bbauska wrote:It is not unconstitutional UNTIL ruled to be so by the final court arbiter.

Is the judiciary not part of the government?

And other parts can also hold opinions - to be challenged in court if they are acted on. For example, isn't Romney promising to effectively annul the ACA immediately on getting into office? That is not awaiting a court decision, yet he thinks he can do it.

The Judiciary is one of the 3 EQUAL parts of government here in the US. The Legislative branch creates the law, the Executive branch enacts and ensures the laws are followed, and the Judicial branch determines the constitutionality of the created laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

This might help you with your questions about our form of government.

danivon wrote:

While numbers may be in your favor, the idea that the situation is under control is laughable.

I don't know. If the numbers are true, it does kind of suggest that all the rhetoric about 'zero' controls and 'not wanting to deal with illegal immigration' are just... oh what is the word...

demagoguing?

The truth is all I need and it is on my side.

"zero?" "not wanting to deal with illegal immigration?"

How many posts did you have to go back to find those? Did I even say them? In what context? Certainly not in response to freeman2.

Nothing like dishonest argumentation before leveling an accusation.

Q. Is it true President Obama promised to deal with immigration in Year One?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he deal with it?

A. No, not until shortly before the election.

Q. Have border states complained about rampant illegal immigration?

A. Yes.

Demagogue that.

Easy now.

I am saying 4 months of detention does not seem reasonable. Based on that, I would think she has a case against whoever wrongfully jailed her.

Hmm. I actually asked if it was a breach of her Constitutional rights, not whether you thought it 'reasonable'. And you answered 'Yes'. I should have known better than to take your response at face vaue, I guess.

Put a sock in it, spanky.

Is it unconstitutional to determine citizenship of someone in custody? No, presuming there is some reasonable cause. Is it unconstitutional to take 4 months to do so? I think so.

Who wrongfully jailed her? The State of Arizona and Maripoca County
How? By applying the law that says a 'suspected' illegal immigrant who is accused of a felony will be denied bail; and by treating the 'suspected illegal immigrant' part as enough to create a felony of forgery.

Of course, your source is a left-wing rag, not even worthy of the title "newspaper." Was she ever charged? What were the circumstances of her initial contact with police? If she was wrongly detained, is she suing? If not, why not?

Yes, in this case we can see that a prosecutor overstepped the mark. However, it does not mean that someone who follows protocol could not also end up causing a similar injustice, applying the law of Arizona.

And . . . people are wrongly convicted of crimes, so I guess we should be done with all laws.

We offer "redress for grievance" here in the States. If the State was out of line, she can sue and will win a lot more than she lost.

State laws either are necessary or not. If the situation is not under control, it's not under control.

Make a stand.

Are you suggesting that if you can't completely eliminate illegal immigration, it's fine for States - indeed, necessary for States - to create laws that risk removing the Constituional rights of citizens who find it hard to 'prove' citizenship?

You don't know that's what happened here. You are assuming it. Why was she charged with forgery?

That is a very slanted piece of writing by Mr. Lemons. But, is it surprising someone might be confused, considering the woman was?

"They said, 'Your mom forged your birth certificate,'" Torres states. "I kept telling them no, that as far as I know, I'm a U.S. citizen."

As far as she knew?

Lemons isn't a reporter; he's a crusader:

Being confused about your past is not a crime, even if a cop can persuade you to sign something under a different name. Doing so does not invalidate your citizenship.

It's a given that if Torres were an Anglo, she would not have been treated in this manner. She and her lawyers tell me they're considering suing the agencies involved.

The good news is you likely found it on crooks and liars, but gave the original source. Thanks loads. Now, how about a real source?

Again, if freeman's figures are correct, more 'control' is being exerted then before in some respects. How much more do you want?

Enough so Americans in border states feel reasonably secure in their own homes and persons--that is the Federal government's job and they have failed.

bbauska wrote:This might help you with your questions about our form of government.

It was a rhetorical question. I know the judiciary is a part of government, hence me saying that government can deal with Unconstitutional laws. You were the one who appeared to have difficulty with that.

Doctor Fate wrote:The truth is all I need and it is on my side.

If that is the case, please furnish us with the evidence - preferably statistical. I'm bored of you just asserting your 'truth' as of that's all we should need to accept it.

"zero?" "not wanting to deal with illegal immigration?"

How many posts did you have to go back to find those? Did I even say them? In what context? Certainly not in response to freeman2.

'zero' was in the (totally not biased at all) article you posted. You did not say the exact words about not wnating to, but that was clearly (as I read it) the implication of your first and subsequent posts.

Nothing like dishonest argumentation before leveling an accusation.

Indeed. It would be dishonest of you to state that I had actually said you had used those words. They are, however, typical of the kind of rhetoric surrounding the debate from those who want stronger laws and heavier enforcement.

Is it unconstitutional to determine citizenship of someone in custody? No, presuming there is some reasonable cause. Is it unconstitutional to take 4 months to do so? I think so.

is it Unconstitutional to hold a citizen without just cause? The problem is one of presumption in the law - she can be denied bail because the fact she's accused of being illegal trumps any legal presumption of innocence.

Of course, your source is a left-wing rag, not even worthy of the title "newspaper." Was she ever charged? What were the circumstances of her initial contact with police? If she was wrongly detained, is she suing? If not, why not?

Read the article and it becomes clear. She was charged, because the charged went to court (and was denied bail on those charges). Besides, I believe holding someone without charge for so long would also be Unconstitutional. Her initial contact in this case was that she was applying for paperwork and went to a government office where she was detained.

And . . . people are wrongly convicted of crimes, so I guess we should be done with all laws.

No, not unless those laws breach constitutional rights.

We offer "redress for grievance" here in the States. If the State was out of line, she can sue and will win a lot more than she lost.

It's better all round to avoid that though, surely? The taxpayer would end up footing the bill both ways (for the incarceration etc and the compensation) if she sued and won. Prevention is better than cure.

You don't know that's what happened here. You are assuming it. Why was she charged with forgery?

Again, read the article. Because they did not believe she was legal, so were claiming her documents (driving licence, birth certificate etc) were forged. Presumably because when she returned to th USA in 1999 she was using the name her father had given her rather than her birth name, until her mother arrived to sort it out. She was allowed into the country legally at that point.

That is a very slanted piece of writing by Mr. Lemons. But, is it surprising someone might be confused, considering the woman was?

"They said, 'Your mom forged your birth certificate,'" Torres states. "I kept telling them no, that as far as I know, I'm a U.S. citizen."

As far as she knew?

A lot of the background appears to concern a custody issue when she was a kid, and she may well be confused. However, Vital Records are clear, and according to the judge the evidence was available. Being 'confused' is not (as far as I know) a crime. And I doubt that it is as likely that an 'Anglo' would be so readily accused as she was.

The good news is you likely found it on crooks and liars, but gave the original source. Thanks loads. Now, how about a real source?

I'll see what I can find. In the meantime, those stats that refute freeman?

Again, if freeman's figures are correct, more 'control' is being exerted then before in some respects. How much more do you want?

Enough so Americans in border states feel reasonably secure in their own homes and persons--that is the Federal government's job and they have failed.

Do you estend that 'feeling' to legal immigrants and citizens of foreign extraction who may not feel safe in their 'persons' from the government and its agents?

df

The problem with the Government's current policy is that drunk driving is not a big deal. The number of fatalities connected with drunk driving is significant.

Aren't all the laws on drunk driving "State Laws"
If the states are failing so badly in this area, does your logic on immigration laws dictate a course of interventionism by the Federal government?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The truth is all I need and it is on my side.

If that is the case, please furnish us with the evidence - preferably statistical. I'm bored of you just asserting your 'truth' as of that's all we should need to accept it.

How many deaths would impress you? I want to make sure I cross the threshold.

A dozen? A score? How many dead Americans do you need to see to make a "statistical" case?

'zero' was in the (totally not biased at all) article you posted. You did not say the exact words about not wnating to, but that was clearly (as I read it) the implication of your first and subsequent posts.

Got it. Not me then.

Nothing like dishonest argumentation before leveling an accusation.

Indeed. It would be dishonest of you to state that I had actually said you had used those words. They are, however, typical of the kind of rhetoric surrounding the debate from those who want stronger laws and heavier enforcement.

I see what you did there! SO clever!

Mislead and then accuse me of misleading . . . typical.

Is it unconstitutional to determine citizenship of someone in custody? No, presuming there is some reasonable cause. Is it unconstitutional to take 4 months to do so? I think so.

is it Unconstitutional to hold a citizen without just cause? The problem is one of presumption in the law - she can be denied bail because the fact she's accused of being illegal trumps any legal presumption of innocence.

Have you established there was no cause? Was she picked up for being a "suspected" illegal alien and no other charge?

The government can keep you in jail until trial if you can't make bail or are considered a flight risk. So, time is not necessarily THE issue.

