Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 24, 2014, 06:45:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anti "Papers Please law" Tea Party rally?  (Read 8434 times)
David LaFerney
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


Location: Cookeville, TN - U.S.A.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2010, 11:55:53 PM »


Maybe you don't have a problem with that.  How about if it said this instead:


WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS SEDITIOUS OR IS CONSPIRING
SEDITION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, a REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE ALLEGIANCE OF THE PERSON.

Would that be abusive? 




Is it abusive?  There are 9 members of a militia in court right now determining if it was true.  I don't think that that attempt was reasonable.  That is exactly what happens already.  Why not apply it to people who are here illegally?

Those guys might be being charged with sedition, but I believe they were investigated because they were conspiring to commit murder.

What I meant was if for example you exercised your right to free speech by wearing a shirt with something like "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." While you walk around exercising your constitutional right to go armed to the teeth.  It might be reasonable to suspect that you are seditious, but that suspicion would not be probable cause to arrest you (And it shouldn't be) because there is no evidence that a law has been broken. 

Certainly apply the law to all those who are here illegally, but don't harass anyone because they might be breaking the law.  My opinion.
Logged

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Samuel Clemens

Putting the "ape" in apiary since 2009.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2010, 12:04:34 AM »

 It might be reasonable to suspect that you are seditious, but that suspicion would not be probable cause to arrest you (And it shouldn't be) because there is no evidence that a law has been broken. 

this would be specifically protected as free speech. only libs would consider that sedition smiley

this AZ law reads the same way the Washington law used to read on cell phone use while driving.  it was not a primary offense.  you had to be pulled over for some other reason.  might a cop look for a reason?  sure.  is that a bad thing?  probably not.  since our legal system seems to have no problem punishing cops for perceived excesses, it's probably not going to be a problem.  most cops i know bend over backward to keep people from thinking there might be any excesses.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2010, 01:14:52 AM »

Arizona's looking like a powder keg at the moment, I could see the AZ national guard placed along the border with a, stem breaches at all costs order any day now the way things are looking. I suppose most of you are aware of the Az state trooper who's been shot with an AK on a relatively routine stop (the law isn't yet in effect to my knowledge).
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
Brian D. Bray
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7369


Location: Anacortes, WA 98221

I really look like this, just ask Cindi.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2010, 04:33:28 AM »

It might be reasonable to suspect that you are seditious, but that suspicion would not be probable cause to arrest you (And it shouldn't be) because there is no evidence that a law has been broken. 

this would be specifically protected as free speech. only libs would consider that sedition smiley

this AZ law reads the same way the Washington law used to read on cell phone use while driving.  it was not a primary offense.  you had to be pulled over for some other reason.  might a cop look for a reason?  sure.  is that a bad thing?  probably not.  since our legal system seems to have no problem punishing cops for perceived excesses, it's probably not going to be a problem.  most cops i know bend over backward to keep people from thinking there might be any excesses.

This is the crux of the matter.  A secondary offense requires a more serious (primary) offense to occur before it can even begin to be enforced.  This is what makes it both legal and non-profiling.  Once a primary offense occurs then there is still the requirement for a reasonable suspicion that a person might be an illegal.   A person unable to speak or understand English would provide that reasonable suspicion.

Please understand that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are the same thing in the eyes of the law, different words, same definition.


Please understand that the AZ illegal immigration act is legal, valid, and consititutional in the same way the a county or city enforces states laws, they adopt the statute in  some manner (be it via citing code, statute, or by copying verbatim).  It's sometimes called layed jurisdiction where, as long as the proper jurisdiction line of authority exists, the sub-governmental authority has valid and legal juridiction of enforcing the laws of the higher juridiction.   

Here in the state of Washington, I could, as a municipal police officer, enforce state laws and regulations since the city is a sub-governmental unit of the state.  Unless the state laws were cited by the city (in the case of misdemeanors or gross misdemeaners) the laws could not be tried in municipal court, but had to be tried in the local Superior Court of the state (County).   

Lastly, By numerous Supreme Court or the United States rulings, a police officer is not obligated to respond to a call of distress, insure the safety of citizens, ir provide protection from criminal acts.  They do not have to answer 911 calls if they don't want to.  The main function is to investigate crimes committed in violation of state, county or municipal governmental laws, rules, or regulations.

