SB 1070


I know this is a charged issue.  That’s pretty much why I wanted to present some actual sane thoughts here so people who lean so far left they sit in  with only left legs to keep from falling over.

Everyone that reads this blog knows there are few that are more attached to the Constitution than I.  But let’s take a somewhat logical look at the problem and give some sane consideration to what the hell is going on here.

Having been in Law Enforcement at some point you have to come to the realization that you don’t target an old 4′ 8″  lady if the BOLO is for a 6′ black male.  That should be common sense that you would ONLY stop 6′ black males and ONLY the ones who fit the rest of the ID, blue jeans short hair, whatever it is.  If the BOLO says in his 20’s, you don’t stop black men in their 70’s.

So you have to ask yourself why is it profiling if 99% of those crossing the border illegally are Hispanic?  The answer, it isn’t, its common sense.  The straw man argument that not all illegals are Hispanic is just that.  The screams of  xenophobia is outrageous.  The problem is easily identifiable and debasing those who want to do something about it does nothing to solve the problem.

Look, I’ve lived in foreign Countries.  I can tell you that NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, treat’s their borders as lackadaisically as America. The closest I remember is when Germany had a extremely low unemployment rate, (you might want to remember this), and allowed Turks and Italians to pass easily into the Country.  They were doing the jobs Germans didn’t want to do, putzfraus, truck drivers…etc.

All well and good, until the bubble burst and many lost their jobs, (is this sounding like something you’ve heard before?).  Then with higher unemployment Germans weren’t so fast to not want those jobs they didn’t want to do before, but many of those jobs were either eliminated or already taken.

The ones that were eliminated caused, yep unemployed people, who now living in the Country were able to receive unemployment benefits which included health care.  It almost caused the Country to go bankrupt and frankly has since never posted a decent GDP growth.

Granted that Germany doesn’t have our Constitution.  But every Nation on Earth reserves the right to protect its sovereignty, its citizenry and it’s borders.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with at a traffic stop having someone identify their self.  I have to.  If you don’t have a driver’s license, registration card, insurance card or a social security card, you should be hauled in.  If you can’t speak English and don’t have a legal means of identification, chances are you are illegal. That’s not profiling, that’s just plain ordinary every day common sense.

No one is suggesting that you be hauled in for being brown in broad daylight or after dark.  I am suggesting that if stopped for a legitimate reason, if a workplace is checked by lawful means and you are not legal, as far as I am concerned you have no complaint.

Here is what we have to do in order to solve this situation of illegals in this Country.  First, we simply must get a grasp on our borders.  A few will always get through, nothing is going to catch them all.  but we can damn sure make it a heck of a lot tougher for them to get in this Country.  My suggestion would be bring home the troops in Germany and match them up with the National Guard in the border States.

Once secure, then we can start finding them, one at a time if necessary, until it is less a problem.  One of the arguments is we can’t round them up.  I say you can’t catch all the speeders and drunk drivers either, doesn’t stop us from trying to get them off the road though does it?

I am not racist, I believe in the immigrant serves us in our best interest when we have control over the number and the system in which they reside here.  Once again, NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD treats their borders the way we do.  The left is always trying to make us more like Europe, in this one case I agree.  Let’s control our borders and return to an immigration Quota.


“Rebellion to Tyranny is Obedience to God”


41 Responses to “SB 1070”

  1. chas Says:


    Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.

    I lean towards the same direction as the Federal Government takes on EPA Regulations. Almost every State now has it’s own EPA, regardless of what they call it.

    In effect it is just a duplication of the Federal Agency. Leaving aside the Constitutional aspects of Governmental Power to enforce such an agency, State’s are free to make stricter Laws, adhere and enforce Federal Laws but cannot make Federal Law more lenient.

    I don’t see why this would be any other way except for political reasons.


  2. Dan Fugate Says:

    Wow, this post has generated some talk! I agree with the majority of what I’ve read. There is NO racism, NO profiling and NO reason that there should be such a row around this bill/law.

  3. chas Says:

    Seems to me, back in the day that we had what we called migratory workers. They would travel during the end of the growing season, pick the veggies, fruit, whatever, and then go home.

    I have NO problem with that.

    But picking veggies are not the only jobs that they are taking. And they get those jobs because they are willing to work for lower wages, but, especially in this job market, many Americans would take.

    And they DON’T go home. That I have a problem with.


  4. capmotion Says:

    Even though this page should not morph into the free speech discussion that chas has suggested he will launch into presently, olinl is most astute in suggesting that there is a close relationship between the religion clauses and the speech clauses. Indeed, some of the later/recent establishment clause cases [a doctrine turned on its head by ignorant courts, by the way] have found no establishment prohibition in the conduct [usually use of public facilities] because too rigid enforcement of establishment would violate the people’s free RELIGIOUS “speech.” That is, expressions and associations with a religious motivation/focus are sometimes protected by the speech and association clauses in addition to, or instead of, the free exercise clause. All fun and heady stuff, to be discussed in another space.

    I know, you want to know what I mean by ignorant courts and establishment…. Far from empowering the national judiciary to prohibit entanglements between “state” and “religion” via the establishment clause, the Framers really intended to keep Congress out of the subject matter either way, supporting or abolishing entanglements, because at least 7 states had state involvement with, or control by, some religion, and the establishment clause was written the way it was to PROTECT those entanglements against federal invasion. The courts turned that notion on its head when it employed the incorporation theory to make the establishment clause applicable to the states. ‘Nough of that for now.

  5. carolynro Says:

    What about the huge economic motivation for business to hire the cheap labor, for the “rich” to hire cheap domestics and the political need for more liberal voters, and the passionate progressives who want to extend all American legal privileges to illegals to salve their guilt over the human condition? Until people stop demanding that exceptions be made in order to serve their own motives, we will never follow the law.

    • capmotion Says:

      I agree with carolynro that a serious double standard has been allowed to creep into the system [especially when governmental muckey-mucks hire illegals as domestic help while pretending to support or enforce laws in the opposite direction], but it is an economic reality that is driving some of the fuzziness here. As I noted before, I have big grower friends, Reagan supporters and Deukmejian endorsers/creators[!], who have made their fields available for locals [at high wages], and local kids won’t work them, so they have to turn their heads regarding documents of the field hands they do hire [at the same high wages], or their crops will not get picked, meaning you won’t have melons, lettuce, and squash. If the economic reality is not intelligently factored in regarding who comes here, the growers, like other businesses are doing right now, will take their operations south of the border, and then all the profit for the stuff you eat will be other than in the USA. I, not being a political economist, do not have the solution; I, being a constitutionalist, do know and stand by the notion that exceptions to the Constitution cannot be invited and must be resisted, and most of the ones in place must be reversed, or they will never stop until we have George III back.

      Some soap box alarmists invite breaching the Constitution on this subject [and on so many!] because this is an “emergency”; it is a “crisis.” Uh…, the Constitution was born of emergency and crisis: a crisis mandated the secret scrapping of the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution; the Articles were born of crisis when we tossed out order with the Declaration; the Declaration was born of emergency and crisis when we realized ruling from above instead of from within ourselves was oppressive. So, it is analytically unsound to suggest that there can be a crisis/emergency exception to a doctrine and document and their meanings which are themselves born of a long line of crises and emergencies.

  6. olinl Says:

    If we do away with religious expression with respect to the public arena, then what happens to free speech. Although I am not a Constitutional scholar, I feel that the first amendment was written in such a way that makes the two inseparable.

  7. olinl Says:

    Without secure borders or some form of scrutiny, how is the problem to be solved? If the doors are simply thrown open, then we will be overrun with half of the third world population, looking for a better life. Then we too will become third world!

