The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

MSNBC Poll on Arizona Law

Here is the question:
In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?
I think they left out the part about the law enforcement officer having to have had immediate previous reason to have stopped the person for some possible offense.  That is to say, if you do something that attracts the attention of the police, and the police then think you are a possible illegal immigrant, they could ask you to provide proof of citizenship.

Frankly, I hate the whole thing, but given that the US economy is still attractive to millions of people, we need to do something, and until the US Congress passes my recommended solution, we will continue to have problems that call, nay, scream for this kind of action.

The poll can be found here.  Note that you only get to vote once from any one computer.

After I voted the results were 23,705 in favor of the Arizona law and 3,129 against.

Remember, the Arizona Law is just a symptom of a problem that needs to be treated in Washington, DC, and in Mexico CIty, Mexico.

Regards  —  Cliff

19 comments:

ncrossland said...

Nearly 89% in this poll favor the law. In any contest, that is a resounding response. Why can't the Federal government get the message. Instead, they say that they might not enforce the law...which I presume means the FEDERAL law. Now, when did it become an option for a Federal law enforcement agency to enforce a law?

A then we have Eric Holder refusing to acknowledge that the Times Square guy was an Islamic terrorist. Apparently just a dissatisfied minority clamoring for attention??

And this morning, the DHS brain trust "warned" Texas that a Somali terrorist associated with AQ was getting ready to cross the border illegally. My questions are as follows. If they know his apparent timetable for crossing the border, why not just go and get him? Apparently, they know too that he won't cross in NM, AZ, or CA??? Refer to the answer to Q#1. Are the unarmed NG troops sent to the "border" as apparentl spectators.....a swim meet gallery I suppose....being sent to "document" state abuses of Federal law? Abuses that refer to actually ENFORCING Federal law.

In the end.....none of the oil spill, bank regulation, immigration, or national defense actions have ONE solid thing to do with the areas of concern themselves....except by coincidence. The Obama actions...or lack thereof.....are designed 100% to achieve his own personal political agenda....get reelected.

This is the most delusional President and Legislative branch in the history of the Republic.

Jack Mitchell said...

Wow. You just cited an online poll.

Sorry, bud. That's a credibility demerit.

One word: Freepers.

ncrossland said...

OK.....mea culpa.....after all 8 years of Bush polls...we all know that THOSE polls were falsified...so any current poll calling out The One is from a similar if not the same source. I know...it's Karl Rove.

Never, EVER cite a poll showing a conservative outcome......its the devil's work.

Caramba!!!! ......or words to that effect.

Jack Mitchell said...

B-O-L-O-G-N-A


Online polls, no matter who the glorify or vilify, are so much hooey. Period!

I hold Cliff to a standard, no higher than he holds himself.

He is an officer and a gentleman. He is not a freeper.

ncrossland said...

I would not categorize Cliff as a FReeper either.....nor myself for that matter. A neo-con I am not....and while I will lay claim to rock solid conservative beliefs....I am FAR from politically parochial. Does the terms "wildly independent" mean anything?? My yardstick has nothing to do with words or promises or affiliations or goals emblazoned on the sides of leased aircraft or dinner hour attack ads on TV. What has the person done lately????? What were they for before they were against it? (A LOT of that goin' around)....and what powers does the person think the 2nd Amendment imparts or the Interstate commerce clause empower. There are only two right answers to those two questions.

Noted an hour or two back that now that the BP leak plug seems to be working....Obumble is stepping forward and taking CHARGE of the disaster. "BP will do what we tell them to do." Right Pres....right. "BP will pay every cent for this disaster." Uh huh.....first year law students would laugh out loud over that one. The ONE is going to simply tell a foreign corporation to "pay up what I tell you." Uh huh.

This is why the polls are suspect....remember all those polls before Obumble was crowned emporer?

Jack Mitchell said...

Justice David Souter:
....The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches. These provisions cannot be applied like the requirement for 30 year-old senators; they require more elaborate reasoning to show why very general language applies in some specific cases but not in others, and over time the various examples turn into rules that the Constitution does not mention.
...Even the First Amendment, then, expressing the value of speech and publication in the terms of a right as paramount as any fundamental right can be, does not quite get to the point of an absolute guarantee. It fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the President's authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. Choices like the ones the Justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/

JoeS said...

I can't believe any State would pass a law that created an end-run on the 4th ammendment, but from certain reports it appears that AZ is now advocating that its police force detain and search persons based on their interpretation of a "valid" suspicion.

ncrossland said...

One more time!!! The majority of the verbage in the AZ law is taken verbatim from the Federal law....except that it empowers AZ state LE personnel to be able to do what the Federal statute allows Federal LE to do......if they ever did.

BTW....there is no interpretation required. If you commit a crime or some sort of offense.....and they ask you for a driver's license...and you have none and no other valid form of ID....you get checked.

THAT is the law.

Nobody reads any more. Folks just listen to the MSM truth twisters and then make assumptions.

ncrossland said...

Jack.....I guess Suter makes your argument...whatever it is.

C R Krieger said...

JoeS brought up the Fourth Amendment and the idea that we should be free to wander around and live in our home without the threat of unreasonable searches and seizures.  And we should.  Or, put another way, we should be free to go walk the dog without carrying ID.

But, and here I play Jack Mitchell, he doesn't give us the citation.  The climate Joe describes would be a change from what has been presented in the recent past, so I am wondering what happened.

As for Justice David Souter, he makes the US Constitution sound like Scripture, which makes our system of Government a religion.  Perhaps I reason too far.  But, the fact is that the Supreme Court of the United States does, from time to time, make a judgement call.  And some times it slides with the times, be it Dread Scott or the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine".

And, as for Freepers, I had to look it up.  I thought it was about contacting one's friends to vote in an internet poll, which we all know is not a highly scientific device (although the one I presented did prevent individuals from voting more than once from any one computer).  But, now that I know that Freepers represents the Free Republic, I can state without hesitation that I am the last one to condemn the Dixie Chicks, just because they were ugly to President George Bush.  It is not that I particularly like their singing, but they are cute.

Now that I have looked up Freepers, I don't see them as being the same as Neo-Cons.

Regards  —  Cliff

ncrossland said...

But again......the AZ law......not a violation of the 4th Amendment...in any way shape or form.

An AZ driver's license...or any state's driver's license is de facto proof of citizenship....end of search. You don't GET that search unless and until you do something that causes a cop to interrupt your day.....walking your dog hardly makes the cut. Walking your dog into a bank with a pistol in your hand.....that draws attention....BUT....if once they arrest you...if you have a driver's license...even if you are Mexican...or LOOK Mexican (since that seems to be the focus these days)...you will not be charged with being an illegal immigrant in AZ. Same with DUI....or Speeding...or running a red light....or selling drugs....

In re the Constitution...once we begin to shave applicability of this or that amendment to suit this or that situation or group of political contributors....it is no longer a Constitution but rather a handy guide that may or may not be used. That is pretty much the case now as savvy attorneys with big cases shop around for the "right" appeals court...the 9th has always been pretty liberal...

I hate labels and other means of "classifying" folks. It is an immature means of denigrating someone else in order to mitigate one's own insecurities. If not, then why indulge in the practice?

Freepers sounds a great deal like something first heard at recess in the second or third grade.

I don't like "citations" either..and that is why I don't use "links." What I say is what I say. If I decide to quote someone else, it would be the entire text of what they said. Too easy with Microsquish Word to lift only that which makes one's point.

JoeS said...

Let's look at the poll language cited above:
"In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?"

88% say "yes" despite no qualifying language for "reason to suspect".

And from an article on a related AZ law from the Washington Post:

"The act in question is not the strict new Arizona law that President Obama and other members of his administration have criticized. That measure requires police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804319.html

Now maybe the AZ law specifies the search as secondary to some other violation, but I haven't seen that language in print.

And to the original question which clearly avoids that distinction, I expect that those who profess dedication to the Constitution when it suits them are in the 88% affirmative votes.

C R Krieger said...

