Criminal alien amnesty push yet again

[Poorboy]

The Governor of Arizona Showed that She Has the Intestinal Fortitude to Ignore Obumma Signed a Immigration Law which Gives Law Enforcement an Edge on Arresting ILLEGAL CRIMINAL Immigrants. According to the Article Obumma went Balistic saying that the New Law is Misguided and Ordered the Justice Dept. To Investigate if the New Law would Violate Civil Rights! Now,It Seems that Obumma and Company are the Misguided One's! Only if Other States Such as Texas,New Mexico,and The Left Coast would Follow Suit We Wouldn't Need the Federal Government Over stepping their Bounds with Immigration Reform!

 

[greg334]

I can't see it violating anyone's civil rights. It comes down to the state's rights issue and because the WH is now involved, there is a question whether they have a duty to be involved on a state level issue.

There are a couple of other things;

McCain is backing this, saying it is a good thing but didn't he say a few years back that it wasn't.

the democrat senator of Arizona is against this law, telling everyone to boycott the state which leads me to think that the people in the state need to get rid of that senator.

BUT the funniest thing is the group of truckers who haul food into L.A. are striking not hauling food out of Nogales. I think that would be great because they will only hurt themselves.

 

[Turtle]

I don't have a problem with racial profiling in and of itself. It's a good tool for law enforcement to use. For example, if you're looking for an Islamic terrorist, detaining, searching and questioning a blue-eyed blond Scandinavian is probably a waste of time. Equally, if you're looking for illegal immigrants along the Mexican border, ignoring "Latin looking" people is just stupid.

The problem comes when a police officer stops someone on the street and says, "Show me your papers."

 

[Poorboy]

I don't have a problem with racial profiling in and of itself. It's a good tool for law enforcement to use. For example, if you're looking for an Islamic terrorist, detaining, searching and questioning a blue-eyed blond Scandinavian is probably a waste of time. Equally, if you're looking for illegal immigrants along the Mexican border, ignoring "Latin looking" people is just stupid.

The problem comes when a police officer stops someone on the street and says, "Show me your papers."

According to what I have read, The Police Must Have Reasonable Suspicion that the Person they are talking to "Might" be in the Country Illegally before asking for any kind of proof of Citizenship. Also Again from my Understanding is that the Police Also have to be in Contact with the person in question on a Different Matter Before asking for his/her proof of Citizenship.

 

[LDB]

If someone runs a red light or whatever and is stopped for it then proving legality to be on sovereign U.S. soil shouldn't be a problem. Now, I don't want to have police randomly stopping people on the street all day instead of doing their real work but I do want them checking and confirming as an adjunct to their regular duties.

 

[Turtle]

If someone runs a red light or whatever and is stopped for it then proving legality to be on sovereign U.S. soil shouldn't be a problem. Now, I don't want to have police randomly stopping people on the street all day instead of doing their real work but I do want them checking and confirming as an adjunct to their regular duties.

No need to go all super uber patriotic drama queen there with the "sovereign U.S. soil" superlative thing, Leo. Just plain "in the country" would be fine. Sovereignty refers to a governing authority, and if someone runs a red light or whatever in the United States, but is on Indian Land, that land isn't "sovereign U.S. soil", it's sovereign Indian soil, and there's a lot lot lot of sovereign Indian land in places like Arizona. An alien can be in this country illegally but still not be on sovereign U.S. soil, absolutely.

Indian tribal nations are "domestic dependent nations" and are treated largely in the same manner as the States, where one state does not have criminal and civil jurisdiction over another, so too do states not have jurisdiction on Indian land. Tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the federal government, not states. Tribes are sovereign over tribal members and tribal land, and have civil authority over non-members within tribal lands only to the extent necessary to protect health, welfare, economic interests or political integrity of the tribal nation.