  8. capmotion Says:

    Free speech would be great; it has been urged by some that prohibitions against “abridging THE freedom of speech” meant the protection was only of the quantum of speech which was then and there “free” under English common law [which is why the “the” is there], it did not mean, some suggest, that the expressive licentiousness urged by some people modernly was to be protected. It’ll be fun. And I hope it invites a similar amount of response and discussion.

  9. chas Says:

    Back in the day, when I was in law enforcement, we had to have probable cause to pull someone over. Weaving, inconsistent speed and the like.

    Not today, just set up a road block, like they do in MD, and stop 3,000, delay them and take 3 drunk drivers off the road. Not saying that those 3 drunks shouldn’t be taken off the road, they should. I am more concerned with the 2,997 people that were detained, and the time and a half they pay the off duty officers to set up and preform the duties at the checkpoint.

    cap, I’m working on free speech right now. Unless you have another topic for me to research to submit to you. 😉


  10. capmotion Says:

    “Heaven forbid if they were to be stopped in a DUI check point!!”
    True originalists like Justice Thomas and me forbid them too; Torries have no problem with them, though. Just won another DUI checkpoint attack recently, by the bye.

  11. Gini Says:

    Cap… 🙂 🙂 As the country continues to spiral out of control, I think you can count on many many vigorous conversations with everyone here, and hopefully, more will join in. I find it easy, Chas, to ‘promote’ this blog, as it is information people are after, and this blog provides that…along w/humor as well, w/o any political party in the way. A relief for anyone wondering into this blog, I would think? And an opportunity to join the conversation is just fun, as well….so ‘promoting’ those like you and Cap, and others, is easy. So, there ya are! ha ha! 🙂 🙂

  12. olinl Says:

    I agree with you both, Cap and Chas. I find it really amazing that the progressives back the health care debacle 100% while complaining like a chorus of opera divas about checking papers in Arizona!!

    Heaven forbid if they were to be stopped in a DUI check point!!

  13. capmotion Says:

    olinl poses: “My question is: If the IRS can ask us to show proof of insurance, why can’t the cops in Arizona ask for proof of citizenship?”
    Constitutional purists such as me do not think the IRS [nor any government agency] properly can do so. That oppression might have been fine for behind-the-“Iron-Curtain” countries, or for 30’s Germany, but not for my popular sovereignty Republic conceived in Liberty [a doctrine verbalized more than understood]. Of course, if we take it is a given that government can do what it really can’t to commence our discussion, then the next argumentative step falls almost seamlessly in place – and that step presses us closer to the abyss.

    I hope chas thinks of another topic that can inspire the same sort of reactions and responses this one has, because this has been a rich and wonderful discussion.

    You all might recall, when I was on Ali’s blog, that I frequently lecture school students about the Constitution and the Republic and I insisted that the schools start getting serious about the Constitution. An 8th grade teacher just asked me if I would supply pocket Constitutions to all the students in his history class for next year! I am delighted to do so, and I hope that is a beginning for true enlightenment there. A difference can be made, if one puts his money where his fulminations are. Changing the hearts and minds of the millions begins with the ones.

  14. chas Says:

    Olin my friend THAT is a really good question.

    But I am pretty certain that they actually can’t, but that won’t stop the Government from demanding it anyway.


  15. olinl Says:

    My question is: If the IRS can ask us to show proof of insurance, why can’t the cops in Arizona ask for proof of citizenship?

  16. Gini Says:

    In my humble opinion, that is the only thing a ‘civilized’ society can do, to keep the ‘order of law’, and the ‘bad guys’ at bay Chas, so I agree with you, but as always, we ‘tremble’ a bit, when our Constitution is ‘tweaked’ to meet the needs of the moment. I continue to read, and am informed, better able in the process, to ‘process’ it all. lol 🙂

  17. chas Says:

    Hi Gini,

    You have always been one of my favorites. Thank you for your support, no one does more to promote this blog than you do.

    As to the question at hand, I am going to stand on my original statement:

    IF, stopped in a manner within the legal parameters of law enforcement, and find someone who cannot show valid ID, then I don’t care if you are local, State or Federal, that individual should cuff and stuff the unidentified individual and verify his status.

