BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 03 May 10 - 01:17 PM

The wording of Senate Bill AR 1070 has been modified to clarify the language of the portion of the Bill you copied, John. I'll see if I can find it online and copy it.

The purpose of the new wording was to clear up any misunderstanding that existed regarding a police officer requesting proof of citizenship from anyone arrested for allegedly commiting a crime.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 May 10 - 03:16 AM

For DougR:

Arizona Senate Bill S.B. 1070, ENACTED:

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

A. …

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

"Lawful contact" undoubtedly includes asking (presumed innocent) witnesses to an antisocial act or other event in which a crime may have occurred for their observations of events they may have witnessed. In many situations, the police have the authority to detain "for questioning" persons NOT SUSPECTED OF PARTICIPATION IN ANY UNLAWFUL ACT. Hesitation in responding, while it might be due to simply "not wanting to get involved" or fear of retaliation by someone who might be accused of an offence, could be considered by the officer, and is NOT EXCLUDED, as a cause for "reasonable suspicion," in which case the officer would be bound, by this law, to attempt to determine the legality of the person's presence in the US.

It is NOT, under the definitions and terms stated by this law, necessary that the person who's lawful presence MUST be questioned must be suspected (reasonable cause or otherwise) of ANY VIOLATION OF ANY LAW.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 May 10 - 01:59 AM

Mouser: "Added to my "scroll past" list: GfS"

Promise??...Thank you!

Ebbers: "Frankly, GfS, I admire you even less when you try to be cutesy and funny. 'Tain't fittin.'"

Well, it figures, you thought it was 'cutesy and funny'...but still couldn't crack a smile.....Brrrr, must be cold up there!

Oh well,..but still smiling!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 01:53 AM

Has not committed a crime? You mean who is not suspected of having committed a crime? Only a jury can say if a person has committed a crime or not. Not a cop.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 03 May 10 - 01:51 AM

Ron Davies: No, I haven't forgotten, but you said you read the law. Perhaps you only have a reading level of first grade, I have no way of knowing, but IF you really read the law, it's quite clear that a law enforcement officer would be in violation of the law if he asked for proof of citizenship from someone who has not committed a crime. Racial profiling is clearly prohibited.

Read the Bill!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:48 PM

Added to my "scroll past" list: GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 10 - 10:56 PM

Frankly, GfS, I admire you even less when you try to be cutesy and funny. 'Tain't fittin.'

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 May 10 - 10:56 PM

Gee Doug, you somehow have forgotten to give us the exact quote in the new law that specifies that involvement in a non-immigration- related crime must be present in order for a person to be apprehended under the new law.

Can't understand how that could have slipped your mind.

Yet you assure us that this provision is in the new law. Surely it would be no problem for you to give us the page number and exact quote.

We'll be waiting for you to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 10 - 10:28 PM

Mouser: "Only if the drug smugglers are all illegal immigrants. Your proof?"

You must be an AC/DC fan!

Genie: "Alex, my point is that when we talk about the DRACONIAN(?) new Arizona "papers, please" law or the issue of illegal immigraton in general, someone always drags in the issue of drug smuggling...(blah blah blah.."

These naive dreamers tend to do a lot of 'what if's' and stuff like that..come on, Genie, Get real!..What is more illegal?..ILLEGAL drugs or ILLEGAL immigration????

Ebbers: "What are the chances that this law will breed that kind of gainful employment? Bounty hunting used to be very common, and it would seem that the opportunity of nosing around to find and apprehend illegal "aliens" could be very lucrative...."

Stick to house cleaning and baking whole wheat bread, with glazed fixed eyes over the bay!

Ebbers: ""If we really wanted immigration reform, we'd have had it years ago."

This time you are exactly CORRECT!! I posted what their goal is, on a previous post. Neither party's administration will enforce it, because the corporate heavies won't allow them too...and after all, who do you think is calling the shots???...The President??????
The international bankers, and those behind them has wanted chips in everyone, for total control. There are plenty of sites to go into that further...Oh, by the way Ross Perot's company EDT developed them years ago..since the have been 'new breakthroughs'(?)..however, cancer and other health problems have also developed with them..as tests have shown!

Mouser: "I knew I had missed something."

We hold these truths to be self evident.

Genie: "The "war on drugs" may be concrete, but I'm not going to blame "illegal immigrants" for people being killed for the sake of prohibition of marijuana and cocaine."

A bit of advice: Don't party or hang out at your dealer's house!

Mouser: "Not sure what point you're making, Genie."

See above.

Mouser: "At least the "war on drugs" is a war on a concrete noun, unlike the "war on terror" which is a war on an abstract noun."

But one thing they have in common, they are both part of 'slight of hand' lies!!!

Genie: "Fossil, where is one supposed to carry that ID card when skinny dipping? ; )"

Love to tell you, but discretion is the better part of valor...however, here's a hint:...To extract them, pick the two fingers you like the least.........

Winking at all!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 09:53 PM

Only if the drug smugglers are all illegal immigrants. Your proof?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: pdq
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:17 PM

If you stop all illegal immigrants at the border you will also be stopping the drug smugglers.

That is not as difficult a concept as people are trying to make it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:05 PM

Alex, my point is that when we talk about the draconian new Arizona "papers, please" law or the issue of illegal immigraton in general, someone always drags in the issue of drug smuggling - often as rationalization or justification for these sweeping new laws. I'm just saying that drug smuggling isn't always done by illegals or other non-citizens and that most of the crime associated with drugs would probably go away if our government didn't single out drugs like marijuana and cocaine for prohibition and spend so much money and manpower on trying to prevent their recreational use.    Neither of those two drugs is inherently any more dangerous than alcohol or some prescription meds, but the latter are tolerated and merely regulated, while we waste money and lives trying to stamp out the use of the former.    To blame illegal immigrants or the "porous border" for the violence associated with drug trafficking is misplacing the target.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:23 PM

Ron Davies: I have read the law. I am not a immigration lawyer, are you?

You state, in a recent post, "First if is clear the goal is to fight illegal immigration and than many citizens plan to use it (the law I assume) to do that.

The purpose of the law is to STOP illegal immigration, NOT fight it.

You also state, "A few problems: if lawful contacts made by a law enforcement official and 'reasonable suspion exists that the person may be an alien', the person can be apprehended."

If the person is stopped by a law enforcement officer while commiting a crime the officer can ask to see identification identifying the person as a legal citizen of the U.S. If the suspect cannot provide proof of citizenship, the officer will contact ICE to determind if an arrest should be made. That's not quite what your post says.

I am not going to get bogged down discussing whether or not the law is constitutional. That will be determined by the courts. If the Supermes rule that it is not, that will be the end of it. Until then, it seems to me arguing constitutionality is a waste of breath and time.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 10 - 05:22 PM

Someone above mentioned 'bounty hunter' type activity. What are the chances that this law will breed that kind of gainful employment? Bounty hunting used to be very common, and it would seem that the opportunity of nosing around to find and apprehend illegal "aliens" could be very lucrative.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:13 PM

Having looked (briefly) at the Huffingpoop linked by bb, I must advise that most people probably should NOT bother with it. In usual Huff-n-Puff manner, it fails to identify any source. It "cites" things "included in the bill" but doesn't identify "a bill" that exists.

A link at the bottom of the "report" goes to a "FULL SUMMARY" as a source:

I'm at a loss to discern the meaning of "full summary" here, since it gives no source that is "summarized," and I'm unable to distinguish between a "full" summary and an "ordinary" summary (which might, of course, be a summary of a full summary?)

The "source" linked by Huff-n-Puff is NOT a piece of legislation, or even proposed legislation; but is - at best - a "proposed position" statement that enumerates a multitude of "pie-in-the-sky-possibly-good-things" that might be worth considering when the business of actually writing a bill gets under way.

Most likely it's from an intercepted email "homework" assignment by some newby legislator who was told to "write a proposal for practice."

It must be conceded that the extreme reliance in Huffy's "source" on "modern technology" is something of a joke, in light of recent admissions that the exisitng "electronic/remote-sensors" on the border are a near-total failure, the newest FAA flight control computer system is too dangerously flawed to be safely deployed, and that the Census Bureau's new "automatic" database automatically crashes so frequently that it may be unusable; but that's something to be reviewed later IF actual legislation can be started.

