3
   

State arrests Illegal Immigrant for Trespassing

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 05:47 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
1. Yes, I am profiling police officers. It seems likely I am right, but technically you have a point. What of it?

Profiling them makes you just another bigot, albeit of a profession.

ebrown_p wrote:
2. I haven't condemned violations of law in others in this thread-- and I am not sure if I ever have. Buffoonery has nothing to do with the law.

If your condemnation of the police in question is not based on them overstepping their legal authority, what is it based on?

ebrown_p wrote:
3. Read the first sentence of the article.

I did. It says no such thing. There is no statement of cause and effect there.

ebrown_p wrote:
4. Sure. But what do you expect from an outlaw.

Prejudice is prejudice. It's not bad in others but okay in you. Don't ever conndemn prejudice in others here again. You no longer possess that moral authority.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jul, 2005 06:24 pm
Jul 16, 2:47 PM EDT
Quote:
Idaho County Sues Over Immigrant Workers

By REBECCA BOONE
Associated Press Writer

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- Faced with the costs of coping with illegal immigrants, one county is looking to the courts for help - by filing a racketeering lawsuit against the businesses that hire these workers.

The legal theory: that a pattern of immigration violations by employers is costing Canyon County millions for law enforcement, education and social services.

"Their presence lowers the labor wage for American citizens and removes employment opportunities," county Commissioner Robert Vasquez, an ambitious politician who just started a bid for Congress, said of the illegal workers. "Certainly it uses tax dollars to provide them with educational services, medical care, unemployment compensation for those that are injured on the job. They are a drain on the taxpayers of Canyon County, the state of Idaho and the U.S. in general."

The county's attempt to recoup its expenses would be filed under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called the RICO Act, which has been used against targets ranging from organized crime to Internet spammers.


Continued at.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION_RICO?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 04:46 am
When I started reading this thread, I thought I'd come across it a lot sooner than this. Why didn't that police chief arrest the construction company that was employing the illegal alien? Wouldn't that have been the constructive thing to do?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:03 am
goodfielder wrote:
Quote:
The motivation of the local police is understandable.


Brandon9000 wrote:
I have a problem with that position. The police have a job to do and they should do it in full observation of the letter and spirit of the law.

Part of the spirit of the law is that it should be obeyed. The statement of this issue includes the idea that the individual actually is guilty of a crime. It is not the spirit of the law that criminals should defy the law with impunity any more than it is that the police should overstep their authority. If your solution is to ignore the problem, then you're simply wrong.

goodfielder wrote:
What we have here is a smart-arse police department or chief or whatever. I reckon this is an abuse of the law writ large and I reckon it's malicious.


Brandon9000 wrote:
What we have here is a police department that doesn't like to watch the INS flagrantly ignore its responsibilty to protect the country, and attempted to find an applicable statute in their municipal law. Frankly, I doubt you know whether the police charge is technically incorrect or not.


You could be right. But I reckon I'm right on this and it will be interesting to see it pan out.


goodfielder wrote:
[Local police don't have the authority to enforce the immigration laws (well that's my understanding, I'm a ferriner so I could be wrong) and that must be for a reason. Perhaps the federal government intended that only its agents should enforce this law because they have no control over local law enforcement and accordingly the authority in the legislation could be abused. Reading this case I'm not surprised.


Brandon9000 wrote:
Perhaps, except for the fact that the system is corrupt and the appropriate authorities won't enforce immigration law..


The system is corrupt? Got any evidence for such a spectacular claim?

goodfielder wrote:
[Brandon the police must never be allowed to make it up as they go along. In this instance because you - rightly and understandably - are upset (and I use that advisedly, your comments on the topic are temperate) about illegal immigration from Mexico, you will support the police bending or breaking or ignoring the law.

Brandon9000 wrote:
What a liar. I never said anything of the kind..



Careful with who you call a liar Brandon that's a highly offensive suggestion and I don't like it at all. What I have done is point out your inconsistencies - hardly a lie.


goodfielder wrote:
From my perspective that's a seriously slippery slope.

Yes, and so is walking away from a situation in which criminals defy the law with impunity because the people entrusted with enforcing it don't or can't.


Make your mind up. Are they corrupt or incompetent or simply under-resourced?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:08 am
JTT wrote:
When I started reading this thread, I thought I'd come across it a lot sooner than this. Why didn't that police chief arrest the construction company that was employing the illegal alien? Wouldn't that have been the constructive thing to do?


