How do you determine who is illegal?

Jarod said:
There absolutely are ways to make self deportation happen more than it is already happening.

Historically the Republican party has looked the other way regarding illegals working, its a way around the minimum wadge, and a way to give employers more power over employees. My uncle, who grew oranges (a huge trumpper until he died of COVID) made a lot of money using illegals to pick and grow his orange groves.

trump is not going to upset the Florida orange growers, or other wealthy business owners. Just look how President Elon reacted.
Click to expand...
So you admit y our uncle willingly broke the law.
Covid does not kill.
Elon isn't the President.
Your uncle is not the Republican party.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Hardly. There's no difference here really than if you were stopped for a traffic offense say, 10 years ago and couldn't produce a driver's license. Now, it's produce a Real ID proving you are a citizen when otherwise stopped in the exact same way as 10 years ago or the law enforcement officer will ask for additional proof of legal presence in the country. The officer is simply checking that you aren't committing a second crime just as the officer is going to run your ID and determine if you have outstanding warrants or stuff like that.

There is no difference. Illegal immigration is a CRIME. The officer is making sure you are not committing that CRIME.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you limit the requirement of carrying "papers" to drivers... but when you force everyone to always carry "papers" that is a different thing.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Neither is driving on a public road, opening a bank account, or a myriad of other activities that require identification to do.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Driving is a privilege. If banks and other businesses require ID, they can. The federal government cannot, without a legal basis.
 
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which has implications for random immigration checks. Here's how this plays out based on legal interpretations and court rulings:

  • Border and Checkpoints: The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed certain types of random immigration checks at international borders and fixed checkpoints near the border. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), the Court upheld the legality of brief stops at reasonably located immigration checkpoints without individualized suspicion, arguing that the public interest in border control justified this practice. However, these checkpoints must be conducted in a regularized manner where the intrusiveness is minimal.
  • Roving Patrols and Interior Checks: Away from the border, the application of the Fourth Amendment becomes more stringent. In cases like Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), the Supreme Court has ruled that roving patrols stopping vehicles in the interior of the country require at least reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains undocumented immigrants. Random stops in these contexts without some level of suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment.
  • Non-Border Searches: Outside of established border areas or checkpoints, random immigration checks generally require some form of suspicion or probable cause. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the Fourth Amendment limits government actions that infringe on personal privacy without justifiable reasons. This means that law enforcement cannot conduct random immigration checks in non-border areas without specific grounds for suspicion.
  • Practical Implications: While exceptions exist for border areas, in most of the U.S. where there isn't a border or established checkpoint context, random immigration checks would likely be seen as violating the Fourth Amendment unless accompanied by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.


In summary, while the Fourth Amendment does not categorically prohibit all forms of immigration checks, it does limit the government's ability to conduct random checks in areas not directly associated with border security or established checkpoints.

The level of suspicion required increases as one moves away from the border.


@Grok
 
Kurmugeon said:
If you are very interested in LEGALLY becoming an American, you learn conversational spoken English.
Click to expand...

So now you're making up laws? Huh.

I also think it's funny that trailer dwellers such as yourself are completely unfamiliar with many developed nations that have MULTIPLE official languages.



Kurmugeon said:
And you'll need to know English, unless you are highly educated, (Brain Surgeon)
Click to expand...

What a STUPID rule? If anything I'd want the fucking BRAIN SURGEONS to speak English. Why would you make up that stupid rule?

Kurmugeon said:
and or independently wealthy (Melania Trump)
Click to expand...

She wasn't independently wealthy when she was posing for spank mags in the nude and waiting for her gold digging to pay off. She got an "Einstein Visa" because America didn't have enough spank mag models.


Kurmugeon said:
Ask a few questions about American Civics history. Who were the founding fathers?
Click to expand...

Primarily Brits.

Kurmugeon said:
What were some names? Who was the President of the USA during WWII? Which President started the wilderness areas being set aside and protected?
Click to expand...

Well, then 90% of the MAGAts would lose citizenship PDQ.

 
volsrocks said:
Do your own search on it...idiot

And can u take the bar exam for someone else?

Since u don't need an ID...u know

You have to be the stupidest fucking lawyer in America
Click to expand...
They check your id when you take the bar exam. I know there are illegals who are American lawyers, the bar association does not seem to care.
 
volsrocks said:
can u take the bar exam for someone else?
Click to expand...


It's happened.

There have been instances where individuals have been caught taking the bar exam for someone else.

One notable example comes from a situation highlighted during the transition to online bar exams due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In California, during the administration of an online bar exam, 3,190 exams were flagged for possible cheating, although this was under exceptional circumstances where the exam was conducted remotely.

This suggests that while cheating on the bar exam, including having someone else take it for you, can occur.


@Grok
 
Into the Night said:
Sure has YOU twisted up about it! Maybe you should learn some English!
Click to expand...

That's amazing. Thank you for your input. It reminds me of this:

wnXxlBL.jpg
 
Jarod said:
Yes, if you limit the requirement of carrying "papers" to drivers... but when you force everyone to always carry "papers" that is a different thing.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting in the least police start randomly stopping people walking down the sidewalk, going door-to-door, or anything like that. If in the course of your normal business in public you have reason to need identification to do something, we should make the requirement that it be a Real ID. If a state wants to issue non-Real ID to illegals and let them drive in that state, more power to them. They can do that. If a state doesn't want to play along, the federal government should withhold funding in general because that state is really shielding criminals and should be made to enforce the laws like everybody else is doing.

Imagine this: A state starts refusing to respond to bank robberies. The state claims that's a federal responsibility and they want no part in that. That is EXACTLY what a sanctuary city, state, whatever, is doing. It is selectively enforcing laws and ignoring those it doesn't like. We shouldn't put up with anyone or government entity refusing to enforce the laws as written.

So, while immigration is a federal responsibility, like bank robbery, state and local government should be helping to enforce those laws and one way to do that is when in the course of normal business they have reason to suspect someone is here illegally, they have a duty to try and determine whether that is the case or not and assist the federal government in the arrest of such persons for the crime(s) they've committed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top