Saturday, April 24, 2010

The Inquisition of the United State, Part 1

The federal government has been derelict in its duties to secure our borders. Drugs, terrorists - a plethora of problems - have been entering illegally, along with people who often are generally law-abiding, except for the fact that they are here illegally.

Regardless of the way in which many of the illegals conduct themselves, there are great numbers who are not only here illegally, but who are engaging in further criminal conduct once here. The drugs, movement of terrorists and criminals across the border - this constitutes an invasion of the United States which is damaging our country, especially communities near the border.

The Constitution charges the federal government with the duty to defend against this (emphasis added):

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In light of the ineffectiveness of the federal government at doing what the Constitution says it is supposed to do (and its effectiveness at doing what the Constitution says it is not supposed to do), the state of Arizona is doing something unconstitional to protect itself against all the illegal crossings of the US border into Arizona.

From Arizona immigration law signed, April 24, 2010:

PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country, aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants. The governor’s move on Friday unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive national battle over federal immigration reform.

Even before Brewer signed the bill, President Barack Obama strongly criticized it.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, Obama called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws an overhaul congressional leaders signaled they might take up.

He said the failure of federal officials to act on immigration would open the door to "irresponsibility by others." He said the Arizona bill threatened "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."

The law, which both opponents and critics called the broadest and strictest immigration measure in the country, makes the failure to carry proof of citizenship or legal immigration status a crime. It also gives police broad powers to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have decried it as an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics, regardless of their citizenship status.

So, we are now required to carry proof of citizenship? I found nothing in the 17-page law to require this. But, of course, the door is now left open to law enforcement.

In a free country, you can walk down the street, and - provided you are not breaking any laws - you can feel safe that you will not have to prove anything to law enforcement.

This has now changed.

There are now legal requirements for law enforcement to aggressively check that people who are not otherwise breaking any laws are legally present in the country, and law enforcement can be penalized for failing to do so.

A US citizen who speaks Spanish, but not a lot of English (and Latino communities are full of them, just as some communities years ago were full of US citizens who spoke German or Dutch or some other language, but not a lot of English), may now have to prove himself innocent of the charge of being here illegally.

The burden of proof has shifted from the accuser to the accused.

And, government employees of one of these United States are now required to aggressively seek such persons, and seek proof that these persons are not violating any laws at the time they are observed.

The Fourth Amendement (emphasis added):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Our government entities are radical and out of control.

Because of "anti-terror" legislation rushed through in the wake of suspicious incidents, first in Oklahoma City, then on 9/11, government authorities find their power, which has always been corruptible, to grow at the expense of rights given to us by our Creator and which are supposedly protected by our Constitution.

The government now aggressively seeks to see whether crimes have been committed, and the burden of proof is now shifted to the accused.

I have read the new law; much of it makes sense. It includes provisions against abuses by law enforcement, such as entrapment.

But, ladies and gentlemen, at what point (government bailouts? rendition & torture? national security letters? state secrets privilege?) does the Land of the Free - the United States - become a totalitarian regime of oppression in the name of security from enemies real and perceived - the United State?

How much do we owe to our thin blue line? Too often we forget to say "thank you"; and so many of our blue knights would tell us that we don't have to.

But police power is easy to abuse.

At what point does law enforcement become The Inquisition?

1 comment:

  1. The federal government has been derelict in its duties to secure our borders. ..yup cuz they will all vote for Hussein in the next election!