Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: A question about our rights

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    A question about our rights

    Illegal Immigration vs. The Right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure.

    Who is right?


    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OydW39DZzc[/url]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    [/QUOTE]
    .

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4145053]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/QUOTE]

    So how do we check for illegals? :confused:

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4145073]So how do we check for illegals? :confused:[/QUOTE]

    =============================================

    In a legal and constitutional manner.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4145073]So how do we check for illegals? :confused:[/QUOTE]

    Hmm.. this is a tough one. How about only checking the status of people that get arrested for something? Seems like a fair solution no?

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4145218]Hmm.. this is a tough one. How about only checking the status of people that get arrested for something? Seems like a fair solution no?[/QUOTE]

    ==============================================

    Well there is that, you could also check the status on any one pulled over for a traffic violation, people applying for drivers license, food stamps, emergency room care, assisted housing, employment, any one who would normally be legally obligated to show ID to police in the course of a police investigation etc. etc..

    I'm not one for giving the police a hard time, yet I support anyone such as those in the videos for excising there constitutional rights.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4145218]Hmm.. this is a tough one. How about only checking the status of people that get arrested for something? Seems like a fair solution no?[/QUOTE]

    I don't think that's going to make much of a dent in the total illegal population.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another example of a dooshy civilian confusing standing up for his rights for civility. The officer was beyond patient, accommodating and professional. The BP officer is asking, asking, asking and the civilian is questioning, questioning and questioning. Point blank, he failed to observe the instructions of a officer at a mandated checkpoint. If he had such a problen with it, he should take it up with a lawyer and the magistrate, not the officer following policy put forth by the government. They were beyond professional.

    The "Nazi" comparison is loltastic. :rolleyes:
    Last edited by Jetworks; 09-15-2011 at 12:48 PM.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4145248]Another example of a dooshy civilian confusing standing up for his rights for civility. The officer was beyond patient, accommodating and professional. The BP officer is asking, asking, asking and the civilian is questioning, questioning and questioning. Point blank, he failed to observe the instructions of a officer at a mandated checkpoint. If he had such a problen with it, he should take it up with a lawyer and the magistrate, not the officer following policy put forth by the government. They were beyond professional.

    The "Nazi" comparison is loltastic. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    =============================================

    I don't fault the officer for following policy, but I do fault the policy because it is against the 4th amendment. I find disturbing that excising his God given rites is considered "dooshy".

    There is a difference between disregarding an officers instructions Vs disregarding an officers orders. Then again maybe not, I'm not a lawyer.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,685
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4145073]So how do we check for illegals? :confused:[/QUOTE]

    When registering for social welfare benefits of any kind, healthcare, social services, food stamps, etc. It is not an unreasonable search and siezure to require prrof of legal residency to recieve State provided benefits. Failure to provide ID would eman instant denial.

    Also, when one is arrested or cited for a crime (any crime). It is not an unreasonable search and siezure to check the pertinent information on a processed criminal offender. Caveat is, can only be done AFTER they've been arrested for another crime, during processing.

    And finally, mandating new hires show proof of legal residency for any employment. The Employer would be required to ask for, and send to the state, the proof offered up, for teh State to review. Employers who fail to do so get huge fine.

    I'd be pleased if we started there, and none are violations of rights in any form.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,935
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4145248]Another example of a dooshy civilian confusing standing up for his rights for civility. The officer was beyond patient, accommodating and professional. The BP officer is asking, asking, asking and the civilian is questioning, questioning and questioning. Point blank, he failed to observe the instructions of a officer at a mandated checkpoint. If he had such a problen with it, he should take it up with a lawyer and the magistrate, not the officer following policy put forth by the government. They were beyond professional.[/QUOTE]

    +1

    Bi-Polar US population:

    WAAHH!! DO SOMETHING ABOUT ILLEGALS

    (they do something about illegal immigration)

    WAAAHH!!! YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS!!!

    :rolleyes:

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4145316]When registering for social welfare benefits of any kind, healthcare, social services, food stamps, etc. It is not an unreasonable search and siezure to require prrof of legal residency to recieve State provided benefits. Failure to provide ID would eman instant denial.

    Also, when one is arrested or cited for a crime (any crime). It is not an unreasonable search and siezure to check the pertinent information on a processed criminal offender. Caveat is, can only be done AFTER they've been arrested for another crime, during processing.

    And finally, mandating new hires show proof of legal residency for any employment. The Employer would be required to ask for, and send to the state, the proof offered up, for teh State to review. [B] Employers who fail to do so get huge fine.[/B]

    I'd be pleased if we started there, and none are violations of rights in any form.[/QUOTE]

    =============================================

    I like where you are going here, yet I would change the bolded to the employer would not be able to write off the wages payed to an illegal, instead they would be treated as earned income for the employer.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4145319]+1

    Bi-Polar US population:

    WAAHH!! DO SOMETHING ABOUT ILLEGALS

    (they do something about illegal immigration)

    WAAAHH!!! YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS!!!

