If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Arizona migrant case could lead to sweeping changes. Also dishwashing changes, landscaping changes, and nanny changes   (npr.org) divider line 404
    More: Obvious, Arizona Attorney General, state crime, federal courts, illegal immigrants  
•       •       •

6737 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2012 at 9:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-26 05:52:49 PM

I drunk what: apparently the Kool-Aid....


This isn't about "Joe Legal" or "Jose Illegal" or any of the straw man crap. This is about UNITED STATES CITIZENS, i.e., your Joe Legal's having to provide proof of citizenship because of the color of their skin.

Anyone who supports UNITED STATES CITIZENS being demanded "papers, please" from police might as well turn in their civil liberties right now. If you don't value the civil liberties of your fellow citizens, then why should anyone value yours?
 
2012-04-26 05:56:46 PM

Slam1263: ox45tallboy: Joe Blowme: In my state you must show SS card, BC (not a copy) , and some form of picture id such as school id.
I bet you had to have the BC to get a SS number so in effect you did have to show it.
And as others have stated, is it racist to require visitors to carry passports? evey country requires this.

Sigh. It is ALREADY the law that visitors carry their documents. Now AMERICAN FARKING CITIZENS have to carry their papers as well, or get thrown in the pokey.

How hard is this to understand?

You do realize that that is the current situation in 46 state. Washington state is but one of 4 that there is no legal requirement for a citizen to produce valid ID when asked to by law enforcement.

There very thing you are shrilling about is already happening in the vast majority of this nation.

So, what are you going to do about it?


Yes, one must produce valid ID upon request from the police, but NOT PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.

Sheesh.

Unless you live in a state that has signed onto the "RealID" program, AND have renewed your license since this went into effect and received a new "Enhanced Driver's License", guess what? Your ID proves you are who you say you are, but it DOESN'T PROVIDE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.
 
2012-04-26 06:02:58 PM

FlashHarry: good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.


The economic reason for keeping illegals is BS (and ethically weak -- i.e. so it is okay to break laws if you're making money?)

All other Western countries still find a way to have yard workers, agricultural workers, waiters, etc. In many countries it is what the young adults do. In fact, limiting illegals could be a huge boost to the plight of young people today. I grew up outside US and starting as at 14, my friends and I all started working farm work, then moved on to various factory, construction and landscaping jobs. We could pay our way from an early age, it created a good work ethic and ultimately taught us that we didn't want to be manual laborers and so we were dedicated to getting practical degrees towards professional careers.

Anyway, just saying "who will do our yard work?" as an argument against controlling immigration is simply a ridiculous argument when you have a high unemployment rate already.
 
2012-04-26 06:17:14 PM
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12518.pdf

Effects of Immigration on African-American Employment and Incarceration

"The 1980-2000 immigrant influx, therefore, generally 'explains' about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages, 25 percent of the decline in employment, and about 10 percent of the rise in incarceration rates among blacks with a high school education or less."

Almost everybody knows that in the past 40 years, the real wages and job prospects for low-skilled men, especially low-skilled minority workers, have fallen. And there is evidence -- although no consensus -- that a rising tide of immigration is partly to blame. Now, a new NBER study suggests that immigration has more far-reaching consequences than merely depressing wages and lowering employment rates of low-skilled African-American males: its effects also appear to push some would-be workers into crime and, later, into prison...

Take employment rates: from 1960 to 2000, black high school dropouts saw their employment rates drop 33 percentage points -- from 88.6 percent to 55.7 percent -- the authors found in their analysis of census data from 1960 to 2000. The decrease for white high school dropouts was only roughly half that -- from 94.1 percent to 76.0 percent.

One reason, the authors argue, is that black employment is more sensitive to an immigration influx than white employment. For white men, an immigration boost of 10 percent caused their employment rate to fall just 0.7 percentage points; for black men, it fell 2.4 percentage points.

That same immigration rise was also correlated with a rise in incarceration rates. For white men, a 10 percent rise in immigration appeared to cause a 0.1 percentage point increase in the incarceration rate for white men. But for black men, it meant a nearly 1 percentage-point rise.

Why would a boost in immigration effectively put more men, especially black men, behind bars? The authors put forward a straightforward theory: immigration causes wages and employment to fall for black workers. When this happens, some of those workers -- especially those with the lowest skills -- turn to crime to increase their income. Certainly, the census data reveal a statistical link: as immigration began to increase, beginning in the 1980s, so did the institutionalization of low-skilled black men. While the Census Bureau defines institutions to include mental hospitals, the 1980 census -- and Justice Department data -- suggests that the majority of young men who were institutionalized were, in fact, in prison or in jail.

The rise in incarceration is most dramatic for the lowest-skilled black men. In 1980, it was just 1.3 percent; by 2000, it had skyrocketed to 25.1 percent. Even blacks with a high school diploma saw incarceration rates increase from 0.5 percent to 9.8 percent in the same time period. Why the increase? One reason, the authors suggest, is crack cocaine. Cheap to produce, it first appeared in the 1980s and had spread widely by the early 1990s.African-Americans became heavily involved in trafficking it because existing black gangs already controlled many of the urban spaces where it could be easily distributed and sold, the authors say, citing recent research. The surge in drugs caused police to step up enforcement and states to enact tougher sentencing laws. The result: a quarter of low-skilled black men were incarcerated by 2000...

The authors stress that immigration is only one factor in the worsening labor situation of low-skilled African-American men. "The 1980-2000 immigrant influx, therefore, generally 'explains' about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages, 25 percent of the decline in employment, and about 10 percent of the rise in incarceration rates among blacks with a high school education or less," they write.
http://www.nber.org/digest/may07/w12518.html

www.ssa.gov

www.migrationinformation.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
 
2012-04-26 06:25:23 PM
Aww..some of you now gotta mow your own yards....clean up after yourselves....Aww

Sounds like most of the White Guilt Liberals who support Criminal Illegal Aliens might have to do......OMG......work
 
2012-04-26 06:25:49 PM

relcec: numbers relating to effect relation of immigration and incarceration levels


First off, I have to say correlation/causation might not be equal here. For example, if implemented as written (and amended), it is reasonable to believe that the number of incarcerated hispanic individuals will rise even as illegal immigration declines.

