Deno
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2017
- 7,128
- 898
- 290
California woman forces Border Patrol agents off a Greyhound bus using the Fourth Amendment
- Thread starter Dont Taz Me Bro
- Start date
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Yep. Profiling.
Lysistrata
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2017
- 17,484
- 6,544
- 360
The border patrol cannot ascertain whether someone is documented unless agents demand that this person show "papers" in the first place. A demand that no one in the U.S. has the proper right to make. Not on our soil will such demands be made. Ms. Smalls took laudable action and should be commended as a patriot.
I remember one of my border crossings, between Tijuana and Chula Vista. None of your "border patrol" agents said a word to me, but my blue eyes, extremely fair complexion, and relative height mark me as European descended. When I looked back, there were short, brownish-looking people behind me being questioned. I know a guy from Sweden who went to graduate school in San Diego, above 6' and blond, and he told me that he never had a problem crossing back and forth and that nobody even asked him anything about his citizenship.
When so much of this "controversy" depends on what one looks like, there is not much to do when one's looks fit the stereotype of somebody whom the fascists want to get "in." But we humans must all stand together. Again, thank you Ms. Smalls! You get what being an American is all about.
I remember one of my border crossings, between Tijuana and Chula Vista. None of your "border patrol" agents said a word to me, but my blue eyes, extremely fair complexion, and relative height mark me as European descended. When I looked back, there were short, brownish-looking people behind me being questioned. I know a guy from Sweden who went to graduate school in San Diego, above 6' and blond, and he told me that he never had a problem crossing back and forth and that nobody even asked him anything about his citizenship.
When so much of this "controversy" depends on what one looks like, there is not much to do when one's looks fit the stereotype of somebody whom the fascists want to get "in." But we humans must all stand together. Again, thank you Ms. Smalls! You get what being an American is all about.
Lysistrata
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2017
- 17,484
- 6,544
- 360
Things have turned totally ugly when I have to give a physical description of myself in order to make a point. My physical appearance is the result of a handsome totally Irish guy meeting up in an elevator with a beautiful young Russian/Polish woman in the Waldorf Astoria. Designer genes, I guess.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Tell them no.
"The border patrol cannot ascertain whether someone is documented unless agents demand that this person show "papers" in the first place. A demand that no one in the U.S. has the proper right to make."-Lysistrata
413 U.S. 266 (1973)
ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 71-6278.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Argued March 19 and 28, 1973.Decided June 21, 1973.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Congress itself has authorized vehicle searches at a reasonable distance from international frontiers in order to aid in the enforcement of the immigration laws. Congress has long considered such inspections constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment. So, also, those courts and judges best positioned to make intelligent and sensible assessments of the requirements of reasonableness in the context of controlling illegal entries into this country have consistently and almost without dissent come to the same conclusion that is embodied in the judgment that is reversed today.[10]
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law, treaties, and the
Constitution itself are “the supreme Law of the Land.”
413 U.S. 266 (1973)
ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 71-6278.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Argued March 19 and 28, 1973.Decided June 21, 1973.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Congress itself has authorized vehicle searches at a reasonable distance from international frontiers in order to aid in the enforcement of the immigration laws. Congress has long considered such inspections constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment. So, also, those courts and judges best positioned to make intelligent and sensible assessments of the requirements of reasonableness in the context of controlling illegal entries into this country have consistently and almost without dissent come to the same conclusion that is embodied in the judgment that is reversed today.[10]
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law, treaties, and the
Constitution itself are “the supreme Law of the Land.”
Last edited:
to main content
Center for Immigration Studies
Supreme Court Gives Some Support to Arizona’s S.B. 1070
By Jon Feere and Jon Feere on June 25, 2012
The federal government estimates that Arizona has one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008. In an effort to alleviate some of the problems associated with illegal immigration, Arizona passed S.B. 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” which is designed to “discourage and deter” illegal immigration. The Obama administration filed suit against Arizona, arguing that the state did not have the authority to enforce the act. Four provisions of S.B. 1070 went before the Supreme Court, and one section, Section 2(B) was upheld. Section 2(B) was the key component of S.B. 1070 and the Court has made it clear that states have a role to play on immigration. Three sections were found to be preempted, Sections 3, 5(C), and 6.
The opinion is online at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
The outcome is as follows:
UPHELD:
Section 2(B): Requires Arizona law enforcement to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable, to determine a person's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest" if there is a reasonable suspicion "that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States."
PREEMPTED
Section 3: Makes "willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document" a state crime.
Section 5(C): Makes it a misdemeanor for "a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in [Arizona]."
Section 6: Authorizes state and local officers to make arrests without warrant where there is probable cause to believe "the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."
Practical Matters:
Section 2(B) was the key provision in S.B. 1070, and it was upheld. The ruling lends more support to the fact that states have a role to play when it comes to deterring illegal immigration. While the decision was not a complete win for Arizona, Section 2(B) will have a significant impact in that it will allow local law enforcement to serve as a force-multiplier for immigration law enforcement.
Center for Immigration Studies
Supreme Court Gives Some Support to Arizona’s S.B. 1070
By Jon Feere and Jon Feere on June 25, 2012
The federal government estimates that Arizona has one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008. In an effort to alleviate some of the problems associated with illegal immigration, Arizona passed S.B. 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” which is designed to “discourage and deter” illegal immigration. The Obama administration filed suit against Arizona, arguing that the state did not have the authority to enforce the act. Four provisions of S.B. 1070 went before the Supreme Court, and one section, Section 2(B) was upheld. Section 2(B) was the key component of S.B. 1070 and the Court has made it clear that states have a role to play on immigration. Three sections were found to be preempted, Sections 3, 5(C), and 6.
The opinion is online at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
The outcome is as follows:
UPHELD:
Section 2(B): Requires Arizona law enforcement to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable, to determine a person's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest" if there is a reasonable suspicion "that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States."
PREEMPTED
Section 3: Makes "willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document" a state crime.
Section 5(C): Makes it a misdemeanor for "a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in [Arizona]."
Section 6: Authorizes state and local officers to make arrests without warrant where there is probable cause to believe "the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."
Practical Matters:
Section 2(B) was the key provision in S.B. 1070, and it was upheld. The ruling lends more support to the fact that states have a role to play when it comes to deterring illegal immigration. While the decision was not a complete win for Arizona, Section 2(B) will have a significant impact in that it will allow local law enforcement to serve as a force-multiplier for immigration law enforcement.
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Will Moscow´s empire attack NATO in Norway ? Putin's trump card in the Arctic?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
