You said that the they police need probable causeto ask for your ID. The Patriot Act says they don't. It is my attempt to show you that your wrong.
This is why it's off topic. The patriot act, is federal. Therefore, does not interfer with a state law. The patriot act has nothing to do with this.
I have to agree with you a little bit. But that's not how reality works out. Chances are, the employer is going to judge the person based on race, and that way isn't as effective as you think. Right. How is the question though. . Have you ever heard of the Quota system?
I am not talking about the patriot act am I? I am talking about how how it says cops don't need cause to ask for yoru ID
Sounds like the public school system in the USA, have one job for life and no one to answer to. Great gubment cheese too. They all need term limits, so they can stop the cycle of failure.
What's wrong with e-verify? If you're actually referring to cops profiling I can understand all the concern. However, it just happens that the majority of our illegal immigrants come from a few specific places where the populace speaks a distinct language and have similar physical characteristics. I don't think profiling should be used to initiate an investigation into one's legal status, but if an officer comes across a person while responding to a call, and that person fits the profile, the officer should be allowed to investigate. If the suspect checks out, no big deal, everyone goes home. I'd support the same measure for all illegal immigrants regardless of origin. If Canadians were illegally entering the country as Mexicans are, I'd support police being observant of people with floppy faces (see South Park). Just as certain States are attempting to, minus any legitimate complaints of rights violation. What about it specifically?
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16859&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007 While it is true, that many illegal immigrants come from Mexico, how good of a plan do you think that would be, to catch illegal European immigrants? And then tell me, what do you think the employers would ask their employees about their stance as an illegal immigrant? Now, if it was just a random check on the entire company, I'ld say that was okay. But if it was to an induvidial, then my eyebrow raises and I ask why was he singled out? Ha, I don't watch south park. Well unfourtantly then, that people are complaining on legitimate grounds. That's why, there are illegal immigrants. Because they can't get in the quota.
The judge didn't even rule on the merits of the claim. The fact that you're already predicting a certain outcome based upon a merit-free order which delays implementation of the law by a few weeks demonstrates you're clueless. So, if you're unemployed, why not go to those employers and offer to do the same job for 10% less, for cash under the table? The concept that immigrants are "stealing" jobs from Americans, just because might be willing to work for less, is roughly akin to saying McDonalds is "stealing" cheeseburger sales from Applebee's because they sell burgers for a buck. Agreed - social services rules are the real problem, not people immigrating here looking for work. Reasonable suspicion of other criminal wrongdoing, certainly. Reasonable suspicion of merely being here illegally? I don't see how that can be obtained without racial profiling. ... except for the fact that the Constitution specifically reserves that power to the federal government. Obviously that's not the case, or they would. Simple logic dictates that they're following the path of least resistence, which in this case means the illegal route currently.
She stated that her order had nothing to do with the merits of the case that she merely needed more time to read and study the briefs. Even our conservative newspaper supported her ruling.
you can argue all day about these laws, they will never stop illegals from coming here as long as we bait them with jobs
If she doesn't not see anything wrong with it why put the law on hold? It was legally passed by the state. Put the burden of proof on the critics of the law instead of assuming the worst as she is doing.
Which tells me she is assuming something is wrong with it. The state is responsible for enacting laws. But when an unelected federal judge gets involved she is running her own little legislature from the bench.
So, her putting it on hold so she can get better understanding to rule on it properly = her assuming something is wrong with it? I don't get it...
See doesn't see a right or a wrong, she has not ruled on the merits and her stay has nothing to do with it. Her decision is supported down here.
exactly right, we have to have employer sanctions which are enforced - and then the flow across the border will stop or at least slow down
Well, whatever is "telling you" that, you should stop listening to it. She made no decision on the merits. That much is blatantly clear to everyone. The reason she granted an injunction is that, in the case of new laws which have the potential to take away a person's freedom, it's better to err in favor of the individual while trying to resolve whether the individual's rights are improperly denied. She's not assuming anything with respect to the law. She's assuming, correctly, that the proper course of action is to leave the status quo for a few more weeks before allowing the government to go ahead with a new plan that could restrict people's liberty, because more severe and tangible damage would be done by the temporary enforcement of an improper law than by the temporary delay of a proper one. Nonsense. What a glaring and pathetic misunderstanding of how our nation operates.
Its crazy the way this works out. I don't think its big corporations,not as a whole anyways. If you have ever been to a anti-immigration rally,you plainly see pro groups like LaRaza and such with the push. Groups like LaRaza are funded by both sides (Mexico and US).I went to one and LaRaza passed out thousands of pamphlets basically saying keep fighting and the US will be ours once again. Just like anti-inauguration has groups like numbersusa where people call and fax congress,LaRaza has one in place to counter this. What needs to happen is the US government (Democrats) needs to get back on the peoples side again like in the past.
Jobs must be protected as well. It doesn't matter that those jobs are erroneously labeled as "jobs Americans won't do". With unemployment this high, the economy this bad, Americans will do those jobs. If an officer shows up to a call of whatever kind, and finds that the suspect fits the profile, he should be allowed to investigate. I don't care if it's an Irish guy who is barely comprehensible. If everything checks out, no big deal. As I said earlier, I don't support profiling as an excuse to initiate an investigation. For example, I'm not suggesting that it's okay for an officer to select a random brown person to harass based on their color alone. And obviously something has gone wrong hasn't it? I know we can't blame the Federal government alone, it's a problem with dynamic causes, but ultimately the Federal government has failed. As a result of that failure, smaller entities have had to step forward. It's aggravating that not only has our Federal government failed, it continues to stifle attempts by states who are trying to fix the Feds failure. Particularly this Admin. I don't see it that way. I believe it's that most simply come for the benefits. They really have no interest in being American... unless it comes easily through "birthright" or amnesty. The bottom line is that they have no right to come here as they do, or to benefit from our society and resources.