Secondly, the point is not about illegal immigration, it is about this bill and its effects on the civil liberties of American Citizens who look hispanic.
 
2012-04-26 06:27:16 PM
Here is information about the author of that study I linked above that describes all the problems created by the liberal immigration policies for lower class Americans.

He's a Classic TeaBagger named Borjas; a Hispanic American citizen that was born in Cuba. His phone number is at the bottom.

Be sure to call and tell him he's a racist:

Name: George J. Borjas, PhD
Theoretical Expertise Ranking: Experts
Immigration officials, people with post-graduate degrees in fields relevant to immigration issues, Members of Congress, or elected officials with significant involvement in, or related to, immigration issues. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, 2002-present
Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1983-present
Fellow, Society of Labor Economists, 2004
Pforzheimer Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University, 1995-2002
Estrada Fellowship in Immigration Studies, 2000
Fellow, Econometric Society, 1998
Member, State of California, Governor Council of Economic Advisors, 1993-1998
Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego, 1990-1995
Visiting Scholar, Harvard University, 1988-1989
Professor,Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1982-1990
Associate Professor, Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1980-1982
Assistant Professor, Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1978-1980
Senior Research Analyst, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1972-1978
Assistant Professor, Economics, Queens College of the City University
of New York, 1975-1977
Outstanding Young Men of America
University of California Faculty Development Fellowship, Summer 1979
National Institute of Mental Health Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship, University of Chicago, 1977-1978
Editor, Review of Economics and Statistics
Education:
PhD, Economics, Columbia University, 1975
MPhil, Economics, Columbia University, 1975
MA, Economics, Columbia University, 1974
BA, Mathematics-Economics, St. Peter's College, 1971
Contact Info: Phone: 617-495-1393
Fax: 617-496-5960
E-Mail: g­eorge_­borjas[nospam-﹫-backwards]drav­rah­*e­du
Website: www.borjas.com
Select Publications:
Labor Economics, 2005
Heaven's Door, 1999
Wage Policy in the Federal Bureaucracy; Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy; Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy, 1999
 
2012-04-26 06:30:57 PM

relcec: more stuff...


So, do you support the law as written?
 
2012-04-26 06:40:21 PM

ox45tallboy: relcec: more stuff...

So, do you support the law as written?


do you support our immigration policies that devastate working class americans? do you support these policies that have helped to destroy the black american nuclear family and culture?
are you a shill for the 1%ers that flooding this country with low skilled labor in order to increase profits at the expense of the american workers?
would you fight any change in policy on any level that would attempt to improve american workers lives by decreasing the labor supply and increasing their bargaining power?
 
2012-04-26 06:51:23 PM

relcec: do you support our immigration policies that devastate working class americans? do you support these policies that have helped to destroy the black american nuclear family and culture?
are you a shill for the 1%ers that flooding this country with low skilled labor in order to increase profits at the expense of the american workers?
would you fight any change in policy on any level that would attempt to improve american workers lives by decreasing the labor supply and increasing their bargaining power?


Rec, you know I respect you, but the debate is about this law in particular, not immigration as a whole. Yes, illegal immigration is a problem, yes it does hurt our economy in ways other than the ways it helps (labor in + cash out = net benefit), yes illegal immigrants get taken advantage of, yes, yes, yes, we NEED immigration reform.

But this business of infringing on the civil liberties of American Citizens does NOT help to solve the problem. Hell, it's as bad as the TSA when it comes to infringing on civil liberties without providing any real net benefit.

So, separate from your feelings about immigration reform on the whole, do you support this bill as it is written (and amended)?
 
2012-04-26 06:57:46 PM

ox45tallboy: Slam1263: ox45tallboy: Joe Blowme: In my state you must show SS card, BC (not a copy) , and some form of picture id such as school id.
I bet you had to have the BC to get a SS number so in effect you did have to show it.
And as others have stated, is it racist to require visitors to carry passports? evey country requires this.

Sigh. It is ALREADY the law that visitors carry their documents. Now AMERICAN FARKING CITIZENS have to carry their papers as well, or get thrown in the pokey.

How hard is this to understand?

You do realize that that is the current situation in 46 state. Washington state is but one of 4 that there is no legal requirement for a citizen to produce valid ID when asked to by law enforcement.

There very thing you are shrilling about is already happening in the vast majority of this nation.

So, what are you going to do about it?

Yes, one must produce valid ID upon request from the police, but NOT PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.

Sheesh.

Unless you live in a state that has signed onto the "RealID" program, AND have renewed your license since this went into effect and received a new "Enhanced Driver's License", guess what? Your ID proves you are who you say you are, but it DOESN'T PROVIDE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.


Show me where having a valid driver's license ISN"T enough proof for Arizona, Alabama, or another random state.

/unless you're trolling
//if you are, xlnt job.
 
2012-04-26 07:08:33 PM
Here's where I already posted it in this thread.

And here's the link in question.

And I'm not trolling, any farker that pays attention to these threads knows where I stand on this issue.
 
2012-04-26 07:20:54 PM

ox45tallboy: Here's where I already posted it in this thread.

And here's the link in question.

And I'm not trolling, any farker that pays attention to these threads knows where I stand on this issue.


I understand where you stand. You just don't seem to understand any other point of view that challenge your cherished assumptions.

Hopefully The Race treats you better after you help them gain dominion over whitey.

Fight whitey!! I'm here for you brother, and I'll love you in the morning, the check is in the mail, and uhm, sorry about that.
 
2012-04-26 07:22:18 PM
No Duh.

;)
 
2012-04-26 07:42:10 PM

ox45tallboy: relcec: do you support our immigration policies that devastate working class americans? do you support these policies that have helped to destroy the black american nuclear family and culture?
are you a shill for the 1%ers that flooding this country with low skilled labor in order to increase profits at the expense of the american workers?
would you fight any change in policy on any level that would attempt to improve american workers lives by decreasing the labor supply and increasing their bargaining power?