    This is acceptable actions if a “normal white male” is involved, I see no reason to changed the procedure because a person is brown, yellow, black or pink with purple poka dots, or an illegal alien.

    And that is about the last I have to say on the matter. I have 2 others that I want to get started and the one going to cap always takes longer due to his busy schedule. Please do carry one however, but I really must focus on the next 2 projects.

    Thanks again, not only to Gini, but to all of you who read and especially to those who take the time to share your thoughts and questions.


  18. Gini Says:

    Hummmmmm…if nothing else, those whose opinions one might agree with or not, should cause most to research ideas and causes and statements, made by ‘those people’. Or so one might think? In the mean time, and considering everything that has been said so beautifully and thoughtfully here {love this blog!!!}, what does one do abt the ‘rancher on the border’, and what does one doe abt ‘harvesting the crops’?
    I blame every single one of those men and women who have been elected, for not solving this problem…well, we all do, so that’s not ‘news’. I actually don’t care how they ‘settle it’…they just need to ‘settle it’, NOW. I am not expecting ‘them’ to do that however, as I believe the cottage industry of ‘drugs and human trafficking’ has grown so profitable, there is no desire to ‘fix’ it…’they’ wish to ‘control’ it, but no desire to ‘fix’ anything at all, in my opinion only. They all are complicit and ‘the people’ on both sides of the border suffer the consequence of it alllll, by murderous thugs who are ‘lawless’ in their contempt of it all.

  19. capmotion Says:

    Sterling, his mess, involving many facets of the human condition and of a Republic where there is supposed to be both horizontal and vertical separations of power, is characterized by an almost infinite array of grays. That is, it cannot be reduced to the facile “illegal…[means] you pay the penalty…” suggested by others.

    I will address a couple of your points. A nation can do almost anything it wants to prevent entry by non-citizens, and the Constitution supports that. But we sadly don’t press any extreme in that regard, for various reasons practiced and tolerated by many administrations of both parties for many decades. But contrary to some of the biased and uneducated rants from Hannity, Beck, Savage, etc., once people are here, they are protected by due process, and by the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments [which, unlike the privileges and immunities clauses, purposely don’t protect only “citizens”].

    But, with minimal due process, those here illegally can be removed, and can be heavily punished for illicit re-entry, etc., but that is not done either, thanks to milquetoast policies by both parties over the same number of decades.

    And I understand that some border states might be distressed that the feds are clearly not doing their duties in that regard, and I understand that frustrations about that might impel those states to try to do something on their own, but that is what a Constitution is all about – some things people or states want to do simply cannot be done. I, for instance, am disgusted at the manifold ignorance and misrepresentations spewed about my Constitution by many self-proclaimed “patriots” on the radio these days, and I would happily silence them, because their fulminating and hyperbolic and urgency-sparked idiocy leads those who know not down a dangerous path, but I cannot silence them, because the Constitution says I cannot. The same Constitution that requires me to endure their stupidity requires states to endure the fruits of federal negligence.

    We cannot urge originalism where the doctrine fits our prejudices and scrap the doctrine where such derails our prejudices, and if originalism means anything other than serving as a quaint description of Scalia when he is being pure, then we must denounce states who would pretend to enforce things that are exclusively, by intent of the Framers, federal.

    So, it’s not a matter of “it’s illegal, so pay the price,” but is instead necessarily a matter of who is empowered to enforce what. It’s not legal to drive down local street under the influence of alcohol, but we would not want the FBI enforcing that, nor could they properly do so without violating the 10th Amendment.

