San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts
in [Design]
|
Prev: Barcode Symbologies
Next: sing-a-long
From: Jim Thompson on 25 May 2010 13:15 On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:05:40 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in >message news:2ddmv51s47qc0kt6raqtn8i021tg0tlshg(a)4ax.com... >> Next issue, if you can't speak English without an accent, you can't >> teach "English as a Second Language" classes. Enforcement began >> today. > >Doesn't that leave out many would-be teachers from New York or New Jersey >then? :-) That would be appropriate... IF it were a problem... we don't see many New Yawker's around here :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Jim Thompson on 25 May 2010 18:02 On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:42:10 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:55:33 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>>One problem I see is the State is not (explicitly anyway) authorized >>>to delegate powers beyond what's stated in SEC. 133. >>> >>>That, btw, is what Arizona is trying to skirt by making it also a >>>'State crime' but, as I've already mentioned, I have problems with >>>that. >>> >>[snip] >> >>(1) Repeating myself, I don't give a flying fluck that you "have >>problems with that". > >I'm just discussing potential legal issues but you're beginning to >sound like Obama, who also doesn't give a flying fluck about the >Constitution and Law. > >>(2) _Read_ the law, it requires an unlawful act BEFORE interdiction. > >The nature of the 'interdiction' has nothing to do with whether >Arizona can Constitutionally adjudicate immigration status. > >>(3) "Profiling" in traffic is impossible. Try it sometime. > >'Profiling', or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with whether >Arizona can Constitutionally adjudicate immigration status. > >>(4) Presentation of a valid Driver's license (*) disallows questioning >>about immigration status. (*) AZ uses hologram technology, and the >>police carry a tool to verify that it's not forged. > >The issue isn't 'when' you can 'question'; it's that Arizona has no >Constitutional authority to make the determination. > >>(5) If ICE doesn't cooperate, we'll create another law, try 'em, then >>hand 'em off to Arpaio for a year. They'll not come back. > >Strange as it may seem, Constitutional protections don't allow you to >make just any ole law you happen to feel like but, regardless, you >still have no Constitutional authority to adjudicate immigration >status. I.E. You can't send them to jail for being 'illegal' because >you have no Constitutional authority to adjudicate they're 'illegal'. > >>(6) Illegal population is already down _significantly_ and the law >>hasn't even gone into effect yet... they're fleeing north to avoid >>Arizona's law. I personally know people that say their yard workers >>have fled. (My yard guy is a smart middle-aged white guy with several >>secretarial service and publication corporations... but likes to work >>outdoors :-) > >I doubt the Court will consider "but it's working" a Constitutional >argument. > > >>(7) Worst comes to worst, we'll bus 'em north. Will you "have >>problems with that" ?:-) > >Yes, because you have, again, simply missed the entire point which is >that I suspect the Court will rule Arizona has no legitimate means to >'criminalize' something it has no power to adjudicate and since you >can't legally determine immigration status, a Federal power, you have >nothing to 'convict' them of and, so, no legal grounds to "bus 'em >north." > >Let me make an analogy. You may feel personally qualified to determine >the guilt or innocence of bank robbers but you are not granted the >power to do so by either the State or Federal Constitutions. And the >Court would likely not be impressed that, to skirt the lack of >Constitutional authority, you decided to simply write your own 'law', >making bank robbing also a 'Jim Thompson crime' (as Arizona did with >'illegal alien' also a 'state crime'), in an attempt to create a >Constitutionally nonexistent 'Jim Thompson jurisdiction' so you could >send out your own officers to 'question' suspects. And the arguments >you were 'good at it', that your questioning procedures were 'just and >fair', that your law is 'based on State law', that you're doing 'their >job better than they are' and that your law 'is working' would likely >not be persuasive either because the fact remains you are not granted >that power by either the State or Federal Constitutions. > > >Please try to remember I am not Obama, nor Holder, nor any of the >other loony tunes up there so if you want to argue with what I said >then argue with what I said and not what they said. > The Feds have seized powers which were supposed to be left to the states. If blow-hard Holder and crew try to stop AZ I suspect it'll simply result in a lot of dead Mexicans. And nobody will know nuttin' ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Jamie on 25 May 2010 18:29 flipper wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:53:27 -0700, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >>On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:43:28 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:11:47 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts, but reality >>>>>sets in.... >>>>> >>>>>http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Sanctuary-City-/6993538 >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>>And they're (no surprise) hypocrites.... >>>> >>>>http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/PENALCODE/834b-CA_PC.html >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>>I'm not sure that statute, despite being 'still on the books', is >>>operational as it was part of Prop 187, which was ruled >>>unconstitutional by the Federal District Court and placed under >>>'permanent injunction'. >>> >>>At least that's how some are 'reporting' it. What really happened is >>>the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of >>>1996" ( IIRIRA) was passed (alleged Supremacy Clause conflict) and the >>>suit was *mediated*, so it's 'possible' that section remained after >>>the 'mediation' but I doubt it. >>> >>>However, in investigating the IIRIRA I've come to the conclusion it's >>>likely (not foregone conclusion) the Court will rule the Arizona >>>statute unconstitutional because the IIRIRA specifically provides for >>>the Fed to enter into 'agreements' with state and local officials for >>>the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law, placing requirements >>>on those officials, and that will, no doubt, invoke another Supremacy >>>Clause argument. >>> >>>In particular: "SEC. 133. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE SERVICES TO CARRY OUT >>>IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. >>> >>>��(g)(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States >>>Code, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement >>>with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant >>>to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who >>>is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform >>>a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, >>>apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including >>>the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention >>>centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State >>>or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State >>>and local law. >>>��(2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that >>>an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State >>>performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge >>>of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function, and shall >>>contain a written certification that the officers or employees >>>performing the function under the agreement have received adequate >>>training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal >>>immigration laws......." >>> >>>As sympathetic as I am to Arizona's problem I don't see an obvious way >>>around the Supremacy Clause issue, at least not when one considers how >>>the Court traditionally interprets it and the "Naturalization" clause. >>>The problem lies in this Administration and Congress's disregard for >>>their Constitutional duty. For example, rather than indignant >>>pontification Obama could have said he was directing ICE to >>>investigate increasing the number of cooperative agreements, and >>>training, with local authorities: something he could actually do >>>legally, and without 'taking over' half the country, but I suppose >>>that's not nearly so much fun as 'remaking America." >> >>We'll just throw 'em in jail :-) > > > You'll throw 'who' in jail for 'what'? > > If you mean for 'being in the country (State) illegally' the argument > would be you have the same problem because the 'untrained and not a > party to the immigration enforcement agreement (per SEC. 133)' > officials cannot make a 'legal' determination of status so you have no > basis upon which to adjudicate a 'crime' has been committed even *if* > your making of a Federal violation also a State 'crime' would pass > Constitutional muster. I.E. You cannot 'convict' because no > State/local official/court is empowered to determine immigration > status, without which there is no State 'crime' either, and without a > conviction you cannot incarcerate. > > In jail for what? Being here 'illegally'. Says who? The State Court. > Sorry, only the Federal government can adjudicate immigration status. > > As for the State 'crime' I would argue, were I a Federal Attorney on > the case, it is nonsensical to 'criminalize' something you have no > power to adjudicate. > > The argument would further stipulate that your only legal basis for > holding them at all is as a duly authorized, per SEC. 133, 'agent' of > the Federal government pursuant to presentation to ICE. > > Ok, let's flip this to the other side now. > > Arizona *does* have SEC. 133 'agreements' with the Fed, meaning they > must have some number of 'trained agents'. We could, theoretically at > least, require that any 'immigration suspect' be processed by one and > then transferred to ICE, or released as appropriate. The question > would then be if a 'non trained officer' can legally make a > 'reasonable suspicion' detention (which would already be in effect if > we limited the case to already detained for a 'normal crime or cause') > prior to being processed by the 'official agent' and I'm not sure > that's terribly different than any other 'crime' in which an officer > may detain but the D.A. or a Grand Jury decides whether to indict and > prosecute, or not. > > And an officer is certainly not 'trained' in every nuance of criminal > law. He makes a 'reasonable' determination but not a 'final > adjudication' or else there'd be no need for courts. > > One problem I see is the State is not (explicitly anyway) authorized > to delegate powers beyond what's stated in SEC. 133. > > That, btw, is what Arizona is trying to skirt by making it also a > 'State crime' but, as I've already mentioned, I have problems with > that. > > > > > >> ...Jim Thompson I think you have problems with the whole concept.. You are taking this too personal. Any specific reason you would like to share with us?
From: Archimedes' Lever on 25 May 2010 20:45 On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:43:28 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: > for >the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law, Does not apply, because that is not what AZ folks are doing. In fact, AZ's detainees get turned over to them, so it is now, and always has been the fed boys that perform the actual deportation segment of "enforcement". Nothing has changed.
From: UltimatePatriot on 25 May 2010 20:47
On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: > >In jail for what? Being here 'illegally'. Says who? The State Court. >Sorry, only the Federal government can adjudicate immigration status. Lack of citizenship registration means that no adjudication is required. Got no papers, get no hearing... period. The case is closed before it even gets opened. |