Rec, you know I respect you, but the debate is about this law in particular, not immigration as a whole. Yes, illegal immigration is a problem, yes it does hurt our economy in ways other than the ways it helps (labor in + cash out = net benefit), yes illegal immigrants get taken advantage of, yes, yes, yes, we NEED immigration reform.

But this business of infringing on the civil liberties of American Citizens does NOT help to solve the problem. Hell, it's as bad as the TSA when it comes to infringing on civil liberties without providing any real net benefit.

So, separate from your feelings about immigration reform on the whole, do you support this bill as it is written (and amended)?


in the aggregate I support it.
tell me specifically what you have a problem with.
you understand, that if a policeman has probable cause to believe you committed a crime (even a misdemeanor or a traffic ordinance), he can already require you to show ID? right?

and under terry v ohio, the police don't even need reasonable belief, just a reasonable suspicion, that a crime has been committed and they can detain you and require you to identify yourself and take you to jail if you refuse to.

and you realize the secure communities federal program now has been rolled out in almost half of all jurisdictions and requires law enforcement to transfer report identification and biometric information so ICE can deport people, and they plan to require the entire country to participate by 2013?

about the law, in the aggregate I support it, especially with how the law is written, but I may have a problem with how some counties enforce it. if a pattern of abuse is evidenced I expect we shall kick the shiat out of the violators.

now, if I was dictator the legislation would completely ignore the illegal immigrant community from an enforcement standpoint and dedicate every resource to finding those who employed illegal aliens, prohibiting them from ever holding a business licensee again, keeping them in county jail for several months, and fining their business into oblivion. I literally wouldn't bother holding illegal immigrants longer than it took to get evidence about where they worked as long as they didn't commit a serious crime.

you see, a trident tipped with the poisons of automation, globalization, and massively liberal immigration policy has ripped the heart out of the American middle and lower classes over the last 40 years. for the first time we finally have some people that are willing to address one of the toxins that we can all see is turning america the land of opportunity into a neofuedal state.
like obama, I'm not gonna let the perfect be blah blah blah blah blah, especially when the patient is about to die on the operating table if nothing is done.
 
2012-04-26 07:45:39 PM

Slam1263: I understand where you stand. You just don't seem to understand any other point of view that challenge your cherished assumptions.

Hopefully The Race treats you better after you help them gain dominion over whitey.

Fight whitey!! I'm here for you brother, and I'll love you in the morning, the check is in the mail, and uhm, sorry about that.


Man, you're just like the Republicans. This isn't about immigration, it's about farking CIVIL LIBERTIES.

No one in this thread has even attempted to justify, or even address, the civil liberties violations inherent in enforcing this bill. Why? They just don't care.

Yes, we need immigration reform, but not at the expense of Civil Liberty. If you don't respect the Civil Liberties of fellow United States Citizens who are brown, why should I think you would respect my own? And why do you deserve any?

Stop trying to make the debate out to be about immigration. It's not. I agree that we need immigration reform. But this isn't it.

You come off like someone trying to say the birth control debate is about religious freedom, or if you disagree with the PATRIOT Act then you must sympathize with the terrorists.

If we want a permanent solution to illegal immigration, then we should just kill all the brown people. If you disagree, then you must not understand how much damage that illegal immigration does to our economy, and you must be a bleeding heart liberal commie pinko.
 
2012-04-26 07:58:28 PM

relcec: in the aggregate I support it.
tell me specifically what you have a problem with.
you understand, that if a policeman has probable cause to believe you committed a crime (even a misdemeanor or a traffic ordinance), he can already require you to show ID? right?


Specifically, I have a problem with the "in the course of enforcement of any law."

First, this refers not just to suspects, but also witnesses and even victims. Maybe that's not what the author or the legislators who passed it mean, but it IS what the law says.

Second, this means that certain United States Citizens must now carry proof not only of identity, but of citizenship. There are plenty of official government documents which will prove your identity, which is what most states require, but not citizenship. If you are a CITIZEN, you are not obligated under current law to prove this to anyone. Resident aliens are required, but once you take the oath and become naturalized, you are no longer required to carry around your proof of citizenship any more than if you WERE born here to 10th generation immigrants.

Third, it is BS to believe that hispanics will be unfairly targeted by this. I mean seriously, do they have a bunch of white people from Sweden or Germany coming to Arizona? How about those darn Canadians and their bagged milk? Is there a sudden influx of Chinese in Scottsdale?

No, my main problem is that a citizen of the United States will now be at risk for indefinite detention if he does not carry around proof of his citizenship.
 
2012-04-26 08:11:00 PM

relcec: you understand, that if a policeman has probable cause to believe you committed a crime (even a misdemeanor or a traffic ordinance), he can already require you to show ID? right?


I also meant to mention that, as I discussed earlier, ID =! proof of citizenship. Arizona police will treat an Arizona Driver's License or Arizona State ID card as proof of citizenship, but the only other DL's which prove citizenship are those using the RealID system. The law specifically says this.
 
2012-04-26 08:54:37 PM

ox45tallboy: relcec: in the aggregate I support it.
tell me specifically what you have a problem with.
you understand, that if a policeman has probable cause to believe you committed a crime (even a misdemeanor or a traffic ordinance), he can already require you to show ID? right?

Specifically, I have a problem with the "in the course of enforcement of any law."

First, this refers not just to suspects, but also witnesses and even victims. Maybe that's not what the author or the legislators who passed it mean, but it IS what the law says.


****************************************************
so we should ignore immigration violations if someone is a victim of a crime? should we likewise ignore evidence of all crimes that come to light in the course of an investigation because victims might not come forward? why do you only care about this specific set of victims, who aren't even legally in this country and are causing enormous pain for our own citizens, and not american citizens that are reluctant to report crime because evidence of their wrongdoing might come to light? why on earth do people like you want more protections applied to non citizens than you are even willing to offer for citizens?

Second, this means that certain United States Citizens must now carry proof not only of identity, but of citizenship. There are plenty of official government documents which will prove your identity, which is what most states require, but not citizenship. If you are a CITIZEN, you are not obligated under current law to prove this to anyone. Resident aliens are required, but once you take the oath and become naturalized, you are no longer required to carry around your proof of citizenship any more than if you WERE born here to 10th generation immigrants.