The only constitutionally empowered authority to protect your life, limb, and property is YOU.
Logged

Life is a school.  What have you learned?   Brian      The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!
David LaFerney
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


Location: Cookeville, TN - U.S.A.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2010, 01:01:57 PM »



Please understand that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are the same thing in the eyes of the law, different words, same definition.

You may be right, but according to everything that I have found so far (on the internet for what it's worth) says that Probable Cause is not equivalent to Reasonable Suspicion.  Probable cause requires observed evidence that a crime has been committed while reasonable suspicion does not.  Reasonable suspicion allows an officer to initiate a "Terry Stop" where by the person is required to identify theirself.

Thus - "I know there are sometimes Illegals in this area.  You look to me like you might be an illegal.  Papers please..."

Maybe this is completely legal - it's certainly above my grade to say.  Maybe it's exactly what is needed.  Maybe it isn't substantially different than existing law - then why pass it?  Maybe it won't set a precedent for "Outlaw militia members often wear cammies and NRA hats - like you.  Papers please." 

I'm just surprised to find that the only ones who seem to perceive this as an infringement on civil liberties are the "Lefties" and not so much the limited government/conservative/libertarians.

I guess I just don't completely understand "limited government".
Logged

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Samuel Clemens

Putting the "ape" in apiary since 2009.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2010, 01:38:42 PM »

Quote
Thus - "I know there are sometimes Illegals in this area.  You look to me like you might be an illegal.  Papers please..."

Maybe this is completely legal - it's certainly above my grade to say.  Maybe it's exactly what is needed.  Maybe it isn't substantially different than existing law - then why pass it?  Maybe it won't set a precedent for "Outlaw militia members often wear cammies and NRA hats - like you.  Papers please."  

I'm just surprised to find that the only ones who seem to perceive this as an infringement on civil liberties are the "Lefties" and not so much the limited government/conservative/libertarians.

I guess I just don't completely understand "limited government".

if you read the law, you'd know that looking like an illegal is not grounds for stopping someone.

the reason you are confused it that you do not understand the liberals do not give a rats backside about protecting constitutional/legal rights.  they are all about "human rights".  the difference is that constitutional/legal rights protect you from the government and from harm from others.  human rights give you socialism.  you can't have socialism without a huge infringement on your constitutional rights of protection from the government.

the best explanation i i have heard is the distinction between the rights of men, and the rights of man.  we have the rights of men in this country.  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  you have those rights by keeping the government out of your life.  the rights of man say that the government should take care of your needs.  food, housing, medical etc.

as a practical matter, you have neither, if you have lawlessness.  we need enough laws to protect our constitutional  rights which mean that those in pursuit of life, liberty, etc. don't bring harm to others.  

there is no constitutional right to immigrate either legally or illegally.  both the federal govt and the states have a right and duty to protect hose who are here legally from those who are not.  you will probably find that as the liberal rights of man are expanded, the left will be want to crack down even more.  it will become more and more and economic issue, as it has in England.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
David LaFerney
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


Location: Cookeville, TN - U.S.A.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2010, 02:08:02 PM »



if you read the law, you'd know that looking like an illegal is not grounds for stopping someone.

I didn't say stop someone. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien   I would assume that being on the same street (or store, or park...)  constitutes "lawful contact".

the reason you are confused it that you do not understand the liberals do not give a rats backside about protecting constitutional/legal rights.  they are all about "human rights".  the difference is that constitutional/legal rights protect you from the government and from harm from others.  human rights give you socialism.  you can't have socialism without a huge infringement on your constitutional rights of protection from the government.

Maybe where you are confused is when you presume to know what other people do or do not care about.

the best explanation i i have heard is the distinction between the rights of men, and the rights of man.  we have the rights of men in this country.  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  you have those rights by keeping the government out of your life.  the rights of man say that the government should take care of your needs.  food, housing, medical etc.

The subject wasn't welfare it was the ability to be a free person in our country with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."  You might recognize that. It's in the 4th amendment of our constitution.

as a practical matter, you have neither, if you have lawlessness.  we need enough laws to protect our constitutional  rights which mean that those in pursuit of life, liberty, etc. don't bring harm to others.

I agree 100% - maybe more.  No argument. 



Logged

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Samuel Clemens

Putting the "ape" in apiary since 2009.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2010, 02:14:13 PM »

Quote
Maybe where you are confused is when you presume to know what other people do or do not care about.
perhaps i should have said liberals in power....although if you are voting for them...........?
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
David LaFerney
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


Location: Cookeville, TN - U.S.A.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2010, 03:48:40 PM »

Quote
Maybe where you are confused is when you presume to know what other people do or do not care about.
perhaps i should have said liberals in power....although if you are voting for them...........?

Tell you what Kathy, I respectfully observe that you can be a patriotic American with the absolute best intentions for our country, and loyalty to the constitution even if I disagree with your politics and have a different point of view.  I hope that you can reciprocate, but nonetheless that's my position.
Logged

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Samuel Clemens

Putting the "ape" in apiary since 2009.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2010, 04:51:55 PM »

fair enough.  i guess i'm not really sure what your position is.  my fault, i'm sure.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2010, 04:58:26 PM »

could have skipped the whole dang conversation and just listened to this lady.

Gabriella Speaks City Council Meeting April 27, 2010


to bad people who have been privileged to be here for generations can't understand things the way those who choose to come here do.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
cidersabuzzin
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 173


Location: Quantock Hills, Taunton-ish, Somerset, UK

vroom... vroom... but more like phut** phut**!


« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2010, 04:27:52 PM »

not a pile of illegal Norwegians in Arizona, or English, or Canadian...
aw shucks and there I thought we were just reclaiming our country!
Logged

Whats good for bees is usually good for mankind. Doesn't that mean sharing?
The Ladies could still teach the Borg a thing or two!....and maybe us too, so long as we don't go too far to the left or right and fall off the edge...
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5900

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2010, 06:12:50 PM »

Geronimo says "It ain't your country"!  afro
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 728


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2010, 09:26:32 PM »

David, a little known law is that you must carry your social security card with you at all times. Been in affect for many years. Probably as long as social security. If you don't have it, you are breaking the law. Where does the due process come in. You are guilty, period.


it's a little known law for a good reason....it doesn't exist! 

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/ssnumber/ssnumber.htm#protect
Quote
How can I protect my Social Security number?
You should treat your Social Security number as confidential information and avoid giving it out unnecessarily. You should keep your Social Security card in a safe place with your other important papers. Do not carry it with you unless you need to show it to an employer or service provider.


deknow
Logged
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5900

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #34 on: May 03, 2010, 10:13:05 PM »

When was it repealed? It sure existed when I read it in the SS documents. Of course, that was some time ago, but I never heard of it being changed.
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
deknow
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 728


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 03, 2010, 10:47:52 PM »

When was it repealed? It sure existed when I read it in the SS documents. Of course, that was some time ago, but I never heard of it being changed.


it never was...it's not even required that you have one (you need one as a child if someone is going to claim you as a dependent, and many financial things require them, but as a citizen you are not required to even have a number).

i've heard the same claim before...usually by somone who is trying to make a point about "Big Brother"...but as far as i can see, it is an urban myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number

this is the problem with the arizona law...it requires CITIZENS who might look, act, or otherwise appear to be possibly illegal to prove their citizenship.  as was pointed out by another poster, "lawful contact" with a police officer covers almost anything (including an officer knocking on your door to let you know there is a problem in the neighborhood...and the police can be sued for not checking for citizenship.

i'm not against guns...i don't own one myself (it's difficult in massachusetts), but i did shoot rifles as a kid, i've been on the wrong end of a gun (lived to talk about it...wrong place wrong time...being armed would have likely gotten myself and/or my friends killed).  i was married in arizona, and although i don't believe anyone had a gun on their person at the ceremony, both the officiator and the two witnesses did have guns in their vehicles...and the witnesses were minutmen (we were married on a ranch that they used as a base of operations...because it's close to the border and on human and drug smuggling routes).

i've been in vehicles where the driver alerts boarder patrol of groups of illegals...and i've seen them "rounded up" (honestly, they were so hot, tired, hungry, thirsty, burned out, etc that they weren't running, they seemed fairly happy being taken into custody where they are fed).   hey, i've even gotten a nasty foot fungus from wearing shoes that were abandoned in backpacks by illegals.

