Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 04:22:23 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 03:52:29 AM

No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.

Its a stretch....its almost the which came first argument though.

Think of it this way then, The government set a legal contract with the accused that if he paid a certain amount of colateral, he would be released with the promise he would appear for trial.  When the money was paid, the government chose to accept the payment, then also chose to not live up to their end of the bargain.  If they did not intend to release him, they should not have accepted the money nor set the bail.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 04:38:04 AM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 04:22:23 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 03:52:29 AM

No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.

Its a stretch....its almost the which came first argument though.

Think of it this way then, The government set a legal contract with the accused that if he paid a certain amount of colateral, he would be released with the promise he would appear for trial.  When the money was paid, the government chose to accept the payment, then also chose to not live up to their end of the bargain.  If they did not intend to release him, they should not have accepted the money nor set the bail.

Agreed....but does that make it unconstitutional?

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 04:42:39 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 04:38:04 AM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 04:22:23 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 03:52:29 AM

No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.

Its a stretch....its almost the which came first argument though.

Think of it this way then, The government set a legal contract with the accused that if he paid a certain amount of colateral, he would be released with the promise he would appear for trial.  When the money was paid, the government chose to accept the payment, then also chose to not live up to their end of the bargain.  If they did not intend to release him, they should not have accepted the money nor set the bail.

Agreed....but does that make it unconstitutional?

Well, if there is a federal law requiring that he be released if the bail conditions are met, then yes, it would be unconstitutional for them to hold him anyway.

As stated in Article VI section 2:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

However, it is unclear to me whether or not they violated federal law.  The Judicial officer can certainly change the conditions of his release at any time according to the law, but in this case, it was ICE, not a judicial officer, who decided to hold him.  From what I understand, unless that judge changes his/her mind, if the bail is met, then it must be upheld.  The rest of the law covers when bail is to be set, and when it is not.  One of the conditions for bail is if the person is in the country legally, if he is not, then no bail.  However in this case, he WAS a legal citizen, who provided all the documentation needed to establish that fact, and he was still held.

I see they may have broken the law, but I still dont see how it is unconstitutional.

You may be right, either way it seems illegal.  The last thing I will say toward the Constitutional argument is reguarding the 5th amendment, which states that "no person....shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law".  So for example, it would be considered a violation of that clause if the government decides to hold a person without charging them with a crime, or holding them after they were acquitted of a crime.  It's a stretch I admit, but bail is a part of due process here.

Lastly, whether it is unconsitutional or just illegal (the difference is very touchy when it comes to government actions), it is still just as serious.

By holding him after he posted bail didn't they deny him due process? That would be unconstitutional.  I don't know as much about the constitution as Marcus, so I hope he keeps trying to explain

I am sure many of you have heard what's happening in Arizona.

A panel discusses why they feel nothing is being done; these are their words not mine, so don't shoot the messenger.

One panelist pointed out that he, (the panelist) and Obama feel that the Republicans are to blame, because they will not work on the issue of immigration policy with Obama.  That is true, for Republicans also did not back Bush (also Republican) in 2006 on the same issue, so it's not really Republican against Democrat, for they haven't backed their own party on the issue in the past.  And although both of these statements are true, conservative Democrats are also not backing Obama (who is a Democrat himself.)  Another point made by the 2 other panelists and a brief interview with a congressman (not on the panel in the TV studio) have said since Obama's party (Democrats) control both the house and the senate, then that bill could be on the table tomorrow if they wanted it to be.  So why is Obama playing the blame game? 

Panelists feel:
a) this is typical Obama - it's what he does best - blame;
b) Obama makes alot of political speeches, that are not legislative speeches and devoid of specifics;
c) the Hispanic American population that was very concerned about this issue and voted in favor of Obama over McCain back then, is losing their faith in him, and their numbers of supporters have decreased, and Obama wants to win them back;
d) the Democrats are holding this immigration enforcement as hostage in order to get a bargain on amnesty, which is against their constitutional duties anyhow, because they should enforce the border;
e) Obama says he does not want the Arizona law, because he doesn't want a patchwork of laws, but instead a national standard, however the national standard already exists, but it's not enforced.  Which shows his lack of knowing the constitutional duties, OR his lack of enforcing them. (Ok that last sentence was my comment)

Here is the video - see for yourself, and weigh in >>
http://news.yahoo.com/video/opinion-15749653/20671942#video=20671942

Immigration is an issue that doesn't break cleanly along party lines. To my knowledge, Republicans and Democrats are not well unified on a solution. It also gets really ugly for any congressman in the southwest, or with national aspirations. That's why it's so hard to get any bill passed.

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

So, in summary, everything is Obama's fault?

Come on, babs. You're more intelligent than this.

So, in summary, everything is Obama's fault?

Come on, babs. You're more intelligent than this.

Myk, please don't get your panties in a bunch, ya stud muffin you.

No I am not saying everything in politics in Obama's fault, for Bush and Cheney did their fair share of messing things up, and Obama is Democrat and the other 2 are Republicans - so it's not a party affiliation thing for me either. 

And like I said, these are the panelists remarks - not mine.  Only one comment at the end was mine - the rest was their material.  I really don't like most politicians, not just Obama.  Nixon was a good President - regardless of the Watergate thing.