************************************************
that does not appear to be the case: "a valid Arizona driver license; a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070
I have to ask, are you purposefully misstating the facts here?

and you are wrong about he law; under terry v ohio and its progeny, an officer without even probable cause, but with just a mere reasonable suspicion that a crime may have taken place or is about to take place can stop, detain, request you identify yourself, and can arrest you if you refuse to say who you are and where you are from, regardless if their suspicions about the supposed crime ended up being true or not.


Third, it is BS to believe that hispanics will be unfairly targeted by this. I mean seriously, do they have a bunch of white people from Sweden or Germany coming to Arizona? How about those darn Canadians and their bagged milk? Is there a sudden influx of Chinese in Scottsdale?

No, my main problem is that a citizen of the United States will now be at risk for indefinite detention if he does not carry around proof of his citizenship.


**********************************************
1) if we had a problem of epidemic proportions with a bunch of white people from Germany and Scandinavia would you have a problem with white people complying with reasonable attempts to verify their immigration status?
then why when you wouldn't have a problem with that, do you have a problem when hispanics, who make up 81% of the illegal immigrant population in the united states (and surely a much larger percentage of illegal immigrant community in arizona) are required to comply with reasonable attempts to verify immigration status?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_Uni te d_States
According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, Mexicans make up 57 percent of immigrants present in the United States illegally. Another 24 percent are from other Latin American countries. Approximately 9 percent are from Asia, 6 percent from Europe and Canada, with the remaining 4
The number of Mexican legal immigrants and Mexican illegal aliens in the United States has grown quite rapidly over the past 35 years, increasing almost 15-fold from about 760,000 in the 1970 Census to more than 11 million in 2004-an average annual growth rate of more than 8 percent, maintained over more than 3 decades. This remarkable growth has been largely driven by the encroachment of illegal aliens. On average the net Mexican population living in the United States has grown by at least a half million people a year over the past decade. About 80 to 85 percent of the immigration from Mexico and Central America in recent years has been illegal. (Pew report Figure 4 and page 2)



2) indefinite detention is not allowed under this law. it specifically says "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."
it does not say a person can be held however long it takes to verify their immigration status. it says they can make a reasonable effort to determine status.

3) are you aware that the united states supreme court, in a 9-0 decision has declared that hispanic ancestry or appearance is a relevant factor for agents of this country to consider when making immigration stops?

I imagine you don't mind much when the federal and state governments are allowed to use asian or white ancestry to influence negative determinations about the allocation of government resources.

why do you suddenly have a problem with the 14th amendment meaning jackshiat?

I want nothing more than the 14th amendment to be read as an absolute protection against government or government sponsored entities taking race, gender, or sexual orientation into consideration for any purpose whatsoever, but people like you refuse to modify your opinions about the moral legitimacy of the government making determinations that cause harm to united states citizens when they happen to be born the wrong color.

Link

I. UNITED STATES V. BRIGNONI-PONCE: "MEXICAN APPEARANCE [MAY BE] A
RELEVANT FACTOR" IN MAKING AN IMMIGRATION STOP
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce is the Supreme Court's most significant
immigration stop decision in the last fifty years. Its legacy, allowing law
enforcement reliance on "Mexican appearance" in making immigration stops,
remains central to modern enforcement of the U.S. immigration laws at the
border and in the interior of the United States.
 
2012-04-26 09:13:34 PM

ox45tallboy: Slam1263: I understand where you stand. You just don't seem to understand any other point of view that challenge your cherished assumptions.

Hopefully The Race treats you better after you help them gain dominion over whitey.

Fight whitey!! I'm here for you brother, and I'll love you in the morning, the check is in the mail, and uhm, sorry about that.

Man, you're just like the Republicans. This isn't about immigration, it's about farking CIVIL LIBERTIES.

No one in this thread has even attempted to justify, or even address, the civil liberties violations inherent in enforcing this bill. Why? They just don't care.

Yes, we need immigration reform, but not at the expense of Civil Liberty. If you don't respect the Civil Liberties of fellow United States Citizens who are brown, why should I think you would respect my own? And why do you deserve any?

Stop trying to make the debate out to be about immigration. It's not. I agree that we need immigration reform. But this isn't it.

You come off like someone trying to say the birth control debate is about religious freedom, or if you disagree with the PATRIOT Act then you must sympathize with the terrorists.

If we want a permanent solution to illegal immigration, then we should just kill all the brown people. If you disagree, then you must not understand how much damage that illegal immigration does to our economy, and you must be a bleeding heart liberal commie pinko.


Two points; 1) I have been a Republican for 30 years, I started as a Democrat, but my perspectives have changed. I also don't march lockstep with the extremists in my party. Cases in point, I have always been against the Patriot Act, I support choice, and I am a brown person. 2) The SCOTUS, ruled back in 2004, that you do not have the right to withhold your identity from a law enforcement official. I don't agree with their decision, and I am glad I live in Washington State, one of only four that allow you to say no to that request in many situations.

You may now recommence with your vitriol, I am sure you can sling a few more slurs before your shift is up.
 
2012-04-26 09:26:19 PM
Damn Irish! No Irish need apply!

wait? what? Not Irish? Damn Cheese eating Surrender Monkey!
oh? wrong coast?
OK. Damn Chinks, good for nothing but laundry and railro...
Not the Chinese?

OK, who are we haiting now? Cuz it keeps changing.
 
2012-04-26 09:27:15 PM
if you wanted to pass a federal law tomorrow that said the federal government, and all federal government sponsored entities, are absolutely prohibited from using innate characteristics like race, gender, national origin, and sexual orientation to abrogate the equal protection of the law guaranteed to all of us by the 4th amendment you couldn't find anyone happier than me.
ok, maybe some gay people might be a little happier than me, but I'd be pretty damn excited too.
 
