USA Wants America to be a Battleground?

That would make more sense for immigration, I'll admit, but if they can't summon up the courage to come out and say it's an immigration policy, then applying it to absolutely everybody would logically take more balls.

(Unless racial factionalism is, in fact, a more important issue than civil liberties now. That would just top off my week for misery.)

Hm. That would actually work, and would be useful in conjunction with better policies towards legal immigration...

Though why the Republicans wouldn't just come out in support of it, the way they've been acting recently, is beyond me.

Sensible thought has to be disguised as hazy crazy talk to appease the whackos in their own party?

Nah. The wackos, generally understood, are the ones with a hardline immigration policy. The whole "oh hey, we're suddenly suspending habeas corpus" clause... whoever came up with that probably didn't run on the platform that they intended to do that.

But if it was intended for immigration, I'm really thinking that applying it across the board is supposed to garner it more support than restricting it to the south border would, because "racist" is a more potent charge than "tyrant".

And, aw fuck, Udall ended up voting for the bill anyway. In fact, everyone bar three people from each party did. I know you've got to authorize national defense, but put up a fight, guys.

edited 5th Dec '11 2:24:27 PM by DomaDoma

So we're going to have border patrol search-on-a-whim checkpoints throughout the whole national territory? That's shooting the Fourth in the face.

Or we're going to allow them, anyway. Which at the least puts a gun to its head. (The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth as a package deal, really.)

The Fourth Amendment—and indeed, the whole Constitution—doesn't apply to non-Americans, and it's highly unlikely that they'd find any American citizens crossing at the border.

Besides, that's the only way to stop the drug lord violence and such, in addition to the legalization of drugs: solid, uncompromising border security, reform of legal immigration policy, and a crackdown on now non-licensed (in a hypothetical US with legal controlled substances) sellers of drugs.

That on the border states, not bad. Overall bill, VERY BAD. It's always been the police's job to maintain order, with the National Guard for back up in emergencies. The regular Army should never be involved for tons of reasons, And they have more pressing issues anyway. Like killing terrorists.

edited 5th Dec '11 2:49:47 PM by Joesolo

Actually, Constitutional protections apply to people in the US. If the Bill Of Rights didn't apply to non-citizens, green card holders wouldn't have any rights at all... Which clearly is not the case.

Anything that requires a police state to do isn't worth doing at all. No exceptions, no ifs, no buts.

edited 5th Dec '11 2:52:22 PM by SavageHeathen

People who are legally in the United States. If you aren't here by law, the protections of law do not apply to you.

Can't have your privileges and rights without your responsibilities, after all.

False!

Illegal immigrants can be deported because they ain't in the US legally. However, since they're entitled to due process (constitutional protection) the government has to give'em due process (specifically, a deportation hearing) in order to do it.

That they can be deported doesn't mean that they do not have any rights at all: In fact, the Bill of Rights applies to everybody in the US.

Which is why we need a chunk of the border with mexico thats off limits for some reason where you are returned to the country you entered from if you enter.

Anyway, that's not how the bill is worded.

edited 5th Dec '11 3:00:49 PM by DomaDoma

Naturally. But "already here" and "on the border attempting to enter" are two different things. I would grant all the illegal immigrants already here amnesty if they had done nothing else illegal besides being here.

However, it is nonsensical to claim that the border should not be defended, what with Mexico currently in what amounts to a state of civil war. Unfettered immigration doesn't work when your neighbor isn't even in the same economic bracket as you in national terms, and a lax legal immigration policy with a well-secured border that lets us do background checks is much preferable in the current situation.

Not at the cost of random searches throughout the whole territory of the US. Of course, you've never been particularly supportive of Fourth Amendment rights to begin with.

Since we don't have reasonable laws, vigorous enforcement will do more harm than good. Enforcement should be weakened, not strengthened, until the laws can be fixed (and preferrably be kept weak anyway, just in case).

edited 5th Dec '11 3:02:20 PM by SavageHeathen

Laws and rights are pointless if you will not let anyone protect and enforce them.

And I agree, extending it to the entire US is idiotic. It would be better to simply apply it to the US-Mexican border (as there's nothing wrong as of yet at the Canadian border).

It's easy to talk about arresting illegal immigrants, but I just know they're going to pick up legal immigrants they've mistaken for illegals (and, for that matter, probably people who were born and raised in America, but happen to look somewhat browner than la migra would like.)

Such is why I thought Arizona's retarded law was retarded *

^{and partially on Fourth Amendment grounds, too.}

Then again, it would be simpler to grant those illegals already here amnesty in exchange for either a significant fine or some form of community service... which would preferably be paid community service...

It would be less just, if one thinks that "law = just," but as TIME Magazine said, you can have order, or you can have justice.

Or, more simply, it's far cheaper to give them temporary legal status and expedited citizenship than to try and find and deport all of them, assuming that you properly secure the border and fix legal immigration in the process...

The Canadian-US border is the longest unguarded border in the world just sayin'.

We don't have a significant illegal immigration problem with Canada, and we have better relations with them. Not to mention that Canada is, by size adjustment and wealth distribution, a better economy than even the US, and thus there is little incentive for them to come here at all.

Now, if Canada started to shift politically towards China, as some Canadian posters here have indicated would be a good plan, I might consider stationing troops up there. Until then, I'm not worried about it.

You misunderstand I wasn't saying to get worried. I just felt like posting that random fact. I mean there's a reason why it's unguarded.

@ USAF:

With Canada, I think you'd have an illegal Emigration Problem, not an immigration one...

We don't need three threads. Let's go with this one.