Also, while I'm at it, because it's been bugging me since this thread went up, a "criminal alien" isn't simply someone who comes to the US illegally. They are properly called "illegal aliens", not "criminal aliens". In order to be a criminal, by definition, you must first be convicted of a crime. Until that happens, you are at most an alleged criminal. A "criminal alien" is an alien who has been convicted of a crime, regardless of their immigration status.


BTW, my problems with "show me your papers" is, among others, because I have actually experienced it. A few years ago I was in Laredo and standing along the perimeter of the Flying J parking lot, down in front of the restaurant windows, but far from the entrance doors, talking with a fellow expediter from Van Wert, OH. He "looked" very Mexican, even though he and his parents were born in Van Wert. It's his grandparents who came here from Mexico. He speaks very little Spanish, actually. We were standing there minding our own business when a US Customs officer approached us, looking mainly at the other guy, and asked to see our Green Cards.

The man from Van Wert offered up his CDL, and then was asked if he was a US citizen, to which he replied yes. The officer then asked me if I was a US citizen, and my reply was somewhat uncooperative and to look at him quizzically like I didn't understand a word of English. He then, somewhat impatiently, demanded my Green Card and then my driver's license, to which I somewhat angrily stated, NO!" and flatly told him that he didn't have the authority to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he wanted to abide by, and he had no right or probable cause to ask me for my ID. He then asked which vehicle in the lot was mine, and without another word I turned and walked away and entered the building and took a seat in the restaurant. He didn't follow.

Two guys standing there minding their own business get asked for their papers, one because he looked a certain way, and me because I was guilty by association. Since that time the Laredo Field Office of the USCBP and I traded a couple of correspondence volleys and all is well, but it still pіsses me off. I can only imagine how Mexican-looking US citizens feel under more stressful situations in places like Laredo and Arizona.

 

[LDB]

Nothing drama queen about expecting one's nation to be respected. Yes, there are areas within the states that are part of Indian nations but that is still within the borders of the United States.

 

[FIS53]

Ah so now the time is right for the national identity system. You already have a start as pretty well every citizen has a SS number. Now all that's needed is to expand that to a full blown identity card with bio-metric information (fingerprint and/or iris scan and DNA record). This would eliminate many id problems across the nation. The feds then have to make it mandatory that anyone asked by a federal officer or law enforcement officer to produce ID they have to show their card.

Yes there will be problems in Arizona but basically they have the right idea. So now cops have the power to question immigration status. While I partially agree with Turtle and the possible profiling problem he does have to realize that if you're in an area known for large numbers of illegals the feds might ask for ID. I can understand being a bit taken aback and upset for being asked for ID when not having done anything wrong but how else do the authorities initially target who to ask. Looks are one part of it. What you're doing is another. Many of you complain about them allowing too many illegals into the country and when they're trying to find and do something about it you don't want to be ID'd as an American but rather get your back up and complain. Unfortunately it can't be both ways until this ID thing is sorted out and the gov't either enforces the laws or changes the rules.

Some say that a national ID system would take years to implement but in reality it would not take too long as I said the basics are already in place. If Germany back in the 30s could make a national id system in 3 years without computers and a national records system then the US should be able to do this in less time.
Rob

 

[Turtle]

Nothing drama queen about expecting one's nation to be respected.

No, it's not, I agree. I'm just pokin' a little fun at the use of the phrase "sovereign U.S. soil" as if the use of the word "sovereign" is supposed to mean something special, 'cause it doesn't. Sounds kewl, tho.

But when you use it, you're restricting things to not just US soil, but only that soil for which the US has sovereignty. I-10 up through the Gila River Indian Reservation, for example, is US soil, but it isn't sovereign US soil. Even though state cops can issue traffic tickets and enforce other laws on the Interstate, even most of that is done by federal officers, because State cops can't issue citations to Indians on Indian land. They can issue one to you and me, tho.

The new law in Arizona, stating that it's a crime to be in the state illegally, doesn't actually apply to those stopped on Indian land, even I-10 through the Gila River reservation. Or up I-19 out of Nogales where it passes through the Tohono O'odham Reservation.

