Governor Ignores ACLU, Signs Anti-Immigration Bill

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[irishfan]

The ACLU is off in the weeds most of the time. I prefer the Institute for Justice.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I still don't understand why it's necessary to make a state law saying it's illegal to break federal law.

Oh well....

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, I realize that this is the cause for the new state laws, but it still doesn't address the why.

Why is the Federal Government shirking their immigration and border protection responsibilities? Can we truthfully say it's in an effort to enlarge the entitlement rolls and add voters to the Progressive Democrat base? GWB had the exact same policies, so I don't think that's the root of it.

Is it in some effort to form an American Union? This might be more plausible since the Progressive Democrat and Progressive Republican parties are both big on One World Government.

 

[SavageEagle]

Wow!! People are proud of this statement?? Do we only care about the 2nd Amendment and not the rest??

Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

Thanks for bringing it back into perspective. The bill of rights only grants Americans those rights, so Mexicans who come here illegally don't have our 4th Amendment rights, BUT people who ARE Americans, but happen to look like Mexicans certainly do have these rights. That's where the gigantic flaw of this plan comes to play. Sure it will crowd out the bad guys (maybe), but it will also tread all over more Americans rights, just like our LTCH. We have the right to keep and bear arms, yet we still have to show that the state says its ok too on our pink piece of paper.

All of us have to carry some form of picture ID, right? Immigrants have to always carry a green card, right? And if you ever have ANY kind of run in with the law, you have to produce said ID, right?

This law doesn't say the police can walk up to just anyone and ask for ID. It says that if you commit even the most minor infraction and LEO steps in (Seat belt violation, speeding, jay-walking), you have to produce proof that you belong here in some way or another. I didn't see anything that requires a birth certificate or social security card.

So... most of us here can agree that illegals are a problem and that they should go through the same process as everyone else, right? Well, then, propose a better solution. If you can do better, lets hear it.

For those that don't mind illegals and think we should have an open border policy and allow just anyone into this Country as they wish.... Why? Why would you want terrorist that want nothing more to kill us all have free reign to come and go as they please in this Country???? Do you not realize we are still at WAR?

 

[Fletch]

All of us have to carry some form of picture ID, right? Immigrants have to always carry a green card, right? And if you ever have ANY kind of run in with the law, you have to produce said ID, right?

Correct. "Right" is another question.

This law doesn't say the police can walk up to just anyone and ask for ID. It says that if you commit even the most minor infraction and LEO steps in (Seat belt violation, speeding, jay-walking), you have to produce proof that you belong here in some way or another. I didn't see anything that requires a birth certificate or social security card.

There's already been posted in one of the multitudes of immigration threads, the case of the dude born in Puerto Rico, with a valid ID, who is/was looking at deportation to Mexico because the powers-that-be decided he was an illegal Mexican immigrant despite the ID saying that he wasn't. The fact that this can happen means that for all practical purposes, birth certificate/social security card is required, until/unless those same powers-that-be also decide these are insufficient and require "made in the USA" to be tattooed on one's ass. The case provides a perfect example of how this sort of thing can go awry. If you can't get your mind around that, it's going to be hard to carry on a reasonable discussion.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[cosermann]

Wow!! People are proud of this statement?? Do we only care about the 2nd Amendment and not the rest??

That was a statement by the author of the post, not the governor, and the statement is akin to the anti-gunners claiming shall issue laws were going to cause "blood to run in the streets."

Didn't happen. And, this law shouldn't lead to the practice predicted in the statement either if it's written similarly to the AZ law and executed properly.

 

[rambone]

That was a statement by the author of the post, not the governor, and the statement is akin to the anti-gunners claiming shall issue laws were going to cause "blood to run in the streets."

Didn't happen. And, this law shouldn't lead to the practice predicted in the statement either if it's written similarly to the AZ law and executed properly.

Well that is what I was hoping was the case, in legal reality.

Although I can't believe people on this board would read that quoted statement and cheer.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If the states were to just write a law that says, "State executive officers shall have the authority to enforce Federal Law," we could avoid a lot of this BS.

...IMO...

 

[SavageEagle]

Correct. "Right" is another question.



There's already been posted in one of the multitudes of immigration threads, the case of the dude born in Puerto Rico, with a valid ID, who is/was looking at deportation to Mexico because the powers-that-be decided he was an illegal Mexican immigrant despite the ID saying that he wasn't. The fact that this can happen means that for all practical purposes, birth certificate/social security card is required, until/unless those same powers-that-be also decide these are insufficient and require "made in the USA" to be tattooed on one's ass. The case provides a perfect example of how this sort of thing can go awry. If you can't get your mind around that, it's going to be hard to carry on a reasonable discussion.

Hey, if that guy didn't have his birth certificate at his home for them to go check out, that's his own fault. I'm willing to venture to say that 99% of this board could go, right now (if they were at home), and come back 5-10 minutes later and have their BC in hand. It would be unwise not to be able to.

Also, that case is also abuse of power. If people would grow some balls and stand up for what's right, government officials wouldn't get away with corruption and mistakes like that.

But, you know, if you can't get your mind around that, it's going to be hard to carry on a reasonable discussion.

 

[Expat]

Hey, if that guy didn't have his birth certificate at his home for them to go check out, that's his own fault. I'm willing to venture to say that 99% of this board could go, right now (if they were at home), and come back 5-10 minutes later and have their BC in hand. It would be unwise not to be able to.

I know a certain POTUS that can't

 

[Fletch]

Hey, if that guy didn't have his birth certificate at his home for them to go check out, that's his own fault. I'm willing to venture to say that 99% of this board could go, right now (if they were at home), and come back 5-10 minutes later and have their BC in hand. It would be unwise not to be able to.

Why? Why should an ostensibly free person of an ostensibly free society be required to prove anything? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If you think I'm illegal, you should have to prove that I came from elsewhere. I should not have to prove that I came from here.

 

[christman]

Why? Why should an ostensibly free person of an ostensibly free society be required to prove anything? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If you think I'm illegal, you should have to prove that I came from elsewhere. I should not have to prove that I came from here.

That sounds really backwards in this type of case.

How about, if you think I shouldn't be able to drive legally on U.S. roads, then prove I can't. Well that wouldn't work would it. Or how about when your Bank requires an ID for certain things? Why not do the same thing for tax refunds?

The vertebrate of society would be in turmoil if ID wasn't required for so many liberties we front.

 

[Fletch]

That sounds really backwards in this type of case.

How about, if you think I shouldn't be able to drive legally on U.S. roads, then prove I can't. Well that wouldn't work would it. Or how about when your Bank requires an ID for certain things? Why not do the same thing for tax refunds?

The vertebrate of society would be in turmoil if ID wasn't required for so many liberties we front.

If ID is required, it's not a liberty, it's a license. Free people don't have to ask permission.

 

[Expat]

Why? Why should an ostensibly free person of an ostensibly free society be required to prove anything? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If you think I'm illegal, you should have to prove that I came from elsewhere. I should not have to prove that I came from here.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Only the government is required to presume your innocence. Everyone else can assume you're guilty.

I'm 100% in favor of abolishing drivers licenses. Complete waste of time and resources.

 

[JBusch8899]

.