ACLU Recuiting in Fremont

[CrossBow33]

imported post

scarlett1125 wrote:

So how do feel about the stops that are being conducted close to the borders asking people to declare their citizenship? Many are declaring those illegal because the police have no right to stop people if they have no evidence that a crime has been committed.

Kinda begs the question of RAS or probable cause, doesn't it. So, let's suspend the Constitution when within 10 miles...no, 50 miles of the border.

The GWOT and the "war on drugs" and the "war on illegals" are all slowly co-opting the American soul. We're giving up our birthright in the name of "safety" and "the children".Our busybody, guilt-ridden, Puritanicalpsyche just will not allow us to step back and reconsider what is really in our best interest. And the politicians, all of them, know it and use it.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Well said.

 

[BlaineG]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

When you look for a better life, it is OK to violate the law under your thinking. OK, fine I'll be over to your house and move in and mooch off you for food and steal money out of your wallet and steal and sell your property so I can have pocket money. It's Ok, by your reasoning as all I'm doing is looking for a better life. Your really are an idiot.

There's a huge difference.

When an alien comes to America he doesn't infringe upon your rights. If anything, when we declare him illegal, we are committing the first "act of aggression" (infringement of someone's God-given right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness to the extent that that someone doesn't infringe upon anybody else's right to the same).

When I move into your house and start stealing your food and cash, I am violating your rights (taking your property).

I could call you an "idiot" at this point, but I won't do that.

Won't you agree that merely crossing the border is a crime? It's completely understood that criminals have given up some rights: To be stopped, questioned, detained, etc....

 

[thewise1]

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

Won't you agree that merely crossing the border is a crime? It's completely understood that criminals have given up some rights: To be stopped, questioned, detained, etc....

Again, since you guys are conveniently avoiding this in your trolling of the board, please state how you intend to identify these criminals without violating the rights of citizens.

 

[155gr]

imported post

How do you suggest we send them all back to where they came from while simultaneously maintaining the requirement for reasonable articulable suspicion that is required to stop them and demand identification, which is the only way to prove they are here illegally?

It's simple. Require proof of citizenship or legal residence for issuing a drivers license. Require the similar proof for employment and access to social services. If someone is arrested, verify their residency status. If they do not reside here legally, call la migra. Require employers to verify residence status. Sock employers with stiff fines for not doing so. Make immigration fraud and falsification of citizenship / residency documents a serious crime. Punish it accordingly.

 

[thewise1]

imported post

155gr wrote:

How do you suggest we send them all back to where they came from while simultaneously maintaining the requirement for reasonable articulable suspicion that is required to stop them and demand identification, which is the only way to prove they are here illegally?

It's simple. Require proof of citizenship or legal residence for issuing a drivers license. Require the similar proof for employment and access to social services. If someone is arrested, verify their residency status. If they do not reside here legally, call la migra. Require employers to verify residence status. Sock employers with stiff fines for not doing so. Make immigration fraud and falsification of citizenship / residency documents a serious crime. Punish it accordingly.

That should be taking place now. Of course we know it's not because a lot of states won't even cooperate with immigration, but it should be under current law (except for fining employers, that I'm aware of anyway).

I have no problem with that at all.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

Won't you agree that merely crossing the border is a crime? It's completely understood that criminals have given up some rights: To be stopped, questioned, detained, etc.... 

I would agree crossing the border is/can be a crime, but I don't believe it should be.

Also, to quote a previous post I made in another thread:

marshaul wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Another thing to remember is that when you break the law, you give up many of your rights. You can then be detained, arrested, jailed, held without bail, judged, and sentenced.

My god. What are you saying? Do you really believe this? :what:

The scary part is I know you do. You (and many of your cohort) have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of a "right." To you, our rights are what is more appropriately termed "privileges," to be revoked upon the slightest provocation. The truth is, rights are not granted to us by the state, they are inherent to us, as human beings. The state has no authority to deny any rights to anyone, ever. That it does so is an unfortunate fact. Ideally, our society may choose to enact penalties for violation of the rights of another, but this is a far cry from "giving up many of our rights."

 

[BlaineG]

imported post

I promise Im not making fun of your youth, but in my childhood days, the Cops didn't have a whole lot of restrictions and for a basicly good kid/punk that just screwed up some, he would get a little Beat & Release and sent on his way...no harm, no foul, no paperwork, no bitching. The punk, if smart, squares away and the cop is happy for no paperwork, the public is happy because no money was spent for anything and the Kid don't go to jail and have a record......... Zero tolerance and ACLU has resulted in more criminals charged and jailed to the point that real criminals are being released for no room...... I'd much rather take a nightclub to the azz than being arrested and so would most, I'd bet:uhoh:

 

[thewise1]

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

I promise Im not making fun of your youth, but in my childhood days, the Cops didn't have a whole lot of restrictions and for a basicly good kid/punk that just screwed up some, he would get a little Beat & Release and sent on his way...no harm, no foul, no paperwork, no bitching. The punk, if smart, squares away and the cop is happy for no paperwork, the public is happy because no money was spent for anything and the Kid don't go to jail and have a record......... Zero tolerance and ACLU has resulted in more criminals charged and jailed to the point that real criminals are being released for no room...... I'd much rather take a nightclub to the azz than being arrested and so would most, I'd bet:uhoh:

Oh, perhaps we should have cops beat and release open carriers.

After all, punishment without a trial is always a great idea.

 

[VoiceinShelton]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

BlaineG wrot

IMO, you're allowing the opposition way too much wiggle room......The ACLU does not support conservative values. The rights they do support are all left leaning. I cannot not think of one conservative position they are for. When left leaning lawyers get thru with The Heller deal, we might well wish for pre-Heller conditions.......

First, I have to make an assumption of what "conservative values" are. Are they values which "conserve" the status quo? Are they values that act in a fashion that doesn't stand out? Are they values emphasizing the right of the individual to be safe from his government against rights violations? Or are "conservative values" just words thrown out any time you feel threatened by another's views?

The ACLU is not against individual prayer: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

Nor is it against free access to knowledge (about firearms, no less): http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=557

It also supports the rights of the people against their government (see the multitude of 4th and 5th amendment cases).

These are things I'd consider conservative in the most important way possible: conserving the right of the people to be free in their actions from an oppressive government. Yeah, the orginization missed the boat on the second amendment, but they've done much more good over the years than bad (in my humble opinion). A few years of work from other patriots interested in the preservation of all rights, and the ACLU may even come around on our rights as firearms-holders.

*The ACLU supports their own political agenda-- PERIOD!* If you want some information on what they really do visit http://www.aclj.org/. You can read through a lot of cases where the *American Communist Lawyers Union* has done nothing but further a moonbat left agenda.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=16887&forum_id=17

 

[Machoduck]

imported post

marshaul said, "The truth is, rights are not granted to us by the state, they are inherent to us, as human beings."

Very well put marshaul. The wording "inherent to us, as human beings" is good because it removes the source of these rights as a topic for thread hi-jacking.

MD

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Thanks. I think an understanding of rights, as I explain the concept above, is very important to what we're trying to do here. The sad fact is many Americans say "right" when talking about things which have become mere "privileges."