Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Activist says Special Order 40 has shackled L.A. police.
Los Angeles Times ^ | April 20, 2008 | Andrew Blankstein

Posted on 04/23/2008 11:30:12 AM PDT by Haddit

Judicial Watch filed suit in Los Angeles federal court last year in an effort to overturn the 29-year-old policy, arguing it was unconstitutional because it effectively prevented full cooperation between local police and federal agents in enforcing immigration laws.

Under current rules, Los Angeles police officers cannot stop people for the sole purpose of asking about immigration status.

But Norris said a lack of police involvement gives carte blanche to those who come to the U.S. illegally. That would stop if officers were allowed to inquire about immigration status, he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: specialorder40
It's a ruse that these people aren't coming forward," Norris said. The victims and suspects, he said, "are more scared of the gang members than the police
1 posted on 04/23/2008 11:30:12 AM PDT by Haddit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Haddit

All law enforcement personnel should be REQUIRED to attempt to determine the legal status if there is any reason for doubt, other crime or not.


2 posted on 04/23/2008 11:34:21 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Exactly. Being here illegally is a criminal act.


3 posted on 04/23/2008 11:37:13 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Haddit

If Arnold has one conservative bone in his body, Special Order 40 would be terminated.

Instead all you get is approval for bigger and bigger budget deficits and commercials saying “Hey everyone, come visit Kalifornya!”


4 posted on 04/23/2008 11:37:29 AM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

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.


5 posted on 04/23/2008 12:30:43 PM PDT by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange

This applies to US citizens, Right?


6 posted on 04/23/2008 1:20:57 PM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

When the constitution specifies “citizens” eg 15th amendment, it applies only to citizens. When it refers to “the people” it means everyone.


7 posted on 04/23/2008 2:08:13 PM PDT by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange

What if *the people* are criminals?


8 posted on 04/23/2008 2:37:08 PM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

And you can tell a US citizen just by looking at them, right? Or maybe by their last name? Or accent? Or is it their scent?


9 posted on 04/23/2008 4:22:27 PM PDT by Clock King (The Oligarchy will make slaves of us all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

“if *the people* are criminals” they still have rights.


10 posted on 04/23/2008 5:11:44 PM PDT by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange; Clock King

This rule is also used after someome is arrested for a crime. All in the name of non-cooperation.

Make illegal entry a felony and see how that works out.


11 posted on 04/24/2008 4:31:44 AM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

All law enforcement personnel should be REQUIRED to attempt to determine the legal status if there is any reason for doubt...

If there is reason for doubt, is the inquiry unreasonable?

12 posted on 04/24/2008 6:34:47 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson