immigration law and other US criminal laws.
Finally, US deportation law has never been based on the level of criminality of illegal aliens. Deportation of illegal aliens is based solely on their illegal presence in the US in violation of US immigration law. Your view is part of the attempts of the Open Borders Lobby to circumvent US immigration law on the basis of preferential criminality, ignoring the crime of unlawful entry, the sole basis for deportation, while focusing on "other crimes" instead to legalize the crime of unlawful entry. I suppose when that doesn't work out, you'll want to ignore every other law they break so you can justify their presence here in spite of all US law. I suppose when you achieve that, you'll argue "they've served their time, they've paid their penalty for their other crimes" and are entitled to remain in the country after they're released from jail and have paid their debt to society.
US deportation law requires illegal aliens be deported so they don't have the opportunity to commit any act including other crimes that damage or harm US citizens to begin with. That's why we have US immigration law in the first place, to control the importation of persons to whom we see fit and deem suitable for entry. It's right there in Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution, in full accord with the purpose of the US Constitution so eloquently and cleared defined in the Preamble of the US Constitution.
:)
Lstudent better not be in dereliction of duty, by blogging instead of having nose in book with only a few hours left until the final! :wink:
I wonder why a first year law student who presumably wants to become a lawyer would want to try to argue that enforcing US immigration law is unconstitutional when the Constitution empowered the federal government to enforce immigration law after 1808 and the states have been empowered to enforce it every day since the Constitution was ratified and we became a nation.
Scary isn't it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Judy
Either this person does not know the Constitution, or knows it and has chosen to ignore it, due to its inconvenience in pursuing an amnesty agenda.
It really is very very troubling. And yes, it is most likely one of the two situations you mention, because what third possibility could there be, when the right and duty to deport illegal aliens from our territory is spelled out clear as a day in the US Constitution from the Preamble on down.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoBueno
Makes you then wonder how many law professors uphold the US Constitution. Maybe we should keep that in mind when we select our candidates for public offices. The last thing we need is a bunch of lawyers in our government who don't know the US Constitution. It's kind of like putting a sailor on a sailboat who doesn't know how to sail, because well, he worked in the galley.
I got to this thread late yesterday and thought Lstudent wouldn't come back.
I meant to post this:
Stop and Identify statutes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Stop and identifyâ€
[quote="Ratbstard"]I got to this thread late yesterday and thought Lstudent wouldn't come back.
I meant to post this:
Stop and Identify statutes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Stop and identifyâ€
Came in to this one really late, but would like to make two points/observations/comments:
1. My daughter and son-in-law are police officers who all too frequently come in contact with illegal aliens, and have often expressed deep regret that due to the inadequacies of our government on the local, state, and federal level, have all too often been forced to let the criminal aliens go. There is not only a need, but an overwhelming desire on the part of law enforcement to properly process, prosecute, and deport each and every one of these criminals. They simply lack the tools and the support to do so. The SAVE Act, E-verify, workplace raids, employer punishment in the form of fines, imprisonment, and revokation of business license are a good start, and all should be implemented nationwide in due haste.
Not to provide the tools and support is negligent, and should be addressed in a class action civil suit against the federal government.
2. In my opinion, Lstudent is an open-borders, pro-amnesty troll.
Trolls can be fun when they remain civil and carry on an actual debate. :D :wink:
Yes, it is truly negligent not to provide the tools and resources for local law enforcement to arrest, detain and deport illegal aliens. And I agree 100% that the SAVE ACT, E-verify, workplace raids, employer punishment in the form of fines, imprisonment, revocation of business licenses are good starts as well as expansion of the 287 (g) program to help train local law enforcement on federal law to arrest and deport for every police agency in the country. Local law enforcement knows how to arrest and detain, so all they really need is the funding and procedure for deportations.Quote:
Originally Posted by melena29
We have over 3,140 county Sheriffs departments, over 19,000 municipal police departments and 50 state highway patrol organizations who know their towns, counties and states far better than federal agents, and these police officers at the state and local level are far better equipped to arrest, detain and deport illegal aliens out of their communities, counties and states than even highly-trained federal agents. We need to turn to our local ad state law enforcement agencies to get this job done for the people of the United States.
Alas, I am neglecting my studies yet again. Before I delve any farther into this discussion, I must ask Judy to correct her assertion on Constitutional Law.
You wrote:
Of course it's possible to deport 20 million illegal aliens. It's not only possible, it's actually required by the US Constitution.
"Article 1
"Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
It seems you are not aware of what Article 1, Section 9 is. It is regarding the regulation of slaves, not the regulation of immigration.
Please acknowledge your error and point to the actual clause that has to do with immigration. Also, I am a third-year law student, not a first year.
No Bueno, are you a law student? If so, you should correct errors in law.
Why are we concerned with protecting Illegal Alien criminals,(illegally here).From other criminals feeding off them!
When it comes to deportation, start small a little town in Maine, seal it up and arrest and deport. Than move west, the illegals will get the message, and leave. 8)
Malena called me an open-borders/pro-amnesty troll. Yet, the only certain thing that can be discerned from what I have heretofore said is that I think deporting ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS is not practicable.
I think Judy and NoBueno will attest to that. What is the definition of a troll, anyway?
Well then, I stand corrected. At the very least you are uninformed. President Dwight D. Eisenhower did just that in 1954. God bless him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lstudent
Not only can it be done, but for the survival of our nation, it must be done.