Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (3785)	4/30/2000 7:58:00 PM
From: chalu2	Respond to of 9127

Do you know how many millions Conservative Republicans threw at getting judges on the bench who would weaken Fourth Amendment protections, including their special enemy, "the exclusionary rule." I got solicited for funds all the time a few years back: "End the Exclusionary Rule", "Overturn Miranda", "Enforce Our Immigration Laws." All from Republicans. Not to mention attacks on the personal injury bar which acts as the only real check on corporate malfeasance. You're worried that the Warren Court protections of the 60's have been eroded???? Please send a thank you note to the following for that: Republican National Committee, Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, etc. Amazing to see radical conservatives here quoting old lefties such as Dershowitz and Tribe (poster boys for "bleeding heart liberal" views of Constitutional rights). Funny how the worm has turned, and how people reap what they sow.

To: Jim S who wrote (3785)	4/30/2000 8:56:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

>>Karen, it's your attitude, and those like it, that scares me personally, not the INS. It bothers me that in these good economic times, people seem willing to give up their freedoms. << Jim, I thought we had gotten to know each other enough by now that I could suggest to you that I think you're over-reacting to this. I'm not at all willing to give up my freedoms. You and I have had that discussion before. I just don't see this as a realistic threat to my freedoms or yours. For some reason you do. What has been revealed in this process is that it is apparently within the law for the INS to enter the private homes of its citizens to retrieve undocumented aliens without a warrant signed by a judge but rather through some INS administrative procedure. This was news to me and apparently to you, as well. So what do we do with this new information? It seems to me that you're doing a pretty good Henny Penny imitation. I think you're hollering before your hurt. If you and I are not in the habit of harboring undocumented aliens in our homes, we're at no immediate risk. There's time to get the information to make an informed determination of whether of not we, as citizens, think this is appropriate or not. Knowing the way Congress micro-manages executive agencies, it's reasonable to assume that Congress either authorized it or at least knows it's going on. It would be interesting to see the record on this. It would also be interesting to see if any Federal Court has ever ruled on its constitutionality. You said before that the difference between us is that you're a tad to the right of me. I would say the difference is that you're just more suspicious than I am. I'm not naturally suspicious of administrative procedures any more than I'm suspicious when a doctor delegates the simple stuff to a nurse. I'm sufficiently concerned about law enforcement entering a private home based on an administrative procedure rather than a court order to want to see the matter evaluated, but I'm not hunkered down here at my computer shuddering in fear of a battering ram at the door. You may perceive my attitude a bit too blase but I'm just being thoughtful. The risk here is not immediate, if any, and there's time to work the issue through. Karen >