  20. Sterling Says:

    So then, cap, understanding the difference between keeping the illegals out and then protecting their liberties once they are here, what exactly are their liberties once here, and how would the government, be it the state or the feds, go about removing them, and can they even do so, based on your previous explanation? Keep in mind that I live in a little town in southwestern Ohio, rich in farmland, and yes there are many of Hispanic heritage in this area in the spring through the fall. Are they legal? I have no idea and I tell you honestly that I’ve never even wondered. Their effect on me is slight in sight and possibly great in the unseen work that goes behind purchasing my favorite foods at my local farm market, grocery store, and restaurant. I don’t mean that statement to be unkind in anyway; I am just pointing out that I don’t live in a border state and I am not experienced in the occurrences that have led to the unrest in those states. I am a big supporter in state’s rights, and in deference to the angst in those aforementioned states, what is their recourse, when the feds have ignored their pleas? I understand and agree wholeheartedly with you, that we must elect individuals who will uphold the Constitution, but it seems to me that these states feel that this is an immediate problem. What then? I would also like to let you know that thought you and I may disagree in our thoughts about Bush, although I did support him in many ways, I can promise you that I disagreed vehemently with his administration on many others. I don’t hold President Obama solely responsible for this mess, but he is following the lead of others, and for what I fear are more sinister reasons. And since I’m writing a tome here, let me just add to it by saying that I truly appreciate your insight into these difficult questions. I am honored to know you and call you friend.

  21. Eileen Says:

    It seems so SIMPLE. ILLEGAL I thought meant it was against the law. You break the law you pay the penalty. That is what I taught my kids.
    Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” –Thomas Jefferson

    Nice thought Thomas, but hardly true any more.


  22. capmotion Says:

    chas, dear chas, is that what you got from my constitutional dissertation? For shame! I agree that proper laws should be properly enforced, although I do not agree that federal responsibilities should be assumed by the states, because (a) they cannot be, and so all actions and convictions based on the attempt will be reversed [at enormous expense]; and (b) that federal intrusion by states inversely invites further obliteration of the doctrine of federalism by the feds.

    But I agree that law should be enforced, but it never is in one area: I have won well-over 1,000 motions on the grounds that my clients’ constitutional rights were violated by cops, and each instance is a federal felony by the cop. Guess how many cops have been prosecuted for those federal felonies! Yep, not one. I agree the law should be enforced – when will it be?

  23. chas Says:

    So if a local law enforcement officer comes across a federal crime in progress, they should kick back, do nothing and hope a federal agents comes along to arrest the criminal?

    You are going to have a hard time selling that to me.

    And yes, the more contributions, the better the blog. There is no intrusion for any of you to comment.


  24. capmotion Says:

    Two people have suggested that their input here is an “intrusion,” but I think chas agrees with me that the value of this wonderful blog is partially defined by the extent to which others share their thoughts and insights and inspire thoughtful reactions, which can lead us all to have greater understanding of what’s what, and what’s not. There is no “intrude,” although there might be intrigue!

    I am intrigued by how people can fulminate against the central government spilling across the boundary lines expressed or otherwise intended by the Framers [which has illicitly given us paper money, liberty invading social leveling, liberty invading economic redistribution, federalism and liberty destroying expansions of “commerce,” etc.], but the same people are okay with the spilling across intended constitutional boundaries if the topic serves one of their favorite agendas [border protection/immigration, undeclared preemptive invasions of other soverign lands, endless “detention” of people we accuse of being but have never proven to be terrorists, etc.].

    Like it or not, Hannity understands it or not, Becks finds Armageddon in it or not, immigration/national border protection is an exclusively central government business doctrine, like bankruptcy, declaring war, operating post offices, prosecution of violations of the Law of Nations, regulating the military forces, and the states screw up the balance that I have been sworn to uphold against all enemies foreign and domestic when/if they muck around in any of those areas.

    And like it or not/understand it or not, there is a difference between what the government can do to prevent the entry onto our soil from the outside [virtually anything] and what it can do to the illegally entering people once they are here [the Constitution protects them from arbitrary liberty invasions once here, legally or otherwise, like it or not/understand it or not].

    We obviously need to beef up the “keep them out machinery,” but our political failure to do such does not invite state action which substitutes for the “keep them out” machinery by erosions of the “protect them from arbitrary liberty invasions once here” reality.