2012-04-26 09:35:05 PM

relcec: if you wanted to pass a federal law tomorrow that said the federal government, and all federal government sponsored entities, are absolutely prohibited from using innate characteristics like race, gender, national origin, and sexual orientation to abrogate the equal protection of the law guaranteed to all of us by the 4th amendment you couldn't find anyone happier than me.
ok, maybe some gay people might be a little happier than me, but I'd be pretty damn excited too.


Minus yer disparation, i agree somewhat...

Melanin is melanin.

Culture is everything.

Binary isn't everything, but here it is.

That is all.

;)
 
2012-04-26 09:37:41 PM
www.hyscience.com
ncrenegade.com
www.rickwomick34th.com
www.city-data.com
www.politifake.org
 
2012-04-26 09:48:13 PM

redhook: [www.hyscience.com image 455x337]
[ncrenegade.com image 425x308]
[www.rickwomick34th.com image 471x283]
[www.city-data.com image 640x445]
[www.politifake.org image 640x510]


Fear-fail.
 
2012-04-26 10:09:52 PM
i could care less about illegals. The real question is should States be allowed to pass laws concerning rights that are assigned to the Federal Government?

Here's a hint, when do you become a naturalized citizen of Texas or New York or do you hold citizenship of the United States? Do you receive your passport at the State level? Would a foreign visitor apply for a Visa at the State level?
 
2012-04-26 10:50:38 PM

NathanAllen: i could care less about illegals. The real question is should States be allowed to pass laws concerning rights that are assigned to the Federal Government?

Here's a hint, when do you become a naturalized citizen of Texas or New York or do you hold citizenship of the United States? Do you receive your passport at the State level? Would a foreign visitor apply for a Visa at the State level?


States can pass any law they wish so long as it does not violate the US Constitution. And so far that is the way the Supreme Court Justices see this case. I.E. this is 100% legal. And just FYI, you cannot get a passport without documentation from the state your were born in and documentation from the state you are a resident of. All a passport says is that the US government verified that you are indeed a citizen of the US.
 
2012-04-26 10:57:25 PM

NathanAllen: i could care less about illegals. The real question is should States be allowed to pass laws concerning rights that are assigned to the Federal Government?

Here's a hint, when do you become a naturalized citizen of Texas or New York or do you hold citizenship of the United States? Do you receive your passport at the State level? Would a foreign visitor apply for a Visa at the State level?


is preemption express or implied?
do you see a conflict between federal immigration laws and SB1070? where?
the federal government criminalizes some immigration offenses, such as alien smuggling and the act of illegally entering the united states itself.
the supreme court has in the past allowed states to regulate immigration, and in a manner that is so powerful it is likely the only way illegal immigration can ever be checked; they have allowed the states to prohibit the very foundational relationship with the united states and its citizens that brings these people people here in the first place. states are allowed to regulate the employment of illegal aliens. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=424&inv o l=351

/If I could bet though I would bet that the additional criminal sanctions imposed by sb1070 don't stand a chance though and are severed. that doesn't mean that vast majority of that bill won't make it through though.
 
2012-04-26 11:09:36 PM

King Something: RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.

For the past 20 years, I've been asked about my immigration status (Form I-9) on a job application or when hired, and *shock* I didn't run to the ACLU.. If you're in the US legally and actually want a job...

/I wash my own dishes
//Am a proud parent who never hired a babysitter (relatives only)

Have you ever been asked about your immigration status at a traffic stop?

Because Arizona's law allows cops to do that. And if you can't prove you're in this country legally right then and there, they'll cuff you and put you in the precinct holding cell until they finish doing enough of a background check on you to determine whether or not you're an illegal immigrant.


Uhmmm.. a valid drivers license is all the required proof needed. If you are driving without it you already have problems.
 
2012-04-26 11:14:12 PM
You know, the disingenuity in this thread makes me a wee bit nauseous.

Try as you might,

you cannot alienate yourself.

Your are irracial.

Neologist out.

;)
 
2012-04-27 12:29:28 AM

relcec: so we should ignore immigration violations if someone is a victim of a crime? should we likewise ignore evidence of all crimes that come to light in the course of an investigation because victims might not come forward? why do you only care about this specific set of victims, who aren't even legally in this country and are causing enormous pain for our own citizens, and not american citizens that are reluctant to report crime because evidence of their wrongdoing might come to light? why on earth do people like you want more protections applied to non citizens than you are even willing to offer for citizens?


Short answer? Yes, I do believe that we should ignore immigration status of victims and witnesses of a crime. In fact, we already grant these people amnesty. Google U-Visa (victim of a crime), S-Visa (material witness) and T-Visa (victim of human trafficking). These are policies set forth by the federal government, you know, the policies this law is supposed to be echoing? The difference is, these visas can be granted almost immediately during the course of a FEDERAL investigation, but they cannot be granted on the state level. So, even if the state chooses to file the file paperwork to obtain a visa for the victim of or witness to a state crime, what to do in the meantime? According to the law, hold them indefinitely in a private prison at taxpayer expense until ICE decides what to do with them.

that does not appear to be the case: "a valid Arizona driver license; a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070
I have to ask, are you purposefully misstating the facts here?


No, I'm not misstating the facts here. I understand you probably have neither the time nor the energy to read the entire thread, so I will post this for the third time: Here is a link to an article describing the RealID program and "Enhanced Driver's Licenses", which are the only ones recognized as proof of citizenship. This is the third time I've posted this article in this thread, and I haven't gotten any real response from anyone who has read it.

and you are wrong about he law; under terry v ohio and its progeny, an officer without even probable cause, but with just a mere reasonable suspicion that a crime may have taken place or is about to take place can stop, detain, request you identify yourself, and can arrest you if you refuse to say who you are and where you are from, regardless if their suspicions about the supposed crime ended up being true or not.

Terry v. Ohio
isn't exactly relevant here, since it deals with identification of an individual rather than proof of said individual's immigration status. It also states that an individual can be detained until their identity is established, but it doesn't say a word about immigration status. Once again, I repeat: state-issued ID's and DL's are not necessarily proof of one's citizenship or immigration status, although they are proof of one's identity. The AZ bill doesn't say a word about identity as far as documents are concerned, only immigration status. They are NOT one and the same. I'm sorry, but you're not arguing against the case I made.

indefinite detention is not allowed under this law. it specifically says "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."
it does not say a person can be held however long it takes to verify their immigration status. it says they can make a reasonable effort to determine status.


