mbecker

While I tend to agree with the sentiment behind the new AZ law, this is the sort of madness that tramples on the constitution and will be used by the Left to demonize those who try to do something about the invasion of illegal aliens

“PHOENIX – A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.” Source and video at AZfamily.com

This event occurred Wednesday before the new law was signed by the Governor and it appears that this was ICE in action, but you can bet that the left will be all over this story and frankly I’m not all that trilled. JD probably was tickled pink, but that’s another rant.

If this guy had a valid AZ commercial license, driving a company truck (not sure about that), stopped at weigh station and basically just going about his business like anyone else should be able to do under the 4th amendment, what the heck were the ICE guys putting this guy into custody?

Is there more to the story?

I was speaking of Tennessee which is the situation that I am familiar with. Plainly, I said that I had not read the bill and didn’t know the particulars. How it will play out is still up in the air since the bill was just signed and has not yet been implemented to my knowledge.

To my knowledge, people in Tennessee are not routinely checked for their immigration status. But those who are arrested and cannot produce proof of residence, job status, have no driver’s license, cannot speak English, have no record of being born in this country nor of being here on a visa of some type, well, those people regardless of their race or ethnicity have a problem. Again, these are people who have been arrested for some infraction of the law.

As to cracking down on employers, of course I’m all for that! It’s happened here in recent years, mostly at Tyson Chicken plants and a few restaurants. It needs to happen a whole lot more.

This law is written with more protections against random stops than the law fashioned by federal statutes and Supreme Court precedent. In fact, if Obama-Holder-Sharpton wanted to go to states other than AZ and trump up an alleged random stop, they could do so today and could have done so any day since 1964.

I am working on a comprehensive column now that looks at the AZ law in the context of Obama’s race/leftist assault on America and an earlier theme of mine concerning the likely way America can be saved, if it can.

I am all in on the mid- to long- term strategy of winning elections for the GOP to try and get the White House and super-majorities to repeal ObamaCare and drastically restructure the whole entitlement edifice and support efforts to win at the grassroots and in the election of conservatives as executive committeemen, etc.

I just don’t believe, given the power of liberals in the culture and politics and the addiction to big govt, that we can save this country without sacrifices up to and including the kinds of sacrifices made by those that wrested a We the People from a King and saved it from Nazis and Commies.

There will be blood. We will not save the nation from quite possibly a worse tyranny today than existed in 1776. It will not be saved thru polite debate and votes.

No, the people will push back and the left will start a violent fight. This is how things happen. The people of AZ have had enough. That they passed this law concentrated my mind on what they have put up with for decades. I look at the little towns in NC that have been ruined, I can only imagine what AZ is under.

There will be tumult. The issue will be if we back off and continue to slouch towards Gomorrah or re-take the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

more to come in column w/i a few days

and btw man, how you been doing?

in every state, every day. Police and other law enforcement officials use it to help bring criminals to justice. It does not mean that every search leads to an arrest.

Police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch but less than probable cause. Totality of circumstances refers to an assessment based on all the circumstances, which includes objective observations, information from police reports, and consideration of the modes of patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers.

To the left I say bring on your lawsuits. Overturning reasonable suspicion searches in Arizona will bring chaos to the whole country’s law enforcement system. The 9th Circuit might go for overturning, but they would be slapped down silly by the SCOTUS.

Some people are going to have their Constitutional rights violated, but, no mention of the Constitutional rights of those that have been murdered, robbed, raped and etc. When do the rights of someone else end, and another’s rights begin?

If a crime has been committed, and the police receive a tip that a certain person was seen at the scene of the crime, even though they may have had nothing to do with the crime, should the police not have the ability to question that person? Is that violating the Constitutional rights of that person?

If a motorist is stopped by the police because because his taillights were out, and the person happens to be a minority, is that racial profiling, and against his Constitutional rights?

If a woman is missing or murdered, and in the investigation it is found that she had a boyfriend while being married to another, should the boyfriend not be questioned, or the husband? Is that violating the Constitutional rights of the boyfriend or husband, even if they are cleared of any wrong doing?

There is a Libertarian running for mayor in one of the southern towns. He promises that if elected, he will end all zoning laws and restrictions. He believes that anyone should not ever be told what they can or cannot do with their own property. If someone buys the property next to me, and they open a nightclub, and the noise level keeps me awake all night, when do my rights for peace and quiet begin, and the rights of the nightclub owner end?

The Libertarians, with their belief in total rights and freedoms for all, have never been able to articulate a rational and reasonable argument of what the perfect answer is. When their rights have been violated, someone else’s rights and freedoms end. Who makes the decision of who’s rights supercede the other’s?

Good and bad people inhabit the earth. That was a part of God’s plan. Until there are no bad people left, and that utopia exists (impossible), one must rely on a “traditional” moral society to decide between right and wrong. That has been the practice in the US from the time of our founding fathers. The Progressives must destroy that moral fiber, and use moral relevance in order to destroy society. The Libertarians seem to have missed the histroy of Rome.

This is same criticism that left uses against TEA party violence. And we don’t like that either.

You have to have a birth certificate to get an AZ DL or State ID. You can make the case that you could get one with a fake certified BC (or legal immigration documents), but at the end of the day it’s proof of legal right to be here. It’s all the proof you need to register to vote.

It happens to be a misdemeanor to not have a photo ID. So, if you are asked for ID for any reason and don’t have it, you can expect to be hassled. And you will be. Without regard to race. Mouth off to the cop about it and you WILL be arrested. Then your immigration status will be checked by ICE at whichever county jail you get to visit.

people over in ILLINOIS for not wearing a seatbelt is false. The police do so all the time. The state does enforce the seatbelt law plus anyother law you may be breaking while driving!

people over in ILLINOIS for not wearing a seatbelt is false. The police do so all the time. The state does enforce the seatbelt law plus anyother law you may be breaking while driving!

and my point still stands: probable cause for each and every case of a violation of the above rights would have to be established each and every time, and this law provides no guarantee that such cause will be established. Further, being forced to take a trip to the police station if such ID isn’t found, even if one isn’t thrown in prison, without cause is an abridgment of one’s right to be secure in one’s person. I would argue that said provision made the Japanese Internment un-Constitutional for that same reason, and for a host of other ones. There’s no good reason that a liberal democracy’s citizens should be presumed guilty without their having done something to deserve such treatment.

If the law is Constitutional, I don’t think that it’s in keeping with the American tradition. The Alien Acts, relatively mind statutes which enabled the President to deport foreign nationals, were vociferously opposed in Adams’ time, even by Adams’ own party! Do you think that a broad power for police to detain citizens going about their business would have received support in nascent America?

As to outcome, I guess we’ll have to see what happens, but I think that either a) the police won’t use this provision, because it is ineffective/difficult to use effectively/other concerns, b) that this provision will be over-enthusiastically applied, or c) some combination of the two. At any rate, we already have two very real casualties in the pushing of this provision: first, we’re back to the arrangement in the 60′s where police were seen as the enemy of minorities, and that won’t help law enforcement. Second, AZ’s court system is going to be clogged with lawsuits, both frivolous and substantive, as a result of this legislation. Any benefits obtained by the provision will have to be weighed against at least those two costs.

Good insights
VB

has already booked Tawana Brawley to speak at his next event.