    :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    ================================================

    I would be the first to say that I want something done about illegal immigration, but not at the cost of losing my, any other citizen, or any illegals constitutional rites.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gunnails;4145223]==============================================

    Well there is that, you could also check the status on any one pulled over for a traffic violation, people applying for drivers license, food stamps, emergency room care, assisted housing, employment, any one who would normally be legally obligated to show ID to police in the course of a police investigation etc. etc..

    I'm not one for giving the police a hard time, yet I support anyone such as those in the videos for excising there constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]

    Everyone of those programs should be confirming citizenship before giving out the freebies and handouts to people. Thats just common sense. That said I'm not sure I want Betty the DMV worker making citizen arrests of illegals. A person that is not a citizen should not be getting free **** from the gov.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4145228]I don't think that's going to make much of a dent in the total illegal population.[/QUOTE]

    The only way to "put a dent" in the illegal population is to penalize employers for hiring them and stop the gubement from giving them their free ****. Since that wont happen the next best thing is to deport the ones that commit crimes aggressively and secure the boarders so that new people have a harder time getting in.

    Think about this. We have a national guard in which many of them sit on their bases doing training excercises all day. Now we need these people because if we are ever attacked on our home soil they are the first line of defense. What better role for the National Guard then to secure the boarder with their troops??? They are already on the payroll. They can serve a very usefull purpose while they continue to be ready to defend the home front. This is a WIN WIN solution.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gunnails;4145287]=============================================

    I don't fault the officer for following policy, but I do fault the policy because it is against the 4th amendment. I find disturbing that excising his God given rites is considered "dooshy".

    There is a difference between disregarding an officers instructions Vs disregarding an officers orders. Then again maybe not, I'm not a lawyer.[/QUOTE]

    They're not "God-given rights". And exercising your civil rights is fine, of course. This person went about it in a dooshy manner, hence what I said. He was clearly being purposely difficult and obtuse. This is especially illustrated by his insistence of not rolling down his window. That's dooshy. Not getting out of the car, fine, but that? COMMON!

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4145409][B][SIZE="3"]They're not "God-given rights[/SIZE][/B]". And exercising your civil rights is fine, of course. This person went about it in a dooshy manner, hence what I said. He was clearly being purposely difficult and obtuse. This is especially illustrated by his insistence of not rolling down his window. That's dooshy. Not getting out of the car, fine, but that? COMMON![/QUOTE]

    ============================================

    I would be interested to hear your opinion on how the 4th amendment is not a god given write under the frame work of the US Govt.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gunnails;4145442]============================================

    I would be interested to hear your opinion on how the 4th amendment is not a god given write under the frame work of the US Govt.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking here. The Constitution is a man-made document that seeks to define the rights of it's citizenry as it relates to the USA, correct? Wherein the construct of that document there were the underlying influences of Christianity, then yes, I suppose they could be construed as "God given". Does it mean its intent was the same? I would think you would be hard-pressed to prove so in a court of law.

    IMHO, your God-given right is the same as it is for any other creature on this planet, pursuit of survival and procreation.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4145485]I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking here. The Constitution is a man-made document that seeks to define the rights of it's citizenry as it relates to the USA, correct? Wherein the construct of that document there were the underlying influences of Christianity, then yes, I suppose they could be construed as "God given". Does it mean its intent was the same? I would think you would be hard-pressed to prove so in a court of law.

    IMHO, your God-given right is the same as it is for any other creature on this planet, pursuit of survival and procreation.[/QUOTE]

    =====================================

    Thank you for your thought provoking response, being an agnostic I agree with you.

    My original thought in asking your opinion on the god given thing was that the constitution was not a set of laws given to us by our for fathers rather an acknowledgment of our birth rights as US citizens.

    So I did some googleing, and I found some things that are beginning to make me rethink my position of no compromise on constitutional issues.

    Here is one paragraph that I found enlightened me.

    =============================================


    [url]http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html[/url]
    Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

    8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gunnails;4145602]=====================================

    Thank you for your thought provoking response, being an agnostic I agree with you.

    My original thought in asking your opinion on the god given thing was that the constitution was not a set of laws given to us by our for fathers rather an acknowledgment of our birth rights as US citizens.

    So I did some googleing, and I found some things that are beginning to make me rethink my position of no compromise on constitutional issues.

    Here is one paragraph that I found enlightened me.

    =============================================


    [url]http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html[/url]
    Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

    8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting entry, very pragmatic in its approach.

    Personally, I feel that a no-compromise stance on any issue will create a tense situation. That is not to say that taking such a stance is wrong, especially when one has the law on their side, but sometimes a little wiggle room makes for a more civil dialogue. Of course, some will take advantage of a little wiggle room and seek to dissuade/destroy beliefs or rights, and therein lies the proverbial rub.

    I'm not at all agnostic (I have major issues with God, but somehow still have faith, don't ask) but I am a big fan of T.H. Huxley.:)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us