Sorry, but it appears you stopped reading too early. Please find me ANY provision which determines the length of a jail sentence. There are all kinds of fines and "jail costs" listed in the bill, but nothing that shows anything remotely resembling sentencing guidelines. The closest thing is the parts where it describes that an individual determined to be here illegally (good luck on a "speedy trial", especially considering the current ICE backlog) MAY be transported to a Federal facility once it is determined that they are, in fact, here illegally. Seriously, find me a maximum sentence guideline, or any way in this bill in which a person can get out of jail short of proving they are here legally or ICE accepting custody for deportation.

3) are you aware that the united states supreme court, in a 9-0 decision has declared that hispanic ancestry or appearance is a relevant factor for agents of this country to consider when making immigration stops?

This just proves my point. Of course race is a factor when determining suspicion of illegal immigration status. This means that brown citizens (who have no legal obligation to carry proof of citizenship) will be targeted for enforcement of this law more than white citizens.

why do you suddenly have a problem with the 14th amendment meaning jackshiat?

I DON'T have a problem with this; in fact, I see enforcement of this bill under the case law you have provided (even though the bill says explicitly that factors decided by said case law will not be used for "profiling") as a direct violation of the 14th Amendment - if it is intended that this bill be enforced effectively. Of course brown citizens will be discriminately targeted - that is the point.
 
2012-04-27 12:34:25 AM

Slam1263: Two points; 1) I have been a Republican for 30 years, I started as a Democrat, but my perspectives have changed. I also don't march lockstep with the extremists in my party. Cases in point, I have always been against the Patriot Act, I support choice, and I am a brown person. 2) The SCOTUS, ruled back in 2004, that you do not have the right to withhold your identity from a law enforcement official. I don't agree with their decision, and I am glad I live in Washington State, one of only four that allow you to say no to that request in many situations.

You may now recommence with your vitriol, I am sure you can sling a few more slurs before your shift is up.


Dude, I'm not talking about IDENTITY. I'm talking about immigration status. Proving your identity does not automatically prove your immigration status.
 
2012-04-27 12:37:48 AM

Shukhov 104th: Uhmmm.. a valid drivers license is all the required proof needed. If you are driving without it you already have problems.


Yes, if you have an Arizona driver's license, that will suffice (under this law) as de facto proof of citizenship. (please keep in mind this is NOT echoed in Georgia OR Alabama's laws) But what if you are a passenger? Or what if you're from a different state that doesn't have the RealID program in place? You get a trip to the pokey until you can convince someone outside to bring your immigration documents.
 
2012-04-27 01:21:41 AM

ox45tallboy: relcec: so we should ignore immigration violations if someone is a victim of a crime? should we likewise ignore evidence of all crimes that come to light in the course of an investigation because victims might not come forward? why do you only care about this specific set of victims, who aren't even legally in this country and are causing enormous pain for our own citizens, and not american citizens that are reluctant to report crime because evidence of their wrongdoing might come to light? why on earth do people like you want more protections applied to non citizens than you are even willing to offer for citizens?

Short answer? Yes, I do believe that we should ignore immigration status of victims and witnesses of a crime. In fact, we already grant these people amnesty. Google U-Visa (victim of a crime), S-Visa (material witness) and T-Visa (victim of human trafficking). These are policies set forth by the federal government, you know, the policies this law is supposed to be echoing? The difference is, these visas can be granted almost immediately during the course of a FEDERAL investigation, but they cannot be granted on the state level. So, even if the state chooses to file the file paperwork to obtain a visa for the victim of or witness to a state crime, what to do in the meantime? According to the law, hold them indefinitely in a private prison at taxpayer expense until ICE decides what to do with them.

that does not appear to be the case: "a valid Arizona driver license; a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070
I have to ask, are you purposefully misstating the facts here?

No, I'm not misstating the facts here. I understand you probably have neither the time nor the energy t ...


oh, I missed the significance of that bit.
but I have a question.
I've lived in 3 states since I was 16 and needed to obtain a drivers liscence/ID, and in every one of those states required proof of legal presence.
California requires it, Massachusetts requires it, and Texas requires it.
those three states seem to run the gamut of ideological continuum, and I just assumed if they required it then it was a de facto national standard. so what state doesn't require the proof demanded by sb1070? I guess maybe there is somewhere that wouldn't require the bare minimum you would hope your government would require to prove someone was you. so where don't they?

got some shiat I need to attend to before bed, get back to you about the rest tomorrow.
 
2012-04-27 04:24:32 AM
By the headline's logic, we should've never repealed slavery because it would drive up the cost of producing cotton. Why do libs always tell people to ignore the costs incurred by their policies except when it comes to encouraging illegal immigration?
 
2012-04-27 08:42:00 AM

ox45tallboy: This is about UNITED STATES CITIZENS


are you a UNITED STATES CITIZEN?

papers, please

i'm glad that you agree with me that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants should be instantly deported, and that all repeat offenders should be fined and then deported

thank you for your cooperation

/and here i thought people were arguing in this thread?
 
2012-04-27 09:31:35 AM

relcec: oh, I missed the significance of that bit.
but I have a question.
I've lived in 3 states since I was 16 and needed to obtain a drivers liscence/ID, and in every one of those states required proof of legal presence.
California requires it, Massachusetts requires it, and Texas requires it.
those three states seem to run the gamut of ideological continuum, and I just assumed if they required it then it was a de facto national standard. so what state doesn't require the proof demanded by sb1070? I guess maybe there is somewhere that wouldn't require the bare minimum you would hope your government would require to prove someone was you. so where don't they?


I got my license when I was 17. I gave them my Social Security card and my HS Diploma (graduated early, otherwise would have had to provide a proof of attendance form from my school.) Since then, I have used my license to get it renewed in TN and transferred to GA. I've never had to provide any other ID than my Social Security card.

