Rights of the accused:
Presumption of innocence
Legal consul
Not to be coerced to testify against oneself
Trial by jury
Public trail
Speedy trial
Cruel or Unusual punishment
Confront ones accuser
Held without indictment of a Grand Jury
Habeas corpus
Double jeopardy
Only be compelled to search and seizure under court order
Deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
Subpoena witnesses in one's favor
To be informed of the nature of the accusations
Petition for an appeal

It's no surprise that 5 of the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights deal with the rights of the accused. Sorry if that gets in the way of the oppression of people you don't like.

I was not arguing the being a factory worker in a third world country is optimal, only that for the individuals, it is the best of other alternatives. When demand decreases, production decrease and prices fall which both lower the number of jobs and lower firm revenue, decreasing the wages that the firm can afford to pay. Using market pressure to better workers wages and living conditions almost always hurt the very people they are trying to help. Market pressure in this sense can only be beneficial if there are private sector means to help the now jobless, such as a union or other worker organization. Providing charitable relief is the best way to help these people; market pressure will only work when it is first organized by the workers themselves, especially since a boycott can be combined with a simultaneous strike, decreasing available workforce w/o a comparable increase in price to make up for lost revenue.

You argue that the farmer turn manufacture may not be the ideal situation, but it is still the best of other alternatives. And some firms do use coercion to maintain a 'slave-like' condition for its employees. This is, and should be, illegal. Transactions on a free-market have one common attribute: they produce win/status-quo decisions, meaning you can make the trade and make yourself better off, or you can decline the trade because you perceive that the trade will make you worse off and declining will make you no worse off than you were before. Coercion produces the options of win/lose or more often lose/lose where a person is worse off for not making a trade not due to previous binding agreement. Your Agriprocessor example is perfect: refusal can result in deportation. In the case of coal miners, danger is part of the job description. People take the jobs because the perceive that the risk to physical wellbeing are smaller than the increase in salary over comparable sectors. Coal miners make a median income of ~50,000-55,000, substantially higher than other heave equipment operators. For the recent disaster in WV, investigation is still underway, so I can't make any definitive answers, but its looking like the owners violated workers contracts and/or the assumed risk that the employees accepted. That is up for the criminal and common law courts to decide.

And as for less farmers, free markets has the nice effect of creating the best productivity (in economic terms: Maximum Total Welfare). Many farmers have moved on to other occupations because they can get more wealth, increasing their personal welfare. This increases supply for all other goods and services, increasing society's welfare. Because increasing productivity of farming is what made farming no longer the best alternative for these individuals, there only a minimal decrease in immediate short-term supply and no effect on long term supply (were talking one growing season for one plot of land). Larger farms move in because they are more efficient (can produce more with less inputs), increasing societal good. These large agricultural business make sense both socially and economically, they produce more with less with no increase in negative externalities. Our current policies of supporting small farms keeps production artificially low and grain prices artificially high while reducing available labor in other sectors, making the vast society worse off. In 1900, one farmer could feed 12 people. Now one farmer can feed more than 120, that is a very good thing.

Thanks for the opportunity for debate. I love nothing more than friendly discussion, esp. on economics.

Some of this countries most important rights are the rights of the accused. Without a court order, the only situation were a cop can demand ID is if he or she has direct probable cause that a crime is being committed or is going to be committed or believes that I am an individual for whom a warrant has been issued. And it is a huge deal. Allowing officials to demand any documents without direct, probable cause and without a court order is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans.

As for your second point, I suggest you read the 14th amendment. Notice how it says all PERSONS are guaranteed due process of law, even those suspected of being here illegally. We protect accused murderers from abuses of the law, as we should. Do suspected illegal immigrants not deserve the same due process of law?

Only on probable cause. Its different because suspected DUI, suspected expiration of vehicle registration, suspected "burnt-out taillight" all have very noticeable cues that create probable cause, allowing an officer to demand to see your DL. What is probable cause for illegal immigration. The only reasonable 'probable cause' I can come up with for your traffic stop example is fraudulent documents, which provide probable cause for the crime of fraud to detain an individual and secure a warrant for the search of the vehicle and validation of identity which would procure legal status, but you must have probable cause to get the documents in the first place. And since there is no probable cause for illegal immigration unless the suspect says "I am here illegally" (doubtful), there can be no requirement to procure immigration papers without a gross 4th amendment violation.

On your last point. In my experience, your run-of-the-mill liberal or conservative only cares about the constitution when it suits his or her needs. I am not trying to point fingers at anyone here specifically, including yourself and Mr. Greer.

"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." - The 4th amendment to the US Constitution

" . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The 14th amendment to the US Constitution

Thats some good evidence if you ask me. I am no expert in this law, but from what I know of the original law as passed, there are very substantial constitutional questions.

First, I am far from liberal, but regardless, I'll take the bait.

" . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The 14th amendment to the US Constitution

Notice how it says 'persons', not 'citizens' or 'legal immigrants' or 'those here lawfully', but 'persons'. ALL PERSONS are guaranteed due process of law.

Secondly, if you, for some reason, feel violating the rights of 'illegals' is permissible, how do you KNOW they are illegal before you trample on their rights? Answer me that.

Just because they do doesn't make it anymore legal to do so. And the only reason you have to prove who you are is to validate your license to drive (since we combine DL and ID into one document, no concern on this front), and to validate identity only so far as it is necessary to issue a citation. We are making a big deal out of this because what constitutes reasonable suspicion. If it is a fraudulent DL, that is reasonable suspicion, but the law originally only stated 'reasonable suspicion', which could be interpreted very liberally by law enforcement if they so chose, esp. because the were 'required' to detain anyone with 'reasonable suspicion'. Amendments have subsequently clarified 'reasonable suspicion'.

Yes, because trade protectionism has wonderful economic realities for all parties involved (note the sarcasm). There are a million arguments why embargoes and tariffs are bad, such as retributive trade restrictions imposed by other countries, lost domestic productivity due to the divergence of resources to less efficient endeavors to make up for the lost goods (lowering real income), lost productivity in Mexico for the same reason (once again, lowering real income), violating international agreement (more retributive tariffs), higher prices domestically (lowering real income), malnutrition (a bit of a stretch, included more for humor, but lack of tomatoes means something).

People moan about how we lose jobs to underpaid foreigners, but what they forget is that these jobs go overseas because there, the goods are produced more efficiently (using less inputs). This means that the foreigners are better off because making cars gets them more wealth than, say, farming. If it weren't so, they wouldn't work for the wages they do. Depriving them of this opportunity for trade makes them worse off. We should, through private means, help alleviate poverty, however, using trade control, through private or public means, is well, economically idiotic for all involved. Domestically, because foreigners produce goods more efficiently than we do, we can divert resources (aka, jobs) to more productive sectors. This increases the real wages of those workers, and because it is more efficient, decreases prices for goods and services in these sectors, increasing real income for all individuals. The argument that moving jobs overseas is bad for us has no weight. In the long run, and for the most part, the short run (possible slight increase in short term unemployment in concentrated sectors, but society as a whole is still better off in the short term), both societies are better off.

But I do agree with you that our government should cease all monetary aid to the Mexican government; it is incredibly corrupt. As for the drug lords, I can think of one simple solution that will make everyone better off (hint, the root word is 'legal') but that is another debate for another day.

I'll reiterate my point, we carry our DL when we drive because it is our license to do so. The two are the same for a matter of convenience (2 birds, 1 stone). Police can demand our ID in the event of a traffic violation because the officer has "probable cause" that a crime is being committed (like driving with a broken taillight, see a thread below). The officer can only extend this authority to gather evidence to issue a citation and issue it against the correct individual and correct vehicle, such as demanding vehicle registration, DL, and ID (the last two, as you pointed out, are one).

The office CANNOT use the probable cause of a broken taillight to search for other "laws broken". For example, if I'm pulled over for speeding, the officer can demand ID (to issue the citation to the correct individual), DL (to prove licensure), and vehicle registration and insurance (to verify and record the correct vehicle). The officer cannot use speeding as "probable cause" to search my vehicle. The officer, without further evidence, cannot search my vehicle nor demand any other documents or effects without my consent. The officer can request to do so and I can decline, and my refusal cannot, whatsoever, be held against me nor be used as probable cause to conduct further investigations. However, it the officer sees a body in my backseat through the window, that becomes probable cause to search and detain my person. But, without further evidence, such as seeing a body, no further searching may be conducted without the consent of the person being searched

And this is where the problem with the law as originally written occurs. The first version left vague what the probable cause for additional search is. If someone is stopped and they cannot speak English, but otherwise provide correct and authentic documents, that is not probable cause and no other investigation may be undertaken except that which is necessary for the issuance of a citation. If someone is pulled over and they do not have a license, that is probable cause to detain the individual for failure to carry a license while operating a motor vehicle on public roads. If the DL is found to be counterfeit or otherwise fraudulent, the individual can be detained under reasonable suspicion of fraud. Either way, the individual's identity must first be verified due to reasonable suspicion, and the law, as now currently stated is my understanding, allows the persons legality to be checked while their identity is verified, which I see as perfectly reasonable.

Quite exactly. Because unreasonable is subjective, it is up to a court to decide what is "reasonable" outside of immediate probable cause, and ONLY a court-issued warrant may be used to search a person's "papers", all other searches, outside of the aforementioned probable cause (see example of the broken taillight). Thus, an officer mandating proof of citizenship or legal residency without a warrant is clearly ILLEGAL, regardless of what federal or state law says.