    If Bush had not been such good pals with Portillo, a serious program could have started a decade ago to deal with the problem, but the problem goes back far before Bush, so it is now inappropriate to lambaste our Kenyan-born president for the on-going nature of the horrid problem.

    I will say that those who suggest local citizen kids would do some or all of the work now being performed by border crossers if we sealed the border do not know what they are talking about. One of my friends, a big, big grower of melons and lettuce and squash, who is far, far more “conservative” than many of the people writing here or those listening to loudmouth polemicists like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Ingraham, has regularly looked for locals to do that dirty work [for which he pays very handsomely], and our kids will not do it, so absent his turning a blind eye to some of his workers’ alienage, you would not have much that adorns your dinner table.

    Do I have an answer? My only answer for this is the same as I have given before on other matters: we need to send people to DC who understand and are devoted to the Constitution and the intent of the Framers, but if we fail to do that, that does not empower states to perform federal functions, or else we have no Constitution. Period, end of issue.

  25. DogOnCrack Says:

    If I may intrude as well, here’s the actual text of the bill itself for those who are interested.

    Thank you Dog. You corrected an oversight of mine. I should have provided that link as reference.


  26. Sterling Says:

    The comments on this thread have been so interesting! Cap, my dear friend, with apologies to chas for intruding on his blog, I’d like to ask you what you might suggest for the state of Arizona? I profess no great understanding of law enforcement, only my acknowledgment that I avoid it at every opportunity! But if the feds refuses to enforce the federal laws, and in absence of that enforcement and indeed, in absence of solidarity with the states, what then is the solution to the problem of border control?
    Liz you are NOT intruding, not by a long shot. Cap is a partner in this blog now.


  27. Gini Says:

    OMG…I am CAUGHT UP! Yea!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 ~sigh~ I await the ‘next installment’ on our Constitution, and how it applies to TODAY. lol Hi ya Cap, by the way………
    I haven’t started it quite yet, but I am forming the idea to send to cap.


  28. Gini Says:

    I guess that’s correct…if you’re looking for a ‘skin head’, you prob wouldn’t be stopping me. We watch while it spins out of control, with false info out there. IF people do not wish to be informed, they will be flim flamed again, into thinking what isn’t so, is so. I heard on the radio, that the Constitution is becoming a discussion w/people gathering together, more today than in prior yrs. Would seem that all the talk abt our Constitution, the efforts of the present admin {prior ones not withstanding} has become the ‘talk of the town’….I hope so! I, like everyone, tire of it all, the miss representation by our media, and especially those who are in charge, turning a blind eye to it all, as we find out they haven’t read the Constitution either, and don’t have a clue what the said they would ‘protect and defend’. WHAT? and YIKES! as we continue down this road, I hope everyone is paying attn, and is carefully looking at the people wishing to get our vote! This election this year is definitely a ‘game changer’. Great read Chas…..thanks, again. lol {I’m still in ‘catch up’ mode.}
    My opinion is that if you vote for a bill or “plan” that is not Constitutional, you have broken your oath and should as such be impeached. Which means there is almost no one left in Governemnt at this point. 😉


  29. chas Says:

    cap, my good friend, we have more in common on this issue than we have differences I know. So there is no disagreement of any worth between us on this issue. We both understand the harm not enforcing the law is doing to our Country.

    I will say however that I would not handle this situation in this manner. Personally if I felt that it was so bad as to have to mimic a Federal Law to give my law enforcement the tools to curb and enforce the law I would just declare a State of Emergency.

    Then I would be able to call out the National Guard and use them to stand guard on the border. It would at least slow the flow. Then I would tell the Fed, if they don’t start doing their job, then will come the recently passed law.

    BTW, my interruption of the preamble, it was a statement mostly to garner public support, hence the “We the People”.

    Representatives to the Constitutional Congress were not sent or voted on by the people to represent them there. They were appointed by the Governors of the State.

    And there is where comes Reagan’s quote “States created the Federal Government, not the other way around”.