Here's a link dicussing Alabama's switch to the newer system in which one must also provide proof of citizenship in order to receive a license or renew vehicle registration. Note that it is dated last year.

This standard is becoming more common, but it is nowhere close to being comprehensive.
 
2012-04-27 09:47:25 AM

I drunk what: ox45tallboy: This is about UNITED STATES CITIZENS

are you a UNITED STATES CITIZEN?

papers, please

i'm glad that you agree with me that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants should be instantly deported, and that all repeat offenders should be fined and then deported

thank you for your cooperation

/and here i thought people were arguing in this thread?


No, I actually said earlier they should be shot on sight. I'm waiting for someone to explain how that isn't a nice thing to do, but indefinite detention in a privately run prison at taxpayer expense without arraignment, bail hearing, or trial date is somehow more humane.

Okay, so what happens under this bill to repeat offenders who cannot pay the fine? Seriously. Look at the bill and tell me what will happen to them.Then look at the bill and tell me at what point the detaining agency is required to inform ICE about the detainee - immediately, the next day, or on some kind of "net 30" terms, what is it? Then tell me what happens, according to the bill, if ICE declines custody. How long do they spend in jail? AZ state and local police DO NOT have the authority to deport someone. Period. They cannot drive a bunch of Mexicans across the border, or put someone on a plane to El Salvador. So not only do we not know how long the person might spend in custody as punishment for this, there is no provision for them to be released OTHER THAN to ICE, who has already said they don't want otherwise law-abiding illegals.

Follow the money. The longer these people stay in private prisons at taxpayer expense, the more money that is paid to the private prison - right out of the taxpayers' pockets. Any small government conservative that is in favor of this has motivations other than being a "small government conservative".
 
2012-04-27 09:52:46 AM

ox45tallboy: Then tell me what happens, according to the bill, if ICE declines custody.


The same thing that happens now, they let them go.
 
2012-04-27 09:55:01 AM

DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: Then tell me what happens, according to the bill, if ICE declines custody.

The same thing that happens now, they let them go.


Please quote where you find this in the bill.
 
2012-04-27 10:12:36 AM

ox45tallboy: Please quote where you find this in the bill.


It doesn't have to be in the bill, just like all the other rights you have granted by various laws and guidelines aren't in this bill or any other bill. Where does it say in the bill that they have a right to an attorney? They bust illegal immigrants in AZ every single day, have been for a long time, they don't need this bill to do that and they aren't warehousing all the illegal immigrants that ICE won't pick up.

People have rights not to be detained unless they are charged, or held for other agencies, nothing in this bill changes that.
 
2012-04-27 10:18:29 AM

ox45tallboy: Shukhov 104th: Uhmmm.. a valid drivers license is all the required proof needed. If you are driving without it you already have problems.

Yes, if you have an Arizona driver's license, that will suffice (under this law) as de facto proof of citizenship. (please keep in mind this is NOT echoed in Georgia OR Alabama's laws) But what if you are a passenger? Or what if you're from a different state that doesn't have the RealID program in place? You get a trip to the pokey until you can convince someone outside to bring your immigration documents.


LOL WHUT?

The very first item in the list of things that qualify as proof of citizenship under Alabama's law is "A valid, unexpired Alabama driver's license".
 
2012-04-27 10:43:33 AM

ox45tallboy: No, I actually said earlier they should be shot on sight.


thou shalt not kill

ox45tallboy: Follow the money.


i'm not sure which part of instant deportation you don't understand, i said nothing about detainment

they found a way into this country, i'm sure they can find a way back

ox45tallboy: who has already said they don't want otherwise law-abiding illegals


do you know how i know that you have no idea what words mean?

get an edumucation and learn thyself a book!
 
2012-04-27 11:53:02 AM
ox45tallboy 2012-04-27 09:31:35 AM


relcec: oh, I missed the significance of that bit.
but I have a question.
I've lived in 3 states since I was 16 and needed to obtain a drivers liscence/ID, and in every one of those states required proof of legal presence.
California requires it, Massachusetts requires it, and Texas requires it.
those three states seem to run the gamut of ideological continuum, and I just assumed if they required it then it was a de facto national standard. so what state doesn't require the proof demanded by sb1070? I guess maybe there is somewhere that wouldn't require the bare minimum you would hope your government would require to prove someone was you. so where don't they?

I got my license when I was 17. I gave them my Social Security card and my HS Diploma (graduated early, otherwise would have had to provide a proof of attendance form from my school.) Since then, I have used my license to get it renewed in TN and transferred to GA. I've never had to provide any other ID than my Social Security card.

Here's a link dicussing Alabama's switch to the newer system in which one must also provide proof of citizenship in order to receive a license or renew vehicle registration. Note that it is dated last year.

This standard is becoming more common, but it is nowhere close to being comprehensive.



exactly, you gave the authorities in your area your social security card which is a form of legal presence identification. after that you just needed to prove you were you, not that you were still a citizen that has the right to remain in the united states permanently. so why is this such a big problem?

It is your contention that many people will have state IDs from places that don't meet sb1070 requirements, yet you've so far not adduced any examples. The argument doesn't fly if you are claiming real problems exist but you are unable to produce evidence to support the fact that this is even a possibility. in fact, you've actually supported the opposite case by providing two more states that require lawful presence in order to receive a ID.
 
2012-04-27 12:53:11 PM

DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: Please quote where you find this in the bill.

It doesn't have to be in the bill, just like all the other rights you have granted by various laws and guidelines aren't in this bill or any other bill. Where does it say in the bill that they have a right to an attorney?


Let me just stop you right there - it doesn't. There is no hearing of any sort realting to the immigration violation, so the accused does not need an attorney. It also does not describe the maximum jail penalty, or any jail penalty, or define any way in which the accused has any legal recourse whatsoever. In other words, indefinite detention.

Please show any other criminal law, Arizona state or otherwise, that does not describe maximum jail sentencing guidelines.

That's the problem with this - they're "enforcing Federal Law", which means it's up to the Federal government to actually prosecute the individual, not the state. If the person is a repeat offender, and is subject to prison time for repeat offenses, this trial will take place in a Federal courtroom, and the person will be sentenced to Federal prison time. If ICE agrees they are in violation of Immigration Law, but they decline to take custody, there is no provision for the individual's release - in other words, indefinite detention.

They bust illegal immigrants in AZ every single day, have been for a long time, they don't need this bill to do that and they aren't warehousing all the illegal immigrants that ICE won't pick up.

So why do they need this bill? And, under this bill, they will be housing all the ones ICE hasn't yet or chooses not to pick up.

People have rights not to be detained unless they are charged, or held for other agencies, nothing in this bill changes that.

Exactly - it circumvents the intention of the defined civil liberties of the individual, because the individual will be indefinitely housed in a private prison at taxpayer expense, waiting for ICE to pick them up. The private prison owners will make unbelievable amounts of taxpayer money.
 
2012-04-27 12:59:14 PM

JustGetItRight: ox45tallboy: Shukhov 104th: Uhmmm.. a valid drivers license is all the required proof needed. If you are driving without it you already have problems.

Yes, if you have an Arizona driver's license, that will suffice (under this law) as de facto proof of citizenship. (please keep in mind this is NOT echoed in Georgia OR Alabama's laws) But what if you are a passenger? Or what if you're from a different state that doesn't have the RealID program in place? You get a trip to the pokey until you can convince someone outside to bring your immigration documents.

LOL WHUT?

The very first item in the list of things that qualify as proof of citizenship under Alabama's law is "A valid, unexpired Alabama driver's license".


Yes, this is because Alabama recently made changes to comply with the RealID system. As of late last summer (2011), you have to produce proof of citizenship as well as proof of identity to RENEW your driver's license. The idea is that within five years, all licenses will be either expired or renewed with proof of citizenship. But as of right now, the majority of individuals holding an Alabama license did NOT have to provide proof of citizenship, because their licenses were renewed before last summer. The Alabama law covers those with Alabama licenses, but unless you have a new Alabama license you have obtained since the RealID system went in place, it won't fly in places like AZ.
 
2012-04-27 01:05:36 PM

I drunk what: ox45tallboy: No, I actually said earlier they should be shot on sight.

thou shalt not kill


Sorry, you're right, the ten commandments do not say "Thou shalt not detain indefinitely in a private prison at taxpayer's expense."

ox45tallboy: Follow the money.

i'm not sure which part of instant deportation you don't understand, i said nothing about detainment

they found a way into this country, i'm sure they can find a way back


Please describe what the hell you mean by "instant deportation." Does Scotty beam them across the border? How often do the ICE buses show up? In fact, how often do the police agencies hold the suspected illegals before reporting them to ICE?

ox45tallboy: who has already said they don't want otherwise law-abiding illegals

do you know how i know that you have no idea what words mean?

get an edumucation and learn thyself a book!


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-27 01:10:21 PM

ox45tallboy: There is no hearing of any sort realting to the immigration violation, so the accused does not need an attorney. It also does not describe the maximum jail penalty, or any jail penalty, or define any way in which the accused has any legal recourse whatsoever. In other words, indefinite detention.


There is a hearing, for the proposed violation of not carrying having an valid immigration ID card. And the link I already gave you points to the maximum sentences/fines.

ox45tallboy: So why do they need this bill? And, under this bill, they will be housing all the ones ICE hasn't yet or chooses not to pick up.


They will hold people ICE puts a hold on, just like they do now, as do a lot of other states. But if ICE says no hold they have to release them. Part of this bill allows them to charge them for not having and ID card, it also allows citizens to sue their local governments for sanctuary polices, there are also provisions that will make it easier to make cases against businesses that hire illegals by creating requirements for records.
 
2012-04-27 01:10:24 PM

relcec: exactly, you gave the authorities in your area your social security card which is a form of legal presence identification. after that you just needed to prove you were you, not that you were still a citizen that has the right to remain in the united states permanently. so why is this such a big problem?


You see, I went to college in TN as well, where my roommate one semester was from Russia. He had a Social Security card as well, only it was stamped, "Not Valid for Work."

Guess what? He got a TN driver's license that looked just like mine. The SS card was for identification, not proof of citizenship.

It is your contention that many people will have state IDs from places that don't meet sb1070 requirements, yet you've so far not adduced any examples. The argument doesn't fly if you are claiming real problems exist but you are unable to produce evidence to support the fact that this is even a possibility. in fact, you've actually supported the opposite case by providing two more states that require lawful presence in order to receive a ID.

Did you bother checking the link I provided THREE TIMES ALREADY in this thread regarding the RealID program and Enhanced Driver's Licenses that can be used as proof of citizenship?
 
2012-04-27 01:26:11 PM
ox45tallboy SmartestFunniest 2012-04-27 01:10:24 PM


relcec: exactly, you gave the authorities in your area your social security card which is a form of legal presence identification. after that you just needed to prove you were you, not that you were still a citizen that has the right to remain in the united states permanently. so why is this such a big problem?

You see, I went to college in TN as well, where my roommate one semester was from Russia. He had a Social Security card as well, only it was stamped, "Not Valid for Work."

Guess what? He got a TN driver's license that looked just like mine. The SS card was for identification, not proof of citizenship.


it was proof that he was legally present, no? why wouldn't arizona see that TN requires proof of legal presence and say that TN IDs are presumptive proof?It is your contention that many people will have state IDs from places that don't meet sb1070 requirements, yet you've so far not adduced any examples. The argument doesn't fly if you are claiming real problems exist but you are unable to produce evidence to support the fact that this is even a possibility. in fact, you've actually supported the opposite case by providing two more states that require lawful presence in order to receive a ID.

Did you bother checking the link I provided THREE TIMES ALREADY in this thread regarding the RealID program and Enhanced Driver's Licenses that can be used as proof of citizenship?


I did read that. I didn't know what to make of it. was that like a promotional website for the company who makes the technology for the IDs or something? sounds like maybe half a dozen states have plans to roll out some type of real ID with a rfid in it.
tell me what you got from it.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report