The Arizona Senate Bill linked later is at least "credible;" but careful readers will note that only amended sub paragraphs of the law are included in the text available. I found numerous "amended paragraphs" whose meaning, intent, and likely effect cannot be discerned without pulling the full Arizona State Code to see what the "overlying section" says.

"Anyone in violation of X.xxx.# may be held liable for ..." has no meaning unless you know what X.xxx.# says, and the bill, as published, does not tell you without additional (and difficult) research of Arizona codes.

The most glaring (apparent) failure of the Arizona law that I perceive is that I can find NO INDICATION of what constitutes "reasonable proof of legal presence." This means that anyone who "might be required to show proof" is given NO INDICATION of what proof is sufficient. This places all legal persons at risk of arrest if the local cop (given authority to adjudicate the case by the AZ Senate Act¹) makes the decision.

¹ Arizona SB-1070 page 3
1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
…
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

What does "communicating with" actually mean? If a local cop calls immigration and says "I've got this guy" does that constitute "communication" and allow the cop to decide to imprison, fine, and/or deport the person? It probably does if "report to ICE" is the only action required of the cop by the US Code. I suppose the cop could look up USC 1373(c), but I've known several who probably would rely on the "chief" (who also might not bother to look it up) for advice.

Advice: Read very carefully, and think about whether what it looks like the law says is what it actually does say. At present, I find it impossible to be too sure of much of anything.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:02 PM

Strangely you don't see a lot of pasty skin out in front of the Home Depot looking for day labor jobs. And yet they complain that the illegal immigrants are taking away jobs from "Americans". Do I believe my eyes, or the rhetoric of the known-to-be-quite-capable-of-lying-through-their-perfect-teeth right? The eyes have it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 May 10 - 02:03 PM

Ron, did you see the part where it says that it is now illegal in AZ to participate in a street-corner labor market? As I read that, and we have them here in Albuquerque, if someone pulls up and says "anybody want to mow my lawn?", anyone who responds is breaking the law, and is then liable to an immigration check. Oh yeah - so is the guy asking for a short-term employee.

Sounds like a Hiring Fair to me - fortunately the UK has progressed since the mid 18th century!!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 12:17 PM

As usual, Pitts hits the nail on the head.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:56 AM

For more, read Leonard Pitts, Jr.

"If we really wanted immigration reform, we'd have had it years ago.

"In 2006, President George W. Bush supported a proposal that would've required undocumented immigrants to take English classes and pay fines and back taxes in exchange for guest worker status and, eventually, citizenship. "I know this is an emotional debate," said Bush. "But one thing we cannot lose sight of is that we're talking about human beings, decent human beings that need to be treated with respect."

"But Bush was shouted down by angry people carrying "Go back to Mexico!" signs. Their counter proposal? To somehow round up and bus an estimated 11 million people to the border, an idea that was to pragmatism and practicality as Lady Gaga is to modesty and restraint. Similar thinking, if you want to call it that, is evident in the bill recently signed into law by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, that has vaulted that state into a raging controversy."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:51 AM

Ron, did you see the part where it says that it is now illegal in AZ to participate in a street-corner labor market? As I read that, and we have them here in Albuquerque, if someone pulls up and says "anybody want to mow my lawn?", anyone who responds is breaking the law, and is then liable to an immigration check. Oh yeah - so is the guy asking for a short-term employee.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:44 AM

I knew I had missed something.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:35 AM

Mousethief, I believe Genie is responding to the attempt by GUEST.DavidE to conflate illegal immigration in Arizona with the shooting of a police office by MJ smugglers.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:33 AM

OK, I've read the Arizona law again, kindly provided to us by Doug in a link to his posting of 30 April 2010 7:21 PM.   

We are--again--getting off track here. Let's get back to the wording of the law itself.

It would be advisable if all parties were to read it, prominent among these being Doug himself.

Doug assures us that no person would be picked up under the new law unless the person is already involved in a non-immigration-related offense.

Fine, Doug.   Exact quote needed, with page number.

The closest thing I have found is "law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the US".

"Any public offense":   that would, it seems, include immigration-related offenses.

So where exactly is the provision that an offense which has nothing to do with immigration must be present before the officer arrests the person?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 11:20 AM

Not sure what point you're making, Genie.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 02 May 10 - 05:19 AM

The "war on drugs" may be concrete, but I'm not going to blame "illegal immigrants" for people being killed for the sake of prohibition of marijuana and cocaine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 02:10 AM

At least the "war on drugs" is a war on a concrete noun, unlike the "war on terror" which is a war on an abstract noun.

Used to be wars were fought against countries. It was easier to know when the war was over and funding could be diverted back to useful domestic programs. Wars against nouns tend to look like excuses for funneling money in certain directions, while pandering to popular fears or hatreds.

But then as the Foremen said, it's "in" to be in a war.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 10 - 01:24 AM

Genie: "I'd say people getting killed in connection with drug smuggling has more to do with our insane "war on drugs" than with immigration issues.   
And that's a topic for another thread."

As I've previously posted, being as they are allowed to ignore our laws, I suppose for the sake of equality,(our own, this time), We should all get to pick a law, that we can ignore with impunity. That might kill two birds with one stone!..(smirk)....unless you pick taxes! That should get their attention!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 01 May 10 - 05:12 PM

I'd say people getting killed in connection with drug smuggling has more to do with our insane "war on drugs" than with immigration issues.   
And that's a topic for another thread.

Ron, you're right about "reasonable suspicion" being too vague a concept for a law like this. As I said, this law seems to be designed to line the pockets of those dreaded "trial lawyers" (plus some bounty hunter types) - at the expense of the state of Arizona and many of its cities.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:41 PM

Actually, DavidE, it is all over both the on-line and print media. What does that have to do with illegal immigrants? Other than, of course, that they tend to cross the same border region?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:29 PM

And oh yes by the way, yet another Arizona cop has been shot by drug smugglers. Not that that will get much attention in the media...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_deputy_shot

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 10 - 12:52 PM

I have now read the text of the new law, so kindly provided to us by Doug's link.

It would be appreciated if he himself would read it. Indeed, we all should.

First, it makes clear the goal is to fight illegal immigration, and that many citizens plan to use it to do that.


A few problems: If lawful contact is made by a law enforcement official and "reasonable suspicion exists that the the person may be an alien" the person may be apprehended.

And "a person may bring an action in Superior Court to challenge any official who...implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws"   "Limits or restricts"--as seen by the irate citizen.

Put those together:   If the policeman does not find "reasonable suspicion" when informed by a citizen that the person in question "may be an alien", he may be sued.

So when a citizen points at a person as an illegal alien, how many policemen will refuse to apprehend the person, and thereby risk being sued?

That seems to be the crux of the law--and the reason Arizona under it would be rapidly heading towards Third Reich status.   Instead of Jews, it would be aliens.

No wonder some police themselves were against it--including the Association of Arizona Chiefs of Police. They have enough to do without being tasked with enforcing immigration law.



I'd like Doug to give us an actual citation from the law which proves that the person would have to have already be involved in a non-immigration related crime.

I've read what Arizona would plan to use in this regard is the "Terry" law--that a policeman may stop and frisk someone for weapons if they have a "reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken or is about to take place and the subject is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches andd seizures."   Affirmed by the US Supreme Court.

However I see nothing in the Arizona law about requiring "a reasonable suspicion" that the subject is armed and dangerous.   

Finally, the whole foundation is "reasonable suspicion".   That is entirely too hazy a concept for a law like this.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 10:58 PM

Beardedbruce, I never thought you were in support of what you posted, I was just adding to it, and underlying, the understanding of what is ACTUALLY going on, with our corrupt idiots in power!

To all those who posted, in reply to my post: I understand your positions. I was NOT taking exception, to your posts....Thanks for broaching the subject!!

Respectfully,..(and humming a new composition),

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 10:23 PM

I've been unable to find any reference to a 'chip' on any neutral site, nor can I find the text of the draft proposal itself. CNN.com simply says 'machine-readable', which would include both bar-coding and magnetic strips.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM

DougR: you've made it quite clear that all law enforcers are racist, so ...

You no read so good. Bzzzt. Try again.

GfS: The post below is mine...forgot to sign in.

Would never have known.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 09:26 PM

Aarrgghh!   The Mudcat software just ate my reply to Bearded Bruce, and it was the hardest to redo.

