The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:56 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 396



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Ka7y8XrPc

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:47 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Disappointing, but fortunatly perfectly legal (go go first amendment)

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
I'm definitely happy that portions of the law were suspended. Of course, the Virginia AG just instructed his officers to violate civil liberties by asking for papers from anyone they pull over. Of course, there won't be any racial profiling involved in those calls. Naaaaah. Never happen. *eyeroll*

edit - and just to be clear on the issue in play here. Desecrating the flag of the United States is disrespectful. Calling for open armed revolution against the United States or secession is patriotic.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:43 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Would you consider a law requiring all immigrants to hold proof of immigration on them at all time to be rights infringing Monte?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:45 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
I'm definitely happy that portions of the law were suspended. Of course, the Virginia AG just instructed his officers to violate civil liberties by asking for papers from anyone they pull over. Of course, there won't be any racial profiling involved in those calls. Naaaaah. Never happen. *eyeroll*

edit - and just to be clear on the issue in play here. Desecrating the flag of the United States is disrespectful. Calling for open armed revolution against the United States or secession is patriotic.


It's not a violation of civil liberties ot ask for identification from someone you pull over. They aren't "papers". they're driver's liscenses and the like. You don't even have to provide one of those; you can provide your name and date of birth verbally. There is no such thing as a right to not identify yourself when you've been stopped. There's a right to not have to provide physical identification, but even that doesn't exist if you are the one driving.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:05 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Elmarnieh wrote:
Would you consider a law requiring all immigrants to hold proof of immigration on them at all time to be rights infringing Monte?


Heheh

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Elmarnieh wrote:
Would you consider a law requiring all immigrants to hold proof of immigration on them at all time to be rights infringing Monte?



Yes. It presumes guilt. In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the state to prove in a court of law that they are not in fact citizens. Forcing people to carry papers is beneath us. There is simply no way these laws will be enforced without racial discrimination and profiling leading the charge. Sound "mexican"? Well, let's just make sure you're a citizen. You, Mr. Canadian? You can walk on by. Hey, there's a brown skinned guy looking for work! Check his papers! (but, what about the Irish guy that's working despite the lapse in his visa? *crickets*)

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:11 am 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Since you feel so strongly about that, perhaps you'd best familiarize yourself with Federal immigration laws.
I'd suggest looking at when people who are issued Green Cards, and proof of Permanent Resident Alien status are required to carry them.

As you are so vehemently against the AZ law, which requires a citizenship check after a lawful stop for another matter has been made, you might want to research unanimous Supreme Court decision in the matter of Muehler, Darin v. Mena, Iris (03/22/2005).

A little research will alleviate your ignorance on the matter, as well as show which direction you should be directing your venom. When you argue from a position of ignorance, it really hurts your credibility.

Sorry I stepped on your line Elmo, but I'm sure there's plenty for you to add.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
I really dislike the requirement because it's either superfluous and annoying or it basically singles out honest people who made a mistake for punishment. Remember, an illegal immigrant can simply lie and say he's a citizen to explain why he doesn't have papers. If the police can verify whether such a claim is accurate, why are we burdening people by forcing them to carry documents? If the police can't verify that claim, then the only people who are going to get nailed by the law are the honest ones who admit they aren't citizens and don't have papers. I'm really having difficulty figuring out how such a requirement could ever assist in detaining an illegal immigrant, unless you somehow got a really stupid one that claimed they were a legal immigrant, but not a citizen.

As far as the actual AZ law goes, they changed it so having a valid driver's license is a presumption of innocence anyway, so for people here legally it's not a burden, they don't have to carry their expensive INS documentation around.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Xequecal wrote:
If the police can verify whether such a claim is accurate, why are we burdening people by forcing them to carry documents?
"burdening" people by foring them to carry documents?

Get a grip, X. It's not a burden - I carry my drivers license and social security ID with me everywhere.

I also carry paper or plastic if I want to purchase something. I carry a phone every time I walk out the door, and I have keys in my pocket.

These are just things I need to carry to be able to interact within my environment. The "burden" quotient is nill.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:28 am 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
Last week, some anti-SB1070 protesters blocked off one side of I-19 down here in Tucson. The entire southbound side had glass and tires put over one strip to prevent traffic from proceeding. The reason? It's the highway used to bring people back to Mexico.