  30. Salvatore Says:

    Morning Cap,
    If our borders were secure in the first place,
    would we have this immigration problem?

  31. capmotion Says:

    I do not disagree with most of what my dear friend chas has said [although “we the people,” not the states qua states, created the Constitution and the Republic which it defines and controls!], but the question always remains whether default by the central government, or any of its branches, can create power in other governments or branches, and I think the answer always has to be “no,” or else we no longer have a Constitution defined by its intents and writing.

    It is significant that most of the Arizona law defines its terms and standards by what the federal government defines as a person’s right to be here, which is an implied and grudging concession that the issue is federal. Suppose a state thinks, for its interests, we should attack another country, and it has plausible and legitimate grounds [by its own political and economic standards] for urging such, but the pesky central government’s congress refuses to declare war and its foot-dragging president refuses to make emergency invasions pending that declaration [the only legitimate method for our country to wage hostilities, by the way, regardless of Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.!], so that state decide to declare that war and make that invasion itself – would that be valid? Of course not: default does not create power. Same thing here, as a constitutional doctrine, and it is only the Constitution of which I speak.

  32. chas Says:

    Let’s face it we are human. We are all in the habit of prejudgment or as it is sometimes called profiling. It is human nature to do so.

    It is one of the most important tools along with instincts law enforcement has. Yes, it does get abused at times, but many of those times is based upon past experience.

    That the Federal Government has failed in one of its most basic Constitutional responsibilities , securing the safety by securing the borders, something must be done.

    May it happen that some abuse will occur? I’d say yes just knowing how things work. But I also play poker, and understand odds. I’d say an old car with an expired plate, beat up and falling apart, needs to be looked at with a view of possible wrong doers. Odds are good that there is something beyond an ugly cars in play there.

    Let’s remember that the Constitution was written to bind Government with the view that people could rule their own self. Our citizens are supposed to have self-control. These people are not citizens, they are not legally here and pose more than a monetary risk as things are going on in Arizona.

    It is do nothing and risk more or do something and stem the tide. The question is what?

    PS, I should also put in that the States created the Federal Government, not the other way around. If the Federal Government will not do the job they were given, then I believe it is incumbent upon the State to protect its self.

  33. capmotion Says:

    I know you don’t support random stopping for invidious reasons, but it happens all the time, and now there is an implied imprimatur supporting it, and the cops always push things to the edge of the envelope – and beyond. Some conservatives aree of the John Adams ilk; others are of the King’s Torries ilk; I am of the former.

  34. capmotion Says:

    Actually, Sal, you are promoting a “liberal,” or “progressive,” doctrine when you thereby suggest that the ends justifies the means. Constitutional originalists such as me [and I think chas] propose that the Framers’ intents regarding constitutional doctrine is the summum bonum of governmental reality in this Republic, and we cannot violate intended constitutional norms to deal with [and incompetently so] an immigration nightmare any more than we can do so to deal with an economic one [which itself was largely caused by failure of the system to operate within intended constitutional limits].
    Just to be clear cap, I do not condone the random stopping of persons on the street without proper cause. And being brown isn’t a valid reason. What I do condone is if stopped for a valid reason, traffic stop…etc, is for them or anyone to provide proof of Identity. As I said, I have to because it is a requirement of law. Any time someone is involved in an incident that requires law enforcement intervention you have to be able to show some form of ID.

    Once control of the border is established, you find the ones that have BROKEN THE LAW and send them back, one at a time if necessary. If the Fed isn’t going to do their job, what other choice does a state have? As I said, no random stopping people on the street and only ICE should be able to investigate a business when probable cause is present. I see no right’s violations in securing the border or in sending criminals back to their Country of origin.


  35. Salvatore Says:

    Good Morning Chas,
    70% of the people that live in Arizona approve of this law,
    the bottom line is….we need to secure our borders.
    Great Post Chas.
    Maybe we should just the same thing as Mexico does. It’s a Federal Crime to be illegal there.


  36. capmotion Says:

    I love SB 1070 [and am probably one of the few who has closely studied it!], because in this downturn in the economy, it will be the Full-Employment-for-Attorneys Act of 2010! But, sadly, I cannot reap the fruits, because I am not licensed to practice in Arizona! It purports to authorize for more than merely checking the ID of people otherwise lawfully stopped; it purports to authorize the stopping for immigration purposes alone – uh, but not if the stop is “based solely on race, color, or national origin.” Just squaring that perverse and curious circle would require jurisprudential “Cirque-du-Soleilism.”

    It invites anonymous written complaints by citizens about such things [think 1930’s Germany]; it manufactures the doctrine of “trespass” from illegal alienage alone, which is another word for state-i-zation of all private property[!] [there goes private property]; it makes the opinions of federal officials the determiner of state crimes [there goes federalism], even though they cannot legally be subpoenaed under state process [meaning all convictions would violate due process and confrontation notions and be overturned]; and it gives expedited priority to the citizen-complaint-based actions against employers [there goes the priority for rape and murder and things that should bother us more!]; and it does such by purporting to enter a field occupied exclusively by the central government under Art. 1, section 8, cl. 4 [“uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which has been understood to mean all immigration matters]. “Uniform” means each state cannot make up its own rules; it is a field exclusively occupied by the central government, like bankruptcy law!
    Then doesn’t that mean that the Federal Law does the same thing?


    Yes, chas is correct that we have something close to a crisis regarding the borders, but negligent inaction, even criminally negligent inaction, by the central government cannot trump established constitutional norms, or else rationalization shall dethrone intent of the Framers.

    Reactionary hacks wrote this abomination to please rare beef eating Americans [hm…, I like rare beef, come to think of it!], and as with most things emanating from the spleen instead of from the head, it is infected with attackable idiocies. What does the following mean? “It is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to transport…an alien in this state in a means of transportation if the person knows…that the alien has come to…the United States in violation of law.” So, you have to be “in violation of [some other] criminal offense” before transporting illegal aliens is…, uh, illegal? What offense? That is utter nonsense. I would fire my paralegal if she produced such an obtusidae for me! But we have people voting, signing, celebrating, bleating about it!

    This thing is readily and expensively attackable.

    Cops would not stop people because of the color of their skin? I firmly and truly believe chas would not, but he is not the typical street cop we see. I have won several cases on that ground alone, stopping people because of their skin color, and one is pending right now which I will win, and if there were this sort of implied [hm, actually, express!] invitation in California, there would be many, many more illegal seizures. Hm…, though…, maybe then I would get promoted from Captain Motion to Colonel Motion! Come to think of it…, maybe not so bad after all. John Adams and I and other real conservatives would celebrate at our successes while weeping about the rampant constitutional depredations.

  37. Ellynn Says:

    As you should know from having kids Dad, you can’t explain common sense to morons. 😉
    No traffic stop involving a Hispanic individual will ever be the same again…. My spidey senses tell me we’re going to start hearing a chorus of “yeah I ran a red light and ran over a little old lady while robbing a bank… but you’re only stopping me ’cause I’m Hispanic”.
    Careful Ellynn, you will be accused of being your Father’s Daughter. Which I will proudly own up to. BTW Hispanic is a proper noun and as such is capitalized sweetie. No worries I fixed it. 😉


  38. GwenFL Says:

    Amen Chas. I just found myself yelling at the TV over the situation in AZ. The dogs thought I had lost the plot. It slays me for these illegal aliens, and some Americans, to be screaming profiling. Give me a break!

    Great post Chas.
    Thanks Gwen. I get a crick in my neck each day shaking my head in disbelief.


  39. Frank C Says:

    Great read…I fully agree with your profiling analogy…The headling of the day on MSNBC “Arizona Makes It Illegal To Be An Illegal Alien. How sweet.
    News flash for MSNBC, it’s always been illegal to be an illegal alien. DUH!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: