Local cops can Enforce fed law

Mike Mitrosky said:
Because thats what the law allows...

I know plenty of Republicans who are absolutely horrified that the feds under Obama have the power to issues self-written search warrants.. and can look at all of your medical history for example if they so choose..

And they always ask the same question: "Where did they get the power to do that?"

And the answer is the Patriot Act under George Bush.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The patriot act blows. But that has nothing to do with enforcing immigartion laws. Don't conflate the issues.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You open borders libertarians are wrong on this issue.
Click to expand...

I dont think we are.

Illegal immigration isnt going to be solved by violating the liberty of the people..

The solution IMO, is to get rid of all of the freebies... welfare, food stamps, govt housing, schooling..

Just stop all of that nonsense and the freeloaders will stop coming, plus we'll get immigrants that seek to contribute and help grow America like we did back in the Ellis Island days.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yeah. The patriot act blows. But that has nothing to do with enforcing immigartion laws. Don't conflate the issues.
Click to expand...

I agree that the federal govt is deliberately not enforcing the immigration laws. No doubt about that.

And Im sure Arizona is doing what it feels is best to handle the issue.
But its still violating peoples' 4th amendment rights.

They could make the law constitutional by limiting the scope to areas when the cops have probable cause or a warrant of course and then it would be fine.

Strangely enough the proper constitutional response would be for Arizona to secede. But Im sure nobody wants to go there, nor would that be the best thing at this juncture.
 
Mike Mitrosky said:
I agree that the federal govt is deliberately not enforcing the immigration laws. No doubt about that.

And Im sure Arizona is doing what it feels is best to handle the issue.
But its still violating peoples' 4th amendment rights.

They could make the law constitutional by limiting the scope to areas when the cops have probable cause or a warrant of course and then it would be fine.

Strangely enough the proper constitutional response would be for Arizona to secede. But Im sure nobody wants to go there, nor would that be the best thing at this juncture.
Click to expand...

It's not unconstitutional. You're smoking the globalist open border dope again. Go read all the cases I mentioned. Rstring is wrong. so are you.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not unconstitutional. You're smoking the globalist open border dope again. Go read all the cases I mentioned. Rstring is wrong. so are you.
Click to expand...

Screw all those court cases. All I need to look at is the constitution itself to know the law is unconstitutional.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

And Im definitely not an "open borders globalist".. No libertarians I know are.
Im all for border guards keeping illegals out. But the real solution is to get rid of the incentive.. and the incentive is that illegals are getting free stuff. Take all of that away, and then you solve the problem.
 
Mike Mitrosky said:
Screw all those court cases. All I need to look at is the constitution itself to know the law is unconstitutional.



And Im definitely not an "open borders globalist".. No libertarians I know are.
Im all for border guards keeping illegals out. But the real solution is to get rid of the incentive.. and the incentive is that illegals are getting free stuff. Take all of that away, and then you solve the problem.
Click to expand...


Those court cases matter.

And it's not unreasonable to inquire about immigration status.

Many libertarians i know are. Free movement of goods, people, and services, etc.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not unconstitutional. You're smoking the globalist open border dope again. Go read all the cases I mentioned. Rstring is wrong. so are you.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the cases. All those cases say the federal government may enforce the criminal sections of the INA. No one has argued they cannot. Gonzales was explicit in limiting local enforcement to the criminal parts of the INA, found that locals were preempted from enforcing the civil laws and that lack of documentation could not be used as probable cause of a criminal violation of the INA.

You are wrong. You grabbed some crap off a blog, uncritically, and have not bothered to understand the rulings and how they apply.
 
RStringfield said:
You don't understand the cases. All those cases say the federal government may enforce the criminal sections of the INA. No one has argued they cannot. Gonzales was explicit in limiting local enforcement to the criminal parts of the INA, found that locals were preempted from enforcing the civil laws and that lack of documentation could not be used as probable cause of a criminal violation of the INA.

You are wrong. You grabbed some crap off a blog, uncritically, and have not bothered to understand the rulings and how they apply.
Click to expand...

All the cases do not say that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
dispute this one rstring.

