Officials urge federal agents to stop immigration raids

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | June 12, 2007 | AP Wire

[slow5poh]

If what you say is true, I would like to know where In the constitution can I find that non citizens have rights. I do understand your argument that they should have a warrant. But i can’t help but think that illegals use snaky lawyers to help use our own laws against us. I don’t think that the framers would have intended to give rights to people not legally here. Now if someone were here legally on a temporary visa I could understand some limited rights while here. However, a person who broke the law to get here should automatically lose any rights the constitution may have afforded them. IMO Furthermore, I don’t see any need for a trial. If someone cannot provide real paperwork of being here legally, they should be deported. I don’t really care if it’s going to hurt a family here, that person should have considered that when he broke the LAW of another nation. Also, calling people here xenophobes is not going to help your argument. If you are in fact right, why not convey that to people so that they may understand before insulting them? You seem to be in lock step with the likes of tony snow and prez bush when they insult their own base as being racist.

[eyedigress]

Chadbourne, field office director for ICE said proper notification was given officials, they are most likely the ones who chose to sit out the operation - then complain about it.

That is what scares me the most!

[slow5poh]

Well i hate to sound like the wannabe confederate that I am LOL but states rights will always be trumped by federal law, which was something that some of the framers were worried about back before the constitution was written. But you can thank Lincoln, and Co. for solidifying the federal governments immense octopus like power over the states. I don’t like that the states don’t have equal power either, but in this case at least they are doing the job that the state apparently won’t.

[ndt]

"rue, I would like to know where In the constitution can I find that non citizens have right"

See 58.

"But i can’t help but think that illegals use snaky lawyers to help use our own laws against us."

Does not matter, the laws in regards to warrants are there for you protection.

"I don’t think that the framers would have intended to give rights to people not legally here."

If you truly believe in inalienable rights given by our creator, then rights supersede the constitution and are inherent to everyone.

"However, a person who broke the law to get here should automatically lose any rights the constitution may have afforded them."

Breaking the law is a crime, and needs to be proven against the assumption of innocence. In other words, they are assumed to be citizens unless proven otherwise, not the other way around.

"IMO Furthermore, I don’t see any need for a trial."

See: Presumption of innocence

"If someone cannot provide real paperwork of being here legally, they should be deported."

Again, See: Presumption of innocence

"Also, calling people here xenophobes is not going to help your argument."

Xenophobia is exactly what it is and in more then a few cases simple racism. Many are refugees from the left that got kicked out for their racism. I have zero respect for them or desire to converse with them, they are worthy of no more then scorn and ridicule.

"You seem to be in lock step with the likes of tony snow and prez bush when they insult their own base as being racist."

On this issue more then most I would say yes.

[eyedigress]

Thanks for your reply.
Here in Tennessee we have the legacy of Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Framer and primary sponser of the Income Tax.


Wannabee Confederate LOL

"No person at all familiar with the present trend of national legislation will seriously insist that these same Republican leaders are over-anxious to see the country adopt an income tax...What powerful influence, what new light and deepseated motive suddenly moves these political veterans to 'about face' and pretend to warmly embrace this doctrine which they have heretofore uniformly denounced?" {1}

He was also a major supporter responsible for the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull

In no way did he envision the problems we have now, yet we still must deal with them.

By the way, Nashville is a part of a deportation program that was started in Charlotte and seems to be demagnetizing our city.

[darkwing104]

No, it's praising someone in the Govt doing thier job...

[MaxMax]

Notify huh? So city officials can put the word out on spanish speaking radio?
Cry us a river, your illegals are being deported reguardless.

[JoeSixPack1]

...then they can bust down anyones door, including yours and mine.

We haven't been able to slow down no-knock drug raids that produce no results and terrorize LEGAL citizens. What benefit is there in fighting legal "knock and announce" raids where lawful arrests do take place and is the norm we're fighting to get back to?

[ndt]

"We haven't been able to slow down no-knock drug raids that produce no results and terrorize LEGAL citizens."

So if an only remotely related issue is being handled poorly we should just let it all go to hell? That makes no sense at all. What kind of logic is that?

"What benefit is there in fighting legal "knock and announce" raids..."

I have no problem with raids when a warrant to search the premises is obtained based on reasonable evidence of a crime. That's how it is supposed to work.

[Principled]

DeStefano, who called for an investigation of the complaints, also said the operation raised concerns of racial profiling. Most of those arrested were Hispanic.

No he did NOT really say that, did he?!!!

[JoeSixPack1]

remotely related ?
remotely related ?

LOL! Yeah, Right.

Next.

[Principled]

So you don't seem accept that our rights were provided by our creator?

Certain inalienable rights are given by the creator and US citizens have those rights protected by the constitution.

The US constitution does not protect the rights of Al-Queda members either.

[Myrddin]

If the house is harboring illegal aliens, then law enforcement already has probably cause.

[Principled]

"Hmmm, didn’t the criminal illegal aliens push their way into our country without permission?"

Since when does a criminals conduct allow law enforcement to ignore the law?

The LEO in question says that they did it right, that they didn't break any laws in capturing these ILLEGAL immigrants - who, by the way, are indeed breaking laws continually. First, by entering the United States, next by working here, then by tax fraud and then ....etc.

[Scarchin]

It may be time to set a date for demonstrations against this amnesty mentality.

I used to think that people who suggested this were nuts, but we truly have a government that isn't performing one of its paramount duties - securing the homeland.

[ndt]

"The US constitution does not protect the rights of Al-Queda members either."

So why is it that the administration has been so adamant that those at Guantanamo not be allowed on U.S. soil?

The answer is that once on U.S. soil, your claim would not stand up in court. The administration clearly understands this even if you do not.

[ndt]

"The LEO in question says that they did it right..."

My comment was directed at the posters comment, not the article which I can only take at face value.

[ndt]

"remotely related"

Yes, remotely.

The issue in the raid in the article is one of having a warrant to conduct a search in the first place. In the case of a no knock raid it is the form of the raid, not the presence of a warrant.

So yes, remotely.

[Principled]

So why is it that the administration has been so adamant that those at Guantanamo not be allowed on U.S. soil?

To prevent people like you from wasting time and money in court litigating this question, again.

The administration clearly understands this even if you do not.

[ndt]

"To prevent people like you from wasting time and money in court litigating this question, again."

If that were the case, then they should all be brought here post haste. A simple SCOTUS decision would settle the problem once and for all.

Sound good to you?