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 01, 2010, 09:44:28 PM

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?

I'd rather use effective policies than shitty past precedent which has shown more than it's fair share of failures.

Immigration is an issue that doesn't break cleanly along party lines. To my knowledge, Republicans and Democrats are not well unified on a solution. It also gets really ugly for any congressman in the southwest, or with national aspirations. That's why it's so hard to get any bill passed.

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

The problem with your idea is that most manufacturing jobs are outsourced so more buying means more Chinese jobs. 

Still, I like the idea of just giving up and legalizing the whole lot.  Let them pay into the system.
Yes it's unfair to those who had to work to get in legally but the way I see it, fixing a problem requires someone to be upset while the problem get's fixed.  And when it does, not only is everything better, but those who complained before generally stop complaining.

Oohh some hostility in this thread.

They are having a BBQ - American slang for Bar-b-que.

Immigration is an issue that doesn't break cleanly along party lines. To my knowledge, Republicans and Democrats are not well unified on a solution.

True BF. 
Goddard, Attorney General for the state of Arizona is in opposition to the governor there who is Republican and opposition to Obama, a Democrat. 

Illegal immigrants, and illegal drugs from the Mexican drug cartels are infiltrating the border, as well as Arizona being the kidnap capital of the U.S.  (perhaps even the world)

22,700 have been killed at the border just since 2007.  Goddard sent a letter to our President that his figures are off, even though there are more boots on the ground (more foot men), and pretty much says the President "just doesn't get it."  Sizzle, burn - it's getting hot down there in Arizona, and the media does not mean the 109 degree Farenheit temps either.  They are calling it a BBQ.

Interesting:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/11/holder-says-feds-will-watch-for-racial-profiling-if-arizona-law/

I was gonna dress-up like a Mexican with a bunch of my friends and cause a roadblock in Arizona but then didn't.

@ all

Ooh I'm sorry.

I did not know that when I made the thread Immigration Policy and Border Control that Sean already had one, but it had fallen back in the pages of R&P and I did not see it.  I didn't mean to infringe on his thread starting.

I will ask a mod to merge the 2.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 01, 2010, 09:44:28 PM

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?

There is a difference between becoming a citizen, and becoming a legal immigrant.  Becoming a citizen should be hard, and I would not approve natralizing all immigrants. 

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on July 02, 2010, 11:46:50 AM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on July 01, 2010, 09:44:28 PM

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?

There is a difference between becoming a citizen, and becoming a legal immigrant.  Becoming a citizen should be hard, and I would not approve natralizing all immigrants. 

But not everyone gets a Visa to legally live in the country, either.  The government only approves a certain number of people to legally immigrate each year, and there are many criteria for selection, including income, level of education, and the ability to speak English.  Allowing some people to just hop over all that simply because they come from Mexico isn't fair.  Also, legalizing all illegal immigrants would provide more incentives to enter the country illegally, if they know that there won't be any negative consequences.

If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.

If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.

But isn't that because they know there's nothing better they can get?  I hardly think there's any inherent correlation with being Mexican and low self-esteem or lack of ambition or intelligence.  If Franklin's suggestion of legalizing all immigrants was adopted, then there would be no incentive for there to be a Mexican sub-working class.  They would want to get educations, real jobs, everything that the rest of us do.

If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.

Not true.

And if it is somewhat true its only because they are lazy pieces of shit that would rather have a socialist nanny state take care of them, than actually put in a hard days work for pay.

Quote from: Benocrates on July 12, 2010, 06:26:46 PM

If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.

Not true.

And if it is somewhat true its only because they are lazy pieces of shit that would rather have a socialist nanny state take care of them, than actually put in a hard days work for pay.

No, Wardogg.  I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants, and there are many valid criticisms that I could level at them, but "laziness" is not one of them.  There are probably a few lazy ones among them, sure, but by and large, most of them struggle everyday raising families on under-the-table wages that they can barely live on.

Wardogg, if you think those people are lazy, then you need your head examined.  I'm sure they've got their share of losers, but have you ever picked a crop? It's backbreaking! http://www.takeourjobs.org/

Guys, I think Wardogg's 'they' was referring to the US citizens who won't deign to take the jobs that Mexicans are filling.

Oh, well I wonder what part of Beno's post he thinks is untrue. If you live in a state that has agriculture, anyone can go get a job picking. 

I don't know.  In my area the home construction/home improvement jobs and restaurant kitchen workers are heavily Latino.  I have no idea of how many of these may or may not be people with green cards. Of course, a lot of the home construction jobs have dried up in the last couple of years. 

Yeah, the housing market tanked down here too... which I think is a good thing.  They need to stop building in Florida. Too many people here already! The state needs to learn to live with the tax revenue it already gets, and stop being so damn greedy.

Wardogg had it right in the second part of his response. The reason that Mexicans come over is because they know there will be shitty jobs they can take that lazy Americans don't want to do. I used to think that the whole 'Mexicans hanging around 7-11' thing was a joke until I went to the store for a pack of smokes in Barstow Virginia and saw it for myself. Then I began looking for it and realized it was everywhere. They're here because lazy Americans will pay them to be. To demand that they still live as illegal, second-class citizens is the height of American douche-baggery.