Probably because local police are forbidden from enforcing federal immigration law.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:28 am
On the other aspect of this thread, concerning the local police. There could be many reasons for the police taking those actions.

1. Incompetence. Never underestimate incompetence as a potential reason for any official action (or inaction). It could be that the local police don't understand the law and mistakenly think that a state trespass law that prima facie applies to private places (hence the term "trespass" which has a particular meaning at common law) applies to someone who is in a public place simply because that person is an illegal immigrant and is therefore trespassing all over the US.

2. Bigotry. Perhaps the police in this instance are bigots who froth at the mouth at the very phrase "illegal immigrant", forget that they're supposed to be impartial and let their personal prejudices overcome their professional impartiality.

3. Zealotry. Just trying too hard.

4. Acting in good faith but badly mistaken.

I hope number 4.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:10 am
goodfielder
The fact is that the agency that is charged with enforcing the immigration laws refuses to perform it's duty. The police chief took action and from what I have read many others throughout the nation are ready to pick up the gauntlet. And IMO rightly so.
When the federal government refuses to enforce the laws of the land it is time for the citizens to react.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:52 am
goodfielder wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
Quote:
The motivation of the local police is understandable.


Brandon9000 wrote:
I have a problem with that position. The police have a job to do and they should do it in full observation of the letter and spirit of the law.

Part of the spirit of the law is that it should be obeyed. The statement of this issue includes the idea that the individual actually is guilty of a crime. It is not the spirit of the law that criminals should defy the law with impunity any more than it is that the police should overstep their authority. If your solution is to ignore the problem, then you're simply wrong.

goodfielder wrote:
What we have here is a smart-arse police department or chief or whatever. I reckon this is an abuse of the law writ large and I reckon it's malicious.


Brandon9000 wrote:
What we have here is a police department that doesn't like to watch the INS flagrantly ignore its responsibilty to protect the country, and attempted to find an applicable statute in their municipal law. Frankly, I doubt you know whether the police charge is technically incorrect or not.


You could be right. But I reckon I'm right on this and it will be interesting to see it pan out.


goodfielder wrote:
[Local police don't have the authority to enforce the immigration laws (well that's my understanding, I'm a ferriner so I could be wrong) and that must be for a reason. Perhaps the federal government intended that only its agents should enforce this law because they have no control over local law enforcement and accordingly the authority in the legislation could be abused. Reading this case I'm not surprised.


Brandon9000 wrote:
Perhaps, except for the fact that the system is corrupt and the appropriate authorities won't enforce immigration law..


The system is corrupt? Got any evidence for such a spectacular claim?

goodfielder wrote:
[Brandon the police must never be allowed to make it up as they go along. In this instance because you - rightly and understandably - are upset (and I use that advisedly, your comments on the topic are temperate) about illegal immigration from Mexico, you will support the police bending or breaking or ignoring the law.

Brandon9000 wrote:
What a liar. I never said anything of the kind..



Careful with who you call a liar Brandon that's a highly offensive suggestion and I don't like it at all. What I have done is point out your inconsistencies - hardly a lie.


goodfielder wrote:
From my perspective that's a seriously slippery slope.

Yes, and so is walking away from a situation in which criminals defy the law with impunity because the people entrusted with enforcing it don't or can't.


Make your mind up. Are they corrupt or incompetent or simply under-resourced?

They're outraged that lawbreakers walk free by the million, and those designated to protect us are unwilling to.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 04:38 pm
Bad trouble at the border!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 04:47 pm
If you guys are so worried about lawbreakers you might want to check out this thread.

These guys are openly defying the laws of the land and no one is saying anything. You better hurry...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:00 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
If you guys are so worried about lawbreakers you might want to check out this thread.

These guys are openly defying the laws of the land and no one is saying anything. You better hurry...

How does the fact that one group of people are succeeding in defying a law indicate that another group ought to be allowed to?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:03 pm
au1929 wrote:
goodfielder
The fact is that the agency that is charged with enforcing the immigration laws refuses to perform it's duty. The police chief took action and from what I have read many others throughout the nation are ready to pick up the gauntlet. And IMO rightly so.
When the federal government refuses to enforce the laws of the land it is time for the citizens to react.


