Reply With Quote
Ok. As it played out prior to the AZ law.
"Consequences of Sun Spots" works here too.
BTW, I don't think this stands a chance in of passing in Texas. What chances do you give something similar passing here?
You can make legislation that doesn't invite mistakes and lawsuits, and yet works effectively towards the same goal. Sure, no law is perfect, but there's different levels of dumb in each one.
Ok. As it played out prior to the AZ law.
"Consequences of Sun Spots" works here too.
BTW, I don't think this stands a chance in of passing in Texas. What chances do you give something similar passing here?
True. I'm not sure I possess the brain pan to grok what "invites" lawsuits and what doesn't.
Shouldn't even have gotten to the feds. Would you mind being detained and questioned for eight hours and deported?
When you open the door to law enforcement to potentially violate your individual rights, you're inviting lawsuits. When you blur the line between what your rights are and what an officer rights are, you're inviting lawsuits.
You want legislation that makes things clear in the context of the cons ution, not that make things murkier.
Are you saying that supporters of the law didn't create the implication that only illegals would be bothered?
Obviously legal citizens are going to be snagged by this law. Every law is abused or worked around in some manner/fashion.
Which is the same reason why you shouldn't even give the ghost of legality to certain heinous things like advanced interrogation, in my eyes.
Yes, but now the officer can point to the law and say, "I was just doing my best to comply with the law!" instead of being pointed out as someone who abused his power.
I absolutley think a similar law could be passed in TX..
I would agree in a perfect world. However, almost any law carries the potential to violate individual rights. Are some rights more sacred than others? What's the criteria for critical mass in the violation of rights? Why have'nt we gone back and undone the ed up mess that is the Patriot Act?
Really? Admittedly anecdotally, I don't see a chance in of this passing here. I guess I aint runnin' with the "right" crowd.
I know that perry has come out and stated that TX wouldn't be going the way of AZ but this is a red meat issue for his hardcore base.. After reconsidering I don't think a similar law could be passed..
I would say that some laws lead to a greater potential for abuse. Advanced interrogation, for one. Warrantless wiretaps, for another. No-knock raids, another. REAL ID, another. (I know, I sound like a hardcore libertarian.)
Because politicians are cowards, and afraid of being called "weak" in the War on Terror. Sadly.
Yeah, I think with White's ascent in the polls, Perry's days, and his base, might be numbered. We can always hope.
Thank you, Mr. Paul.I would say that some laws lead to a greater potential for abuse. Advanced interrogation, for one. Warrantless wiretaps, for another. No-knock raids, another. REAL ID, another. (I know, I sound like a hardcore libertarian.
Well, the Patriot Act specifically has been stricken down by courts at least partially. But honestly, I condemned the Patriot Act back then and still do today. And I still think it invited lawsuits, as much as this thing does.
And not any law carries the potential to violate individual rights. For example, a budgetary law granting more funds to increase monitoring in the border would not necessarily violate any individual rights, and would certainly attack this problem from a different angle.
Those who advocate for the persons being monitored crossing the border will disagree.
I am a big fan of Bill White.. will volunteer to work for his campign if I have the chance.
You and me, both.
I still pine for Ann Richards, tho.
I have afriend who works for Bill White now and got her start with Ann Richards right out of college..we went to grade school together and attended private highschools in SA..we did make out in highschool..You and me, both.
I still pine for Ann Richards, tho.
Catching somebody crossing the border illegally, or somebody aiding people to cross the border illegally is already codified as a felony in the US Code.
So, you know, this is not a matter of opinion, but merely enforcement.
The biggest problem with the AZ law is that while it's supposed to target illegal immigrants, it effectively doesn't. Under the assigned criteria, legal immigrants and even citizens can be targeted. I personally also believe it violates the 4th amendment of the cons ution. I'm sure a challenge will appear, if it's not already in the works, and we'll see.
Why do we even have a border patrol then? Why do we have immigration laws?
What is the border patrol supposed to do if you think they shouldn't talk to suspected illegal immigrants?
Ha! I forgot to add the draconian penalties related to the Drug War! If I had my vote back, I think I'd give it to Ron Paul instead of Obama. Obama talked a big game on civil liberty, but he's as bad if not worse than Bush. Very saddening.Thank you, Mr. Paul.
*crossing GGA is gay off my list*
Based on the information that has been provided here, Delgado should have never been suspected as an illegal immigrant in the first place.
No need to call the Border Patrol in this situation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
