Saturday, July 31, 2010
Be prepared for continued heated debate on the immigration issue.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The lawsuit bases its claims on violations of equal protection, due process and privacy of same sex couples.
Same sex civil unions are already recognized in Washington, New Jersey, Oregon and Nevada. Same sex Marriage is recognized in DC, Vermone, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Of course, we must require that local law enforcement have some reasonable suspicion other than race to detain people and request to see their papers. This is a quandary that is not easily solved. How does one suspect that a person is an undocumented immigrant without taking into account their race?
The answer is obvious. We should have all persons of a particular ethnic group wear some kind of symbol which is easily visible on their outer clothing to indicate that they are lawful immigrants. Of course, it would be a serious felony for an undocumented immigrant to forge such a symbol. It would also be a crime for a legal immigrant to give assistance to an undocumented immigrant.
This would make it simplicity itself to spot the undocumented immigrants easily and move them into the local immigration detention facilities. It would also discourage any lawful immigrants from giving help to their undocumented friends or relatives.
In addition, the lawful immigrants who assist their undocumented brethren could similarly be detained and sent to prison or perhaps housed in a detention facility for aiding and abetting.
In order to enforce these laws, we could make it a crime for all the lawful immigrants to go into public without wearing their immigration symbol boldly where law enforcement can easily view. If it is obscured in any manner, the local law enforcement can detain the person for attempting to hide their immigration status.
Of course, this is a hypothetical situation that wouldn't ever really happen, could it? Any history buffs in the audience?
Meanwhile demonstrators are arrested in Arizona. The reality for immigrants living in Arizona is that they still face the prospects of strict racial profiling. While a judge may say that portions of the law cannot go into effect, the fear of racism still lives in the streets.
Back in the courtroom, Arizona has already appealed the judge's decision, asking the appellate court to lift the ban.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
But in reality, a great portion of the law will still go into effect. Expect that there will be no sanctuary cities in Arizona. Also, the law will provide stricter restrictions against hiring day laborers as well as illegal immigrants. The portions of the law that make it economically difficult for immigrants to survive in Arizona are mainly intact.
Don't forget also, that although the most heavy handed provisions of the law are blocked, it has not changed the local sentiments against immigrants. Immigrants will still face the same struggles. The question remains does one Judge's ruling prevent Hispanics from being targeted and harassed by local law enforcement?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
On appeal, Thompkins argues that his right to remain silent was invoked by his very act of refusing to respond to the questioning Initially, the US Court of Appeals agreed with his arguments that three hours of silence throughout constant questioning constituted an invocation of Thompkins' right to remain silent. However, the Supreme court reversed that decision in a 5-4 vote.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court alters the original Miranda rights. While suspects are still entitled to be read their rights, they must make a clear and unambiguous statement that they do not want to talk to the police. Simply remaining silent will not invoke their right. If a suspect answers any question, their right is considered waived.
The ultimate impact of this ruling is that it is now possible for the police to continue interrogating a subject for any length of time until they obtain a confession. Unless a suspect expressly announces that they are invoking their right to remain silent, they may unintentionally waive their rights.
The dissenting opinion warns that such a ruling presumes that a suspects rights have been waived even if their is no clear expression of their intent to do so. As Justice Sotamayor states, the opinion is "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation..."
The conclusion of this ruling is basically that a suspect is presumed to have waived their rights unless they have expressly invoked them.
Attorneys should begin to teach their clients to say "I am hereby expressly invoking my right to remain silent and my right to have my attorney present during any questioning." (At least until the Supreme Court rules that expressly invoking the right is not enough)
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Do immigrants take American jobs? It's been a common theme among many that immigrants have been a drain on the economy and costing tax payers hard earned dollars. Additionally, there's also been the claim that immigrants take jobs that would otherwise go to American workers.But most economists and other experts say there's little to support these claims. Study after study has shown that immigrants grow the economy, expanding demand for goods and services that the foreign-born workers and their families consume, and thereby creating jobs. There is even broad agreement among economists that while immigrants may push down wages for some, the overall effect is to increase average wages for American-born workers.