Comments on: Retreat: Reid Pulls Shamesty From Defense Bill http://rightvoices.com/2007/09/27/retreat-reid-pulls-shamesty-from-defense-bill/ in all matter of opinion, our adversaries are insane. Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:41:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: FrmrArtyOffcr http://rightvoices.com/2007/09/27/retreat-reid-pulls-shamesty-from-defense-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-656295 FrmrArtyOffcr Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:57:30 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/09/27/retreat-reid-pulls-shamesty-from-defense-bill/#comment-656295 The effectiveness of this suit depends on whether or not the action borders on entrapment. If the officers asked for documentation and the workers failed to produce it, the officers could have probable cause to suspect they are here illegally. If the illegals produced PHONY documents, the police ABSOLUTELY had probable cause to arrest them. Sting operations are NOT unconstitutional as long as they don't involve entrapment. Look at all of the bogus pawn shop stings that took place a few years ago. The police would set up bogus pawn shops and pay top dollar for things. They would then check to see what was stolen. They would insinuate that they had mob connections. One "customer" filled out a statement claiming responsibility for a murder in an attempt to get a job as a hit man. They would then invite all of their "Good" customers to a party with door prizes being given. They would collect weapons at the door as a "safety" precaution, carefully tagging and recording who brought in which weapon. They then rounded them all up. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has the method for dealing with Illegal Aliens. Whenever he raids a drop house, he charges the illegals for conspiracy to commit human smuggling. He then locks them up in his Tent City jail for a few months. Once the realize that being here illegally is going to cost their families their income for 4-6 months before they're deported, and Joe doesn't allow illegal aliens to visit anyone in his jail, they don't come back. The effectiveness of this suit depends on whether or not the action borders on entrapment. If the officers asked for documentation and the workers failed to produce it, the officers could have probable cause to suspect they are here illegally. If the illegals produced PHONY documents, the police ABSOLUTELY had probable cause to arrest them. Sting operations are NOT unconstitutional as long as they don’t involve entrapment. Look at all of the bogus pawn shop stings that took place a few years ago. The police would set up bogus pawn shops and pay top dollar for things. They would then check to see what was stolen. They would insinuate that they had mob connections. One “customer” filled out a statement claiming responsibility for a murder in an attempt to get a job as a hit man. They would then invite all of their “Good” customers to a party with door prizes being given. They would collect weapons at the door as a “safety” precaution, carefully tagging and recording who brought in which weapon. They then rounded them all up.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has the method for dealing with Illegal Aliens. Whenever he raids a drop house, he charges the illegals for conspiracy to commit human smuggling. He then locks them up in his Tent City jail for a few months. Once the realize that being here illegally is going to cost their families their income for 4-6 months before they’re deported, and Joe doesn’t allow illegal aliens to visit anyone in his jail, they don’t come back.

]]> By: PCD http://rightvoices.com/2007/09/27/retreat-reid-pulls-shamesty-from-defense-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-655989 PCD Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:00:10 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/09/27/retreat-reid-pulls-shamesty-from-defense-bill/#comment-655989 Danbury, CT, had a law about illegals that was overturned. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070927/us_nm/usa_immigration_lawsuit_dc_2" rel="nofollow">10 Illegals are now suing</a>. Their case ought to be tossed because since they broke the law to be in the US, the officer involved had cause to bust them. Round them up and send them home, period. Edited by Pam~ Note no use of the word illegal in the story! <blockquote>The suit filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, claims the arrests violated the civil rights of nine workers and a 10th man who was stopped at a traffic light, including their right to due legal process, free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, according to court documents. It is the latest legal challenge to crackdowns on illegal immigrants, as localities nationwide grapple with how to handle their status. The lawsuit claims undercover police in Danbury, Connecticut, lured the workers into a van by posing as contractors looking for day laborers. "He offered us work and we took it," plaintiff Juan Barrera told a news conference, referring to an undercover police officer. "We didn't know why, but they immediately arrested us and put us in handcuffs. We didn't know what was going on.</blockquote> Hanging out on street corners is the norm when one is looking for work. Did anyone check with the IRS to assure that these people are paying income tax on these jobs? <blockquote>The plaintiffs, <strong>represented by Yale University law students</strong>, claim the U.S. Constitution protects the civil rights of all people in the United States. The attorneys would not discuss their clients' immigration status or their countries of origin. Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton vowed to defend the city.</blockquote> Are they being represented by students or attorney's? One needs to pass the bar before they can call themselves a lawyer. Danbury, CT, had a law about illegals that was overturned. 10 Illegals are now suing. Their case ought to be tossed because since they broke the law to be in the US, the officer involved had cause to bust them.

Round them up and send them home, period.

Edited by Pam~ Note no use of the word illegal in the story!

The suit filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, claims the arrests violated the civil rights of nine workers and a 10th man who was stopped at a traffic light, including their right to due legal process, free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, according to court documents.

It is the latest legal challenge to crackdowns on illegal immigrants, as localities nationwide grapple with how to handle their status.

The lawsuit claims undercover police in Danbury, Connecticut, lured the workers into a van by posing as contractors looking for day laborers.

“He offered us work and we took it,” plaintiff Juan Barrera told a news conference, referring to an undercover police officer. “We didn’t know why, but they immediately arrested us and put us in handcuffs. We didn’t know what was going on.

Hanging out on street corners is the norm when one is looking for work. Did anyone check with the IRS to assure that these people are paying income tax on these jobs?

The plaintiffs, represented by Yale University law students, claim the U.S. Constitution protects the civil rights of all people in the United States. The attorneys would not discuss their clients’ immigration status or their countries of origin.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton vowed to defend the city.

Are they being represented by students or attorney’s? One needs to pass the bar before they can call themselves a lawyer.

]]>