we obviously need some immigration reform...everyone should be documented, but we don't have a system that supports that, nor do we have a system that can possibly prevent border crossings.  with all that said, i don't think we should be profiling....every one of us should be subject to the same treatment (like a dui checkpoint as someone else posted), AND NO CITIZEN SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO POLICE SCRUTINY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LOOK HISPANIC AND LIVE NEAR THE BORDER (even if they don't speak english).

deknow
Logged
kedgel
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 192


Location: Bonita Springs, FL


« Reply #36 on: May 03, 2010, 11:03:42 PM »

David, you're right, you DON'T understand limited government.  The constitution is clear in granting the government limited powers.  One of which is to ensure domestic tranquility--i.e. enforce the law and protect the country.  The governor of AZ has repeatedly asked the federal government to do their job and has been ignored.  The new law does not give law enforcement the right to accost people because they "...look like an illegal..."  You keep regurgitating ad-nauseum the media-template "papers, please", even though it is clear to any thinking person that this is not in the law.  Let me put this in perspective.   You live in the middle of TN where the number of illegals is relatively small, so you are insulated from what is going on closer to the border.  Granted, you obviously get the perspective that is spoon-fed to you by the left-leaning media that lo-o-o-ong ago gave up any pretense of impartiality.  Unless you work construction or other labor-intensive vocations, you likely haven't seen your job go to an illegal.  Unless you are in health care, you likely haven't seen the burden placed on hospitals and emergency rooms to provide (free) care to illegals--many of whom show up to have their babies born here so their offspring are "Americans".  Unless you are an employer who has been fined thousands of dollars for unknowingly hiring an illegal because you found out after the fact his SSN belongs to someone else, you probably only know the liberal B.S. (and I DON'T mean Barbara Streisand!   Wink that is fed to you by the media and liberal blogs.  Suppose that was your Dad that was gunned down on his own ranch after he stumbled upon Mexican drug runners/coyotes.  Or maybe if you were afraid to leave your home because if you did, you were likely to come back to find it robbed, or illegals camped out in your barn, or worse yet, in your house.  Perhaps if it was YOUR job that was lost to an illegal, you'd have a different perspective.  Here in FL, we're overrun with illegals.  When I was younger and working construction, I never saw a hispanic on a construction site.  Now, it is hard to find a gringo on one!  Don't try to tell me these are jobs "Americans won't do"!  I have seen first-hand the human-trafficking/prostitution.  The coyotes charge $2500 to smuggle people across the border.  If they can't pay, they have to "work it off".  They are then locked in a labor camp or a brothel for sometimes years!  A $20 bleep has to lay a lot of Johns to work off that kind of money.  I doubt you are aware that you are promoting continuing such things by your opposition to the AZ law.  Perhaps you should consider your own S. Clemmons quote...
Logged

Talent is a dull blade that cuts nothing unless wielded with great force--Pat Travers
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #37 on: May 03, 2010, 11:28:17 PM »

kedgel cc your post to deknow who has not read/understood the AZ law and seems not to understand that federal law already requires the same.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5900

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #38 on: May 04, 2010, 07:40:42 AM »

>>>>It never was<<<<

WOW!!!!

We have a guy that knows every law that ever was, or wasn't. I guess I can't argue with perfection, so I'll quit trying. Besides, He sounds like he may have been born after the draft ended, so doubtfully remembers the selective service card, which would get you jailed quickly if you did not have. Yep, I've met a few others that "knew" the sun rose in the west, so I'll just back out and watch for awhile.
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
checotah
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #39 on: May 04, 2010, 07:45:27 AM »

From another point of view.  Law enforcement has their hands full and trying to ID an illegal alien is not a priority, but the law gives them enough latitude to check and see if a person has the proper papers.  Do you honestly think that a seasoned officer on the street can not identify a person that is not normal to an area.  Sure they could be there for a reasonable reason but whats wrong with making contact with them to make sure.  That's reasonable suspicion.  How would you feel to know that an officer could have made the stop and found the weapons they used to break into you home and terrorize your family, but did not because the officer was not sure he had reasonable cause.  I really don't mind an officer stopping me if he notices that I don't belong in that area.  I carry my driver lic. social security card, insurance, and registration, and I bet you do too if your a legally here.  The law was voted on and the majority of AZ voters said they wanted it so let those folks live with it and see if it works for them.          
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.507 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page May 22, 2014, 01:46:37 AM
anything