Yes, there are areas within the states that are part of Indian nations but that is still within the borders of the United States.

Yep. But when you use sovereignty as a qualifier, then who's sovereignty it is, matters.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle... you are lucky you did not meet a hard nose DHS like Leo is..

Not really. I know what you're saying, but when you know your rights, luck has nothing to do with it. I could have been cuffed and arrested, but still, in the end, my rights would have prevailed. It's like that guy a couple of years or so ago in Oklahoma who got arrested for some really offensive Obama bumper sticker or something. I think it was interpreted to be a threat on Obama's life or something. It didn't take long for his rights to win the day, tho.

In my case, I got a written apology from USCBP. I'm fine with that.

 

[Turtle]

Ah so now the time is right for the national identity system.

The idea of a national ID card has many problems, the biggest one being the US Constitution. While the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention a right to privacy, the document itself is dripping with it, as nearly every provision of the Constitution is geared towards liberty, of which privacy is a given and is understood. If there was any doubt, however, the Fourth Amendment clears it right up:

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.

That screams of privacy, and a national ID card, to be produced upon request, is a blatant violation of it, of liberty, of the right to be left alone.

While I partially agree with Turtle and the possible profiling problem he does have to realize that if you're in an area known for large numbers of illegals the feds might ask for ID. I can understand being a bit taken aback and upset for being asked for ID when not having done anything wrong but how else do the authorities initially target who to ask.

That's an easy one. They should initially target people who are crossing the border, whether at a border crossing or in the middle of the desert. That's the one time and place where you can ask someone for their papers for no other reason other than to ask them for their papers. Other than that, it shouldn't be done unless there is a real good reason for doing so.

Many years ago when I was managing a restaurant, I gave an employee a ride home one night after closing. His normal ride was unavailable, so he was going to walk home, but I wasn't going to let a 16 year old kid walk 5 miles home at 2AM on a Saturday morning. He lived in the projects in Nashville and I dropped him off near a group of buildings, I have no idea which one he lived in. Oh, he was black, I forgot to mention that. So was pretty much everyone who lived in the projects. After dropping him off I headed out of there towards home, but a few blocks away from dropping him off the police pulled me over. Two officers, both black.

So here I am, a white guy, driving a shiny new red Camaro, in the projects at 3AM on a Saturday morning. I stuck out like a sore thumb. They straight up racially profiled me. They asked me what I was doing there, I told them I was dropping off a kid from work. They asked his name, I gave it. They asked his address, I said I have no idea. They asked if they could look inside the car and in the hatchback, I had no objections and let them. They didn't say, but I'm sure they were looking for drugs. They profiled me, and I didn't have the slightest problem with it, because to the casual observer, much less to the trained observance of a police officer, I was out of place and probably up to no good. The search took about a minute as the quickly ascertained that I was boring and probably telling the truth, especially since I was wearing a coat and tie, and gold name tag that identified me as a manager.

They did get a kick out of my comment near the end, "So this is what it's like to be black."

Looks are one part of it. What you're doing is another. Many of you complain about them allowing too many illegals into the country and when they're trying to find and do something about it you don't want to be ID'd as an American but rather get your back up and complain.

I don't have a problem with someone wanting to come here to make a better life for themselves and their family. I can empathize. If I lived in Mexico I'd want to get here any way I could, legally or illegally. But I think if you are here illegally, and you get found out, you go back. Employers should be required to obtain proof of citizenship or legal residence for new hires, and they should pay dearly if they fail to do so. Landlords should be required to obtain proof of legal residence before renting to anyone. Proof of legal residence should be required to obtain a driver's license. And most important of all, the borders should be secured to the point where no one gets in that shouldn't be here.

 

[greg334]

But Turtle, don't we already have a national ID system with a national ID?

The social security card and number.

If I am not mistaken, it is used for more than just social security and now many states are using it for driver's licenses.