We offer "redress for grievance" here in the States. If the State was out of line, she can sue and will win a lot more than she lost.

It's better all round to avoid that though, surely? The taxpayer would end up footing the bill both ways (for the incarceration etc and the compensation) if she sued and won. Prevention is better than cure.

I disagree. Punish the wrongdoers, period.

You don't know that's what happened here. You are assuming it. Why was she charged with forgery?

Again, read the article.

Sorry, but it's very poorly written.

Because they did not believe she was legal, so were claiming her documents (driving licence, birth certificate etc) were forged. Presumably because when she returned to th USA in 1999 she was using the name her father had given her rather than her birth name, until her mother arrived to sort it out. She was allowed into the country legally at that point.

That paragraph was more coherent than the article. He was frothing so heavily, he strained to make sense.

A lot of the background appears to concern a custody issue when she was a kid, and she may well be confused. However, Vital Records are clear, and according to the judge the evidence was available. Being 'confused' is not (as far as I know) a crime. And I doubt that it is as likely that an 'Anglo' would be so readily accused as she was.

Here's a crazy idea: before you go wherever she was going with her documents, have some confidence they're genuine. If you don't, don't go.

I'll see what I can find. In the meantime, those stats that refute freeman?

I'm talking dead Americans, injured Americans, raped Americans. How many you want? What level should Americans accept? If one of freeman2's relatives were raped, seriously injured or murdered by an illegal alien would he shrug it off? "Oh well, you can't really control that border anyway!" I don't think so.

Her documents were genuine. As far as she knew they were genuine. She was applying for documentation for her daughter, not picked up doing anything.

The rest of your post is largely hysterical emotional blackmail.

danivon wrote:Her documents were genuine. As far as she knew they were genuine. She was applying for documentation for her daughter, not picked up doing anything.

The rest of your post is largely hysterical emotional blackmail.

Thus, implying what threat precisely?

Emotional blackmail does not necessarily carry a threat, but let's see how freeman takes your comments, eh?

danivon wrote:Emotional blackmail does not necessarily carry a threat, but let's see how freeman takes your comments, eh?

It's easy to cite numbers.

When you get past those and see how many lives have been ruined, radically altered, or ended, that's not blackmail--it's fact.

f

When you get past those and see how many lives have been ruined, radically altered, or ended, that's not blackmail--it's fact.

This involves coming up with numbers doesn't it?

rickyp wrote:f

When you get past those and see how many lives have been ruined, radically altered, or ended, that's not blackmail--it's fact.

This involves coming up with numbers doesn't it?

Yes. Shame on me. I forgot you'd be reading, so I need to write at a more careful level. Rewrite:

When you get past the numbers of those illegal aliens who have been deported and start looking at the lives of citizens, the picture is different. While President Obama may have deported more of those who are not here legally, there are still many here who are ruining, radically altering, or ending the lives of American citizens. If you ask that group (or those related to them in the cases of those who have been killed), I don't believe they would say the border is secure and nothing more needs to be done. They would also not agree that the current ICE policy is sufficient.

For those who read at a sixth grade level or above, I apologize.

First,df,congrats on finishing 7th at the world dip tournament--that is quite the accomplishment (given the quality of the competition)DF is a much more mellow guy in person--it's like Doctor Fate/Mr C
As for df's comment that I would not call the border secure if an illegal alien harmed a relative, I agree with Denison that is not a good argument It doesn't upset me,, but I don' think an argument that personalizes a situation in an attempt to appeal to emotion is effective.

freeman2 wrote:First,df,congrats on finishing 7th at the world dip tournament--that is quite the accomplishment (given the quality of the competition)DF is a much more mellow guy in person--it's like Doctor Fate/Mr C

Politics doesn't belong in Diplomacy. The best alliance and the most fun I had all weekend was with a guy who, if we talked politics, we could not walk across the street together.

As for df's comment that I would not call the border secure if an illegal alien harmed a relative, I agree with Denison that is not a good argument It doesn't upset me,, but I don' think an argument that personalizes a situation in an attempt to appeal to emotion is effective.

I didn't mean it literally. Here's my point: it is one thing to look at raw numbers and to conclude that President A is doing a good job, maybe even a better job than President X. However, when one starts to look behind the numbers--to look at the crimes committed by illegal aliens, to look at the percentage of illegal aliens in the jails and prisons, to look at the widespread damage some cause, even if it's a few (because I do grant that the vast majority are here to work--and work hard)--it's not such a simple and clean picture.