I just want it noted that in the original post I pointed out that the question and the law were not congruent.

I do need to track down the new URL.

Regards  —  Cliff

C R Krieger said...

OK, I went to The WashPost website suggested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804319.htm

I also went to the first line in a search mode on The WashPost site:

"The act in question is not the strict new Arizona law that President Obama and other members of" and several shorter variations of that phrase.

Nothing.

I am wondering if The WashPost found itself in the same pickle as The Atlantic (hat tip to Prof Ann Althouse), which earlier today claimed the FBI had picked up Ken Starr, the Special Prosecutor who went after President Bill Clinton and the Blue Dress.  Turned out to be a different Ken Starr.

Regards  —  Cliff

JoeS said...

Still there!

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 29, 2010

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the "careful balance" that Congress struck in federal immigration law.

The act in question is not the strict new Arizona law that President Obama and other members of his administration have criticized. That measure authorizes police to question the immigration status anyone who appears to be in the country illegally.

ncrossland said...

But the FACT is that the measure referenced in the Post does nothing of the kind. This is nothing more than journalistic adventurism...ala the owner of the Post...the NYT. "Appearance" has nothing to do with triggering an immigration check. The subject has to violate a law FIRST....

READ THE LAW!!!!! Not the Post.

C R Krieger said...

Found it.  Found both of them.  Searching on the reporter's name did it.

I would say that reporter Robert Barnes did a terrible job in writing the story.  Too many places where it was not clear which law he was referring to.

It is interesting to me that this case, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Candelaria (09-115), made it through the 9th Circuit with Arizona winning, and thus is now being appealed to a Supreme Court of the United States that seems much less likely than the 9th to get in the way of Arizona doing what it is doing with regard to employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Even more interesting is that Acting Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal, in his brief recommended that certiorari be granted for only the first of the three issues:

1. Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly "preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).

2. Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a note.

3. Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the "comprehensive scheme" that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

While this law before the SCOTUS (regarding employment of illegal immigrants) and the newer law (regarding detaining those who bring themselves to the attention of the police because they are suspected of violating some statute) are related in terms of the subject of illegal immigration, they are not the same thing.  There is no issue of "show me your papers" being challenged here, at least by the Federal Government.  Well, there is, but it is about the paperwork being maintained by the employer, showing that his or her employees are in the country legally.

I stick by my proposed plan to fix this problem by reducing smuggling of illegal drugs, boosting the Mexican economy (65% of the problem) and by creating a path that separates those who wish to be US Citizens from those who wish to be guest workers from those who just don't care.  And, I would repatriate those who have been committing felonies in this nation.

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  I was going to note that the Acting Solicitor General is a "First Generation" American, but it turns out the term could apply to either him or his parents.  Thus, it is useless as a description.  My very limited experience is that those who followed the regular process to become US Citizens tend to be less sympathetic to those who skirt the process than do those whose families have been here several generations.

ncrossland said...

Good points Cliff, especially underscoring the fact that the Federal statutes ENCOURAGE the hiring of illegal aliens by virtue of the fact that the statutes are sparsely....or rarely.....enforced. Once again, it is a turf issue with the Feds telling States and locals that it is a Federal matter.....and the states and locals are invited OUT. It is a cynical play for greater power on the part of the Federal agencies....as they whine that they lack the resources to "fight crime." They probably do...but giving them more eventually leads to an omnipotent Federal police force..subject to the whims of the political incumbent...and overseen by a Congress who could care less.

Prescription for disaster on a scale much larger than the states doing what is necessary to protect themselves. The most ominous words a state can hear are, "We are the Federal government and we will take care of you."

The singular exception to that axiom is that of the US Military. In a separate article I read, a responder observed that the only Federal agency that could be trusted was the military. Kind of a sad commentary.

student aid said...

I will lay claim to rock solid conservative beliefs....I am FAR from politically parochial. Does the terms "wildly independent" mean anything?? My yardstick has nothing to do with words or promises or affiliations or goals emblazoned on the sides of leased aircraft or dinner hour attack ads on TV. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways thanks