I would think that the expended use of it outside the SS system would also constitute a violation of the fourth?

 

[Turtle]

Federal law provides for States to use your SSN for ID purposes at the DMV, but only on the original application. I don't know of any states that still use the SSN for the actual driver's license number, but there might still be a few. Kentucky used to, but stopped that a long time ago. I do know that any states that use it are required to issue you a different DL number than your SSN if you ask for it.

Any government agency (local, state or federal) that asks you for your SSN is also required to provide a disclosure statement that tells you exactly how the number will be used, and whether giving the number is mandatory or voluntary.

While the SSN is in some ways a national ID, it's not the same thing as an actual ID card. The SS Administration even recommend that you not carry your SS Card with you, in fact. They also recommend that you closely inspect other documents, like insurance cards, to see if your SSN is on there.

If the SS Card were the same as a national ID card, then all discussions of creating a national ID card would cease, as creating one would be redundant. The SSN isn't really a violation of privacy, in that it is used for identification for the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration. So, you need one to get public assistance and Social Security benefits, obviously, in order to to work (for taxes), and if you register a vehicle or obtain a driver's license (or other state ID). Your driver's license or vehicle registration is a form of ID that has been verified with the SS Administration, and therefore makes it a reasonably valid accurate form of ID.

But while a cop can pull you over while driving a motor vehicle to inspect your license, he cannot just stop you on the street and as for it. He could with a National ID.

A National ID complete with biometric information means the creation of a new government bureaucracy to monitor your work status and to audit you if a government bureaucrat decides that your status is suspect. Basically, you are guilty of being an illegal immigrant, until you can prove otherwise. You will have to carry the National ID card as a condition of citizenship, literally asking the federal government's permission for you to obtain a job and work.

For anyone who mistrusts the government and who treasures freedom, the whole idea should be revolting and unacceptable. Our freedoms have been eroding at an alarming rate over the past few years as it is, yet this idea is much more than an erosion of rights. It is an all out assault on the idea that Americans have a natural right to be free of government monitoring and to be left alone. There is no provision whatsoever in the Constitution which grants the federal government the power to force American citizens to be fingerprinted and to carry an identification card against their will.

There isn't a single government program that hasn't been incorrectly or improperly administered, abused, or misused, and a National ID card is not likely to be the lone exception.

The REAL ID Act is nothing more than an attempt to take the current de facto National ID card, the driver's license, and make it into the real thing. The Act requires states to adopt uniform standards for their driver's licenses, including common machine-readable technology, like RFID. The idea is that a driver's license in one state can be scanned by someone in another state and have access to all your information. Under the Real ID Act, the information will not be encrypted, which is just awesome.

Bars are already scanning these super cool driver's licenses, on the auspices of preventing underage drinking, but are using the information to do things like collect both personal and demographic information about things like what people drink and during which hours. Business will, of course, start doing the same thing, under the auspices of preventing credit card fraud. Meanwhile, all this data is being collected and sold and used for all sorts of reasons, and we haven't even really gotten started yet.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ah so now the time is right for the national identity system. You already have a start as pretty well every citizen has a SS number. Now all that's needed is to expand that to a full blown identity card with bio-metric information (fingerprint and/or iris scan and DNA record). This would eliminate many id problems across the nation. The feds then have to make it mandatory that anyone asked by a federal officer or law enforcement officer to produce ID they have to show their card.

Yes there will be problems in Arizona but basically they have the right idea. So now cops have the power to question immigration status. While I partially agree with Turtle and the possible profiling problem he does have to realize that if you're in an area known for large numbers of illegals the feds might ask for ID. I can understand being a bit taken aback and upset for being asked for ID when not having done anything wrong but how else do the authorities initially target who to ask. Looks are one part of it. What you're doing is another. Many of you complain about them allowing too many illegals into the country and when they're trying to find and do something about it you don't want to be ID'd as an American but rather get your back up and complain. Unfortunately it can't be both ways until this ID thing is sorted out and the gov't either enforces the laws or changes the rules.

Some say that a national ID system would take years to implement but in reality it would not take too long as I said the basics are already in place. If Germany back in the 30s could make a national id system in 3 years without computers and a national records system then the US should be able to do this in less time.
Rob

Good idea, institute a national id system along the lines of the one used in Nazi Germany. That would fit in with what Obama wants to say the least.

We are asked for our "papers" on a regular basis when fishing on the Detroit River. We get stopped by U.S. Border Patrol AND Canadian Coast Guard. Freedom is a dying dream. National ID my hind end!!

 

[layoutshooter]

It is illegal here to use the Social Security Number for most things. Try to get a mortgage without giving it. I wish I was in the position to buy a house and did not NEED too. I would go for it an sue the pants off of the mortgage company when they force the issue. I called a Social Security lawyer once for clarification on just what was and was not legal uses of the SS number (mmmmm SS number, chilling). He hung up on me.

 

[greg334]

If you invaded, you don't need one to open a bank account, get a loan or own a house.

 

[Turtle]

It is illegal here to use the Social Security Number for most things.

Name two.

Try to get a mortgage without giving it. I wish I was in the position to buy a house and did not NEED too. I would go for it an sue the pants off of the mortgage company when they force the issue.

For any bank transaction that involves taxes, a SSN is required. The Patriot Act requires financial institutions to verify customers' identities, which can (not shall, but can) include the use of your SSN if the financial institution wants to use that for verification.

There is no law that prevents businesses from requesting your SSN (nor is there a law that compels you to give it to them), and there are few restrictions on what businesses can do with it. But even though you are not legally required to disclose your SSN, the business does not have to provide you with service if you refuse to release it. So in a sense, you can be strong-armed into giving your SSN, like when applying for insurance, opening utility accounts, or obtaining mortgages.

Most places, however, will allow you to use an alternate number or alternate form of ID, like your driver's license coupled with a birth certificate, or in some cases like a utility company a large deposit may suffice.

To Greg: I guess because Kentucky had started doing it long before and it didn't really affect me at the time, I had sort of forgotten about the Itelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that prohibits states from displaying your SSN on drivers' licenses or vehicle registrations. The law went into effect on December 17, 2005, and applies to all licenses issues after that date, and if you had a license that used your SSN, you could request a different number instead of having to wait for the license to expire to get it changed. The states still use it (and are required to by law) on initial applications for driver's licenses and vehicle registrations.

I called a Social Security lawyer once for clarification on just what was and was not legal uses of the SS number (mmmmm SS number, chilling). He hung up on me.

It's chilling because you're using the abbreviation incorrectly. It's SSN, or Social Security number.

 

[AMonger]

No they are invaders.

Just like the soviets invading Finland

Just like Germany invading Poland

They are committing serious crimes and in many ways I would think it is every citizens duty to help stop them invade the country.

But instead we are acting like France capitulating in 1940.

My remedy is this: Make EVERY crime committed by an illegal a felony, without exception. Jaywalking, speeding, littering, everything. Make illegals subject to the "three strikes, you're out" law. Wouldn't be too long before they chose to "make a run for the border."

 

[LDB]

My remedy is this: Make EVERY crime committed by an illegal a felony, without exception. Jaywalking, speeding, littering, everything. Make illegals subject to the "three strikes, you're out" law. Wouldn't be too long before they chose to "make a run for the border."

Good start but not stiff enough. Possession of a weapon during the commission should make it capital regardless of what the crime is. Appeals should be limited to two, within 24 months. Get it handled and over with. That level of harshness will likely start the border run in earnest.

 

[AMonger]

In Northern Ontario they still "draft" the unemployed to help support the firefighters of the forests...To refuse is jail time and fines...

Wait a minute...they draft the unemployed, or those on the dole? Somebody who's unemployed but DOESN'T take government money can be thus drafted and penalized for noncompliance?