you repeatedly conflate "Latinos" with "non-citizens".
America is a nation of immigrants, full stop. It's what makes us who we are.
The issue is not that all "lib'ruls" think Central and South Americans should be allowed to flood into the US illegally.
Your debate tactics are bullying. "I'm sure your friends all think you're very intelligent." What a bunch of smug bullshit. Seriously, stop it.
These are things you've avoided addressing in favor of making a chest-pounding defense of things everybody pretty much agrees about.
...if they're overstepping their legal authority in pursuit of a goal we all agree should be achieved, then the questions becomes not whether Arizona's law should be thrown out, but what should be done to make it constitutional.
Mr. Justice Douglas was the sole dissenter in Terry. He warned of the "powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees. . . .". While I took the position then that we were not watering down rights, but were hesitantly and cautiously striking a necessary balance between the rights of American citizens to be free from government intrusion into their privacy and their government's urgent need for a narrow exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, today's decision demonstrates just how prescient Mr. Justice Douglas was.
The current Supreme Court leans way way the fuck over to the right. They have allowed searches and seizures based on laws, and law enforcement techniques, that would be patently prohibited by any common-sense reading of both the Constitution itself, and many previous cases.
It seems like, when pressed, you agree with what everyone else here thinks.
Im basically of the opinion that someone who lives in another country illegally has made a choice to accept the consequences if and when they should arrive.
What if - and I ask this sincerely - the stringency of the laws and the enforcement mechanisms against illegals get much harsher after they arrive?
Which basically says that this law is legitimate, since no one on here is saying that illegal immigration is a good thing...what you proceeded to say in later comments is completely unfair.
This law stands zero chance, even with the most conservative bench imaginable. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against policy goals all the time. They did it in Terry, they do it in lots of other circumstances.... if you think illegal immigration is a problem that actually has to be dealt with, you're willing to balance constitutional considerations against the outcome of addressing the problem. I don't actually think the balance in the Arizona law is remotely acceptable.
Should we do that? I'd prefer to avoid it with the amnesty program I mentioned, for a wide variety of reasons. But that's not the only alternative I'm willing to consider; I don't think it should be, "amnesty or we just sit on our thumbs for another 20 years".
And this is where some jerk will accuse me of propping up a straw man, but my observation is that most people on the left who aren't in favor of open borders basically don't give a shit about illegal immigration. So they're happy to criticize any measure aimed at dealing with it (because most of those measure are flawed in one way or another), but they don't have a better plan for addressing it, they don't consider it an issue worth changing their vote over, and most of them would never think to send a letter to congress over it.
But you seem to be giving the law the Constitutional benefit-of-the-doubt in a way that runs afoul of even conservative interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
Again, I ask this sincerely - what other alternatives are you talking about?
The lefties aren't happy with a constant influx of illegal immigrants, if only because it's created a shadow economy of cheap workers that are not only being exploited themselves, but are devaluing labor in the US economy as a whole (at least in the southwest).
My response was more roundabout than it should have been: your reading of post-Terry case-law is, in totally, incorrect.
But the Court's actual holding -- the only document of precedential import ... you are wrong.
But the only dictum you have cited here was found in a dissent;
In a similar vein, our cases have recognized that a police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists... To a layman the sort of loose panel below the back seat arm rest in the automobile involved in this case may suggest only wear and tear, but to Officer Luedke, who had searched roughly 2,000 cars for narcotics, it suggested that drugs may be secreted inside the panel. An appeals court should give due weight to a trial court's finding that the officer was credible and the inference was reasonable.
[Officer Luedke] noticed that a panel above the right rear passenger armrest felt somewhat loose and suspected that the panel might have been removed and contraband hidden inside. Luedke would testify later that a screw in the door jam adjacent to the loose panel was rusty, which to him meant that the screw had been removed at some time.
and remember to be decent to everyoneall of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.