Month: April 2010

Great explanation of Arizona’s need & a delineation of the true issues

(edited 5/2/2010) In the midst of the hue and cry over the Arizona immigration enforcement law (and it is simply about enforcement of existing laws), there is much hysterical rhetoric without an appreciation of the legal structure of the law and, I suspect, in many cases without even reading it. I did an analysis of the pertinent portions and below is a snippet from an excellent article giving the factual background (thanks Don Comedy for digging up that piece). Read the whole article. The Border Patrol is not on the border. It has set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. The officers are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. The national media do not report on these stories because it conflicts with their perception of the illegal immigration issue, which is based on an assumption that all illegal immigrants are law-abiding landscapers, maids and day laborers. While this is true in many cases, it is also true that our federal and state prisons and county jails are full of a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants who are committing a disproportionate number of crimes. via Arizona’s immigration law called necessary. Can there be any question of the need to secure our borders? If you were not convinced before, and if the foregoing did not convince you, then...

Read More

Analysis: the Arizona immigration law

(edit: related discussion here).  Here’s the text.  And here are snippets with comments. A.  No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. Merely an anti-sanctuary city provision. Let’s all enforce existing federal immigration laws. B.  For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official For starters, there has to be a “lawful contact” before ID is sought. Every lawful contact by law enforcement already results in ID’ing the person contacted whether it’s a traffic stop or upon exiting a 7-11 in a ski mask carrying a handgun! where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien The phrase “reasonable suspicion” is a term of art in criminal law. There are existing situations where an officer must have an “articulable reasonable suspicion” in order to, for example, detain an individual. Google the phrase and you’ll see a lot about it. What that means is that the officer has to be able to testify not simply “I had a reasonable suspicion” that party ‘A’ was doing ‘X’ in violation of the law; but rather must be able to articulate what that reasonable suspicion was based upon. Applying that existing and well-litigated principle sets a clear legal standard for when and...

Read More

Goodbye Texas Stadium

This is cool. I was never in Texas Stadium in person, but we’ve all seen many games televised from there over decades. This 360 degree video of the implosion is impressive. http://www.immersivemedia.com/live/stadiumlive/ Like this:Like...

Read More

Puerto Rico — the 51st state — stealth statehood in progress

In Congress, HR2499 is set for a vote on April 29, 2010 which many believe will inevitably lead to Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state.  Whether this is a good or bad thing is beside the point. The point is, you have probably heard absolutely nothing about this. Who wants this? Pundits variously accuse both Democrats and Republicans as chasing the goal of creating additional voters loyal to their party.  One of them is wrong.  Read on to see how this is about to occur.  Here is the official summary of the bill: 10/8/2009–Reported to House amended. Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 – Authorizes the government of Puerto Rico: (1) to conduct a plebiscite giving voters the option to vote to continue Puerto Rico’s present political status or to have a different political status; (2) if a majority of ballots favor continuing the present status, to conduct additional such plebiscites every eight years; and (3) if a majority of ballots favor having a different status, to conduct a plebiscite on the options of becoming fully independent from the United States, forming with the United States a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, or being admitted as a state of the Union. Prescribes the eligibility requirements for voting in the plebiscite. I’m going to summarize what I’ve garnered...

Read More

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow Me

Follows

Bad Behavior has blocked 309 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Pin It on Pinterest

%d bloggers like this: