Defending the (it's) Border or Protecting it's Citizens?

Page Last Updated:
Thursday, 17-Aug-2017 19:37:12 EDT

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional

    As everyone must curtainly now know, the United States Department of Justice is filed a civil action (law suit) asking for an injunction against Arizona S.B. 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.

A Matter of Jurisdiction

According to the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, Clause (paragraph) 3:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Note: "in which a State shall be Party" "the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction". So why was this filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, NOT the Supreme Court. (The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants. Is it that Tony West Assistant Attorney General and Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney don't know the Constitution of the United States? Or doesn't the Constitution of the United States really mean "in which a State shall be Party" "the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction". Or is a "civil action" not a case?

A Matter of Definition

Legalese is what lawyer is to see either how far they can stretch or narrow the definition of the law. Lets try this.

  1. The fence abound your property is there to defend it's border. That is also true of the locks on your doors and windows.
  2. If you are standing there and prevent someone from entering, you are in the position of enforcing that defense.
  3. If you fail to defend your border or enforce your border, you have the right to defend and protect yourself and your property.

Zoom Out. The fences and gates of a gated community are there to defend the borders of the community. If that fails your still have the right to defend and protect your property.

Zoom Out to the National Level.

The Federal Government has the authority, right and duty to defend it's borders. A border is just a narrow band around something.

If the Federal Government fails to defend those borders (now matter how well or poorly it does in that defense), how does that deny a state the right and duty to protect the property and safety of the state and it's citizens?

Is the State of Arizona infringing on the Federal Government's duty to defend the borders or is it trying to protect the State and it's citizens?

    When someone has crossed the border into Arizona, by definition they are then IN Arizona. Crossed is the past tense of cross. They are therefore NOT in the border and any attempt to have defended the border in regards to this person has failed. Unless at this point law enforcement attempts to force the person back across the border it is not defense of the border. If law enforcement attempts to determine if a crime has been committed, by trying to ascertain whether that person is in the country illegally, that is investigating a possible crime. Obviously this is my opinion.

Some obvious things that could give "probable cause" regarding legal status.

  1. A person with Foreign ID driving a vehicle with US registration (not a rental car, and especially if it were registered to them at a US address).
  2. A person with Foreign ID and no work visa attempting to obtain work in the US.
  3. A person with Foreign ID found working at a US job site with no work visa.
  4. A person with Foreign ID carrying work tools or driving a work vehicle with no work visa.
  5. The are obviously many more legitimate variations that could establish "probable cause".

None of these would prove illegal immigration status, but SHOULD allow officers to investigate further. Again, just my opinion.

    Isn't the section of the federal court ruling (of Wednesday July 29, 2010, especially the "would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement"), like saying:

The police are there to protect you, so you are not allowed to lock your doors and windows?

City, County and State law enforcement officers shouldn’t interfere in a bank robbery or other Federal Crime, because it would disrupt federal enforcement of those crimes?

I would hope that no one, including the Federal Government, would support ideas like the last sentences suggest. I would hope everyone would find those statements totally absurd!

Show Me Your Papers

    The phrase "Show Me Your Papers" sounds very scary. It sounds like the Nazi Gestapo or Russian Secret Police. But every time you are stopped by the police in your car you are asked for "License and Registration" or if you are stopped on the street your are asked for your "License". What part of "License" or "License and Registration" don't you realize is saying "Show Me Your Papers". Your drivers license or state ID shows: your name, your address, your age and a description of you with a picture. In California, and I assume most other states, you had to show your social security card to get the drivers license or state ID. Having a valid Social Security Card shows that you are a U.S. Citizen, permanent resident or temporary (working) resident. Therefore, your U.S. state issued drivers license or state issued ID shows you are in the United States legally. That is in less I missed something, I don't think you can have a valid Social Security Card if you are an Illegal Alien.

    In the State of Arizona, and probably many others, you are required to have identification, that is acceptable to the state, on you at all times. I was told by a judge that it was technically true even if you were in your front yard. My son got a ticket for not having one on him while riding his bike.

    So the next time a law enforcement stops your in your car and asks you for your "license and registration", think "Show Me Your Papers" and don't panic, it is a necessary request. Note: I do have concerns when it is a non-driver being asked for ID. It sounds too much like the bad "show me your papers" and that is only for the officer to go on a fishing expedition for something not related to why you were stopped and this could lead to "self incrimination". But, that is a very complex can of worms that I don't even want to get into.