If the police have no legal authority to enforce immigration laws (whcih I believe they don't) then they have to obey the spirit and intent of the law which is - that immigration matters remain the province of the federal government.

If this defendant had been obviously breaking a state law (eg stealing a car) then rightly it's the province of local police to take action.

If you seriously endorse local police doing this sort of thing au then you're advocating the overthrow of the rule of law.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:06 pm
au1929 wrote:
Jul 16, 2:47 PM EDT
Quote:
Idaho County Sues Over Immigrant Workers

By REBECCA BOONE
Associated Press Writer

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- Faced with the costs of coping with illegal immigrants, one county is looking to the courts for help - by filing a racketeering lawsuit against the businesses that hire these workers.

The legal theory: that a pattern of immigration violations by employers is costing Canyon County millions for law enforcement, education and social services.

"Their presence lowers the labor wage for American citizens and removes employment opportunities," county Commissioner Robert Vasquez, an ambitious politician who just started a bid for Congress, said of the illegal workers. "Certainly it uses tax dollars to provide them with educational services, medical care, unemployment compensation for those that are injured on the job. They are a drain on the taxpayers of Canyon County, the state of Idaho and the U.S. in general."

The county's attempt to recoup its expenses would be filed under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called the RICO Act, which has been used against targets ranging from organized crime to Internet spammers.


Continued at.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION_RICO?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


This I don't have a problem with. It may well be that the RICO statutes work in this situation.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:06 pm
goodfielder wrote:
au1929 wrote:
goodfielder
The fact is that the agency that is charged with enforcing the immigration laws refuses to perform it's duty. The police chief took action and from what I have read many others throughout the nation are ready to pick up the gauntlet. And IMO rightly so.
When the federal government refuses to enforce the laws of the land it is time for the citizens to react.


If the police have no legal authority to enforce immigration laws (whcih I believe they don't) then they have to obey the spirit and intent of the law which is - that immigration matters remain the province of the federal government.

If this defendant had been obviously breaking a state law (eg stealing a car) then rightly it's the province of local police to take action.

If you seriously endorse local police doing this sort of thing au then you're advocating the overthrow of the rule of law.

This would be true, except for the fact that the system is corrupt. The federal agents in charge of enforcing the immigration laws do not. So the real choice is for the police to follow the letter of the law and allow lawbreakers to walk free by the million, or to attempt to handle federal infractions at the local level. Their course of action may be improper, but it is also not proper for the feds to refuse to enforce the law. Most people don't like watching the laws of their country flaunted with impunity
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:11 pm
Quote:
Most people don't like watching the laws of their country flaunted with impunity

Most of those people voted for Bush.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:12 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
Most people don't like watching the laws of their country flaunted with impunity

Most of those people voted for Bush.

If you have an argument, make it. You seem afraid to express your opinion.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:15 pm
Brandon, meet dyslexia.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:16 pm
Right on Brandon, I'm shy. Yes, that's it, I'm shy. Just in case you haven't noticed Brandon, I have given my opinion re this issue many times here on a2k, I don't see the need to rehash it over and over again.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:25 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Right on Brandon, I'm shy. Yes, that's it, I'm shy. Just in case you haven't noticed Brandon, I have given my opinion re this issue many times here on a2k, I don't see the need to rehash it over and over again.

Your style is to take pot shots from hiding at your political opponents, without ever saying enough of what you mean to be subject to analysis. Hardly the behavior of someone who is in the right. It's like if I said, "The Democrats are largely dishonest people as they've shown time and time again," but then refused to really say what I was talking about. If you're that frightened to debate in the normal way, go for it, but posts like that are not of much significance.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:01 pm
Brandon, I've seldom considered mine or, for that matter, anyone else's posts to be of much significance (with a few exceptions) as for debate, there are so very few examples on this forum of actual debate that your comment about my style is suspect from the beginning. Forums such as this are primarily a means of intertainment rather than honest debate. But for your pleasure taking the comment I made above re those who complain about the durrent enforcement of immigration laws being mostly the same as voted for Bush, I believe it's self-evident that those doing the most complaining about the "illegals" are also the one's that most likely did vote for Bush and it appears to me that Bush does not include an agenda of enforcing immigration laws. My personal view is that the current status of immigration laws, enforced or not, are inane. I have, elsewhere on this forum, posted that I would prefer totally open borders for the entire north american continent in much the same way as the EU has done in europe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 12:29:19