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

this makes no disctinction between civil and criminal, does it?
Click to expand...

this doesn't specify criminal only does it?
 
AssHatZombie said:
All the cases do not say that.
Click to expand...

I did not claim that all the cases drew the distinction. It was not necessary in the other cases because they involved criminal acts. I said Peoria v Gonzales drew the distinction.

You can't understand a small paragraph. How are you going to make sense of a court opinion?

AssHatZombie said:
this doesn't specify criminal only does it?
Click to expand...

No, it does not. Where does it say they can ARREST for civil violations? Do you not understand that questioning is not the same thing as an arrest?

Hernandez involved probable cause of a criminal violation of the law, possession of narcotics and was found to be in possession of methamphetamine. He was not arrested for not having his papers.
 
Last edited:
You are correct, local police can make arrests based on fed law, but the fed gets to decide if they will take any action on such arrests.

If the feds refuse, such arrests are simply a waste of resorces.
 
Mike Mitrosky said:
Because thats what the law allows...

I know plenty of Republicans who are absolutely horrified that the feds under Obama have the power to issues self-written search warrants.. and can look at all of your medical history for example if they so choose..

And they always ask the same question: "Where did they get the power to do that?"

And the answer is the Patriot Act under George Bush.
Click to expand...

You started talking about 4th amendment rights and said:
"But if Im walking down a public sidewalk, not committing any crime, and a cop comes up to me and demands ID, than that is violating my rights."

I asked you why you thought that was going to occur and your response is:
"Because thats what the law allows..."

Could you show me, in detail, the ruling that allows this in Arizona?? :good4u:
 
Mike Mitrosky said:
I agree that the federal govt is deliberately not enforcing the immigration laws. No doubt about that.

And Im sure Arizona is doing what it feels is best to handle the issue.
But its still violating peoples' 4th amendment rights.

They could make the law constitutional by limiting the scope to areas when the cops have probable cause or a warrant of course and then it would be fine.

Strangely enough the proper constitutional response would be for Arizona to secede. But Im sure nobody wants to go there, nor would that be the best thing at this juncture.
Click to expand...


You truly haven't read the law or it's amendments, have you?? :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You started talking about 4th amendment rights and said:
"But if Im walking down a public sidewalk, not committing any crime, and a cop comes up to me and demands ID, than that is violating my rights."

I asked you why you thought that was going to occur and your response is:
"Because thats what the law allows..."

Could you show me, in detail, the ruling that allows this in Arizona?? :good4u:
Click to expand...

No. he can't. He's a radical open borders libertarian who believes all americans should have to get a national id, instead of enforcing immigation law.
 
Jarod said:
You are correct, local police can make arrests based on fed law, but the fed gets to decide if they will take any action on such arrests.

If the feds refuse, such arrests are simply a waste of resorces.
Click to expand...

But since that's not a cops job, he should just make th arrest and let the feds sort it out.
 
RStringfield said:
I did not claim that all the cases drew the distinction. It was not necessary in the other cases because they involved criminal acts. I said Peoria v Gonzales drew the distinction.

You can't understand a small paragraph. How are you going to make sense of a court opinion?



No, it does not. Where does it say they can ARREST for civil violations? Do you not understand that questioning is not the same thing as an arrest?

Hernandez involved probable cause of a criminal violation of the law, possession of narcotics and was found to be in possession of methamphetamine. He was not arrested for not having his papers.
Click to expand...

It says violations. That includes both categories presumably. The way our language works is that when you want to specify one type, you specify one type.

The extra details you provided are actually irrelevant.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You started talking about 4th amendment rights and said:
"But if Im walking down a public sidewalk, not committing any crime, and a cop comes up to me and demands ID, than that is violating my rights."

I asked you why you thought that was going to occur and your response is:
"Because thats what the law allows..."

Could you show me, in detail, the ruling that allows this in Arizona?? :good4u:
Click to expand...

Maybe I needed to be more specific... The constitution doesnt allow it but the new AZ immigration bill does. They already arrested a citizen for not having a birth certificate.

it becomes a very slippery slope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top