What you say the Obama administration is proposing, BB, is not a microchip that could be read by merchants, etc. Nor is it a card that contains all your security info right there on the card to be seen by anyone who gets hold of the card. Nor is anything being said about people having to have the card on their person at all times.

If I lose my driver license or credit card, I can report the loss and the card is immediately invalidated. Then it's not extremely hard to get a new one issued; usually just a matter of a day or two for a DL (if I go to the MV office in person) and maybe a week for a credit card. These cards have an exclusive ID number which, when run through a data base by the legitimate authorities (the credit card issuer or the police), will link to other identifying info. A person who has my card won't automatically be taken to be me, if they don't match my description and can't answer the security questions in the database.   That security info doesn't need to all be ON the card, and SHOULD NOT be.

I would not even mind "carrying" an ID tag on me at nearly all times if it were small, like my cat's pet license tag, and had only my ID number on it. That sort of thing could be carrried or worn unobtrusively even if you were in a swimsuit, and it could be very helpful to authorities if you were injured and unconscious away from home.   Like the ID card or my pet's license, the tag number could be run through an official database to determine the identity of the person it was issued to.

But it should not have a chip in it that was readable by merchants or just anyone who wanted to snoop.   In fact, there should be some technology that allowed the chip to be turned off at most times, so that your every movement would not be tracked.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 09:01 PM

Doug, I have read both SB 1070 and HB 2162, in detail, on the official site. My opinion that this law violates our Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure is unchanged. Saying that a police officer did not have "probable cause" after a person has already been locked up for not having proper ID is unacceptable. Today's change includes the lovely concept that lawful contact can include an officer's use of the new immigration law "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state." Taking this to an extreme, I'd imagine this could include immigration checks based upon overdue library books.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:55 PM

GtS,

I did not post that article because I agreed with it- but it seems Obama will not be criticised for doing what Az is being labeled racist for.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:50 PM

pdq "It has to do with the police being racists."

So that's what it's all about. The cops are guilty of racism before they even talk to a suspect.

Mouser: "It has to do with the police being racists."

Let's get off the over-worn 'racist' bit!! Seems like every time the left wants to intimidate others with 'political correctness' overdoses ad-nauseum, they blurt out 'racist'.
First of all, Mexicans are a nationality, not a race! A lot of them are here ILLEGALLY!!! Now the law can be enforced on the grounds of 'racism??..what a crock of shit!!!

Beardedbruce: "It would create a national ID -- which is dubbed a "biometric social security card." Though Democrats insist that it is not an ID card and can only be used for employment purposes."


Big Corporatism has been wanting to chip everyone for a long time, and now, like the Machiavellian, bullshit their foisting on us, it seems like to 'appease' everyone, they offer chips to us. THAT IS BULLSHIT!!!...and once again the public is being MANIPULATED, by corporate heads, through the political parties, to a worked up emotional people, through a problem that they CREATED...to achieve a goal they have long wanted...and under normal sanity, YOU DON'T WANT, EITHER!!!

As long as we're there, one of the steps along the way, is to discredit Christianity, which they are obsessed in doing, BECAUSE 2000 years ago this was predicted, and their big obstacle is the remnant, of Bible literate Christians who know about it. Unfortunately, lots of them have deluded themselves with the 'rapture' doctrine, in which they think they won't be here for this...boy, are they in for one helluva surprise!

Chipping everyone should be opposed by EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:42 PM

David E, "I believe that Oregon, Idaho, Colorado and Oklahoma already have laws to keep Californians out anyway... (joke)"


That's right, David. Here in Oregon, we stop California beer trucks at the border and won't let them in.   Our great microbreweries and Henry Weinhardt got that passed.
; )

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:27 PM

Mousethief: I doubt, Mousethief, that it would be impossible for any legislature to craft an immigrant Bill that would be acceptable to you. Any Bill would have to involve the police and you've made it quite clear that all law enforcers are racist, so ...

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:58 PM

"It has to do with the police being racists."

So that's what it's all about. The cops are guilty of racism before they even talk to a suspect.

Do process? Presumption of innocense? Constitutional rights must be stripped from someone when they put on a badge?

In the real world, cops in the western US usually have a college degree and must speak fluent Spanish to do a job where they meet the public. They also have to take more psychological tests than any other profession.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:56 PM

"It has to do with the police being racists."

I am so grateful that my son decided not to pursue a career in law enforcement and have to deal with people with bad attitudes all day long. What a thankless job.         

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:31 PM

I don't read HuffPo. What does it have to do with the law being loose? It has to do with the police being racists. No matter how tight the law is, it will very often come down to a case of his word against his. And cops win.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:21 PM

I think your reaching, Mousethief. The law is not that loose. Read it. Google Arizona SB 1070 and read the law itself. Be sure, however, to read the law at the official state website listed rather than the opinioned Huffington Report which also is listed at that site.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:55 PM

DougR, that's useless. If you get pulled over by a cop, whether or not they pulled you over legally is your word against theirs. Whom is the judge going to believe? If you selected "mine" go back 10 spaces.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 04:46 PM

Genie, Art: I urge both of you to check out the actual wording of the Arizona law. It's probably online and if I find it I'll post the website. Before the legislature adjourned today, they sent the governor some revisions to law intended to more clearly define how a policeman/woman can legally ask someone stopped for breaking a law must provide proof of citizenship. I don't know if the governor has accepted the changes.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 03:36 PM

Just to compare with what the Obama Administration wants:


--------------------------------------------------------------------

"National ID Card Included In Democratic Immigration Bill
         

Thu Apr 29, 8:05 pm ET

Democrats pushed forward on an immigration overhaul on Thursday evening with no Republican support, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) continues to hold out, arguing that the divisive issue will make progress on climate change legislation impossible.

The Senate is also in the middle of debating Wall Street reform, which is expected to take up the next few weeks of floor time. Reid, however, said that the chamber would be able to handle the task. "We can do more than one thing at once," he said.

The Democratic proposal includes increased money for border patrol and drug war agents, equipment, helicopters and unmanned drones. It would create a national ID -- which is dubbed a "biometric social security card." Though Democrats insist that it is not an ID card and can only be used for employment purposes.

The proposal would also include a crackdown on employers who hire undocumented workers. It works to deport some immigrants who are not in the country legally and creates a limited pathway to citizenship for others.

Democrats brought out their heavy hitters for the announcement: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.); Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who's been leading the push for immigration reform; Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.); Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

The crackdown on employers relies on the creation of national identity cards. "These cards will be fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear resistant, and machine-readable social security cards containing a photograph and an electronically coded micro-processing chip which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card-bearer," reads the bill summary.

Broadly, the proposal includes:

1. More Border Patrol officers
2. More Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, worksite inspectors, document fraud investigators and drug-war agents
3. The "installation of high-tech ground sensors throughout the southern border and for equipping all border patrol officers with the technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling."
4. More prosecution of drug smuggling, human trafficking and unauthorized border crossing
5. "[I]ncreases in the number of sport utility vehicles, helicopters, power boats, river boats, portable computers to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers while inside of a border patrol vehicle, night vision equipment, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS), scope trucks, and Mobile Surveillance Systems (MSS)."
6. All prisoners will be checked for immigration status and deported if found to lack documentation.
7. DHS will "identify, investigate, and initiate removal proceedings" against folks who came here legally but didn't leave.
8. The bill would create "a broad-based registration program that requires all illegal immigrants living in the U.S. to come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes."




source


----------------------------------------------------------------

Note number 6.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:50 PM

For the benefit of those who appear not to know, Dicey, the great constitutional lawyer, and probably the most influential writer ever on common-law constitutional law (which for this purpose includes US law since the US constitution overlies a body of a common law ethos) postulated that in common-law jurisdictions one was free to do anything that was not prohibited (which he regarded as the essential foundation of true freedom under law) whereas in civil law jurisdictions the fundamental was that one merely had the right to exercise those rights that were specifically conferred.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:21 PM

"Sorry Arizona, you're all Mexicans now. You too Texas and California."

I believe that Oregon, Idaho, Colorado and Oklahoma already have laws to keep Californians out anyway... (joke)

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 10:04 AM

OK then lets lock down the border with Mexico. But first let's restore it to where it was in 1835, before we started stealing their land. Sorry Arizona, you're all Mexicans now. You too Texas and California.