Reports that day said traffic was backed up 2 1/2 miles.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/029be245-8b6 ... 3394d2760e
Quote:
Immigration Protests: An Act of Domestic Terrorism

It seems as though illegal immigration advocates will never be satisfied. After Judge Susan Bolton blocked the most controversial parts of SB 1070, essentially taking out all real power from the bill, a group known as "Freedom for Arizona," committed an act of domestic terrorism by spreading out over 15 tires connected by rope and covered in tar, a banner, brown paint and shards of broken glass across I-19 in Arizona, a busy interstate with a 65 mph speed limit covering approximatly 70 miles between Tucson and Nogales. This action not only stopped all traffic flow, but could have killed innocent people in the process.


The goal of the tires, glass and paint was to stop all deportations back to Mexico as well as stopping all capital flow to damage the economy. The banner placed across the interstate read, "Stop All Militarization! The Border is Illegal!"

The group took full responsibility for the closure on their blog, Resistance to SB1070: No Borders, No State No Papers (http://sb1070resistance.blogspot.com/20 ... state.html):

Quote:
Partial justice is no justice at all! Despite Judge ruling to block parts of SB 1070, racial-profiling, raids, deportations and the militarization of the border will continue unchallenged. This is why today we shut down Interstate 19 (I-19).

The group issued a statement on their blog the day before shutting down the freeway exposing their plan and claimed that land in Arizona is indiginous:
Quote:
The State of Arizona ruthlessly disrupts and terrorizes the lives of non-white communities on a daily basis. SB 1070 is yet another example of how migrants and people of color are criminalized. Today’s action is a declaration of resistance to the criminalization of affected communities and the militarization of indigenous land.

Neither SB 1070 nor the deployment of National Guard troops to the border do anything to address the root causes as to why people migrate. U.S. economic policies and wars have displaced and impoverished millions of people all over the world. Capital-driven policies, such as NAFTA, create poverty. These policies and laws not only consume and exploit land and people, but they also displace us from our homes, forcing us to migrate in order to survive. If policymakers were serious about stopping “illegal immigration,” they would end these capitalist exploitations and stop their military invasions abroad.

We want an end to the militarization of indigenous land, I.C.E. raids, deportations, the attacks on ethnic studies, violence against women and queer people, the expansion of prisons and immigration detention centers, empire, the border wall and the genocide at the Arizona-Sonora border that has claimed the lives of over 153 people during the first 8 months of this fiscal year alone.

Today we interrupt the flow of Arizona’s traffic to bring attention to the following points:

ABOLISH ALL OF SB 1070 AND OTHER ANTI-MIGRANT LAWS.

STOP ALL MILITARIZATION. NO NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ON INDIGENOUS LAND.

BORDERS AND THE ARIZONA GOVERNMENT ARE ILLEGITIMATE.

NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL—THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS TO BLAME.

WE WANT RESPECT AND JUSTICE FOR ALL PEOPLE.

We affirm our dignity and promote the well-being of all people. We stand for solidarity, peace, self-determination and autonomy. We assert the rights of all people everywhere to feel safe and live free of oppression and state violence.

On top of that, according to the Arizona Daily Star, 13 people were arrested in downtown Tucson for blocking local streets. In Phoenix the Arizona Republic has reported at least 50 people were arrested for civil disobediance which included chaining themselves to one of the jails where Sheriff Joe Arpaio operates.

But don't worry, the mainstream media and people with their head in the sand are calling the protests "mostly peaceful." Open border groups and immigration protestors are showing their true colors and proving this fight has nothing to do with SB 1070 and everything to do with these groups not wanting any enforcement of immigration policy whatsoever.

Image
Image
Image

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:47 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
Yes. It presumes guilt. In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the state to prove in a court of law that they are not in fact citizens.


It does not presume guilt at all. They wouldn't be guilty unless they don't have the identification with them. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with it anyhow; that principle applies only to trials. Charging a person with a crime does not presume them guilty; it accuses them of guilt.

Quote:
Forcing people to carry papers is beneath us.


Forcing citizens to is not something we do. There's no reason noncitizens should not have to. It is not "beneath us" at all. When you go to a foriegn country, you're expected to carry a passport.

Quote:
There is simply no way these laws will be enforced without racial discrimination and profiling leading the charge. Sound "mexican"? Well, let's just make sure you're a citizen. You, Mr. Canadian? You can walk on by. Hey, there's a brown skinned guy looking for work! Check his papers! (but, what about the Irish guy that's working despite the lapse in his visa? *crickets*)


Aside from your ridiculous attempt to make it look racist by referring to a "brown skinned guy", the fact is that there is nothing wrong with discrimination and profiling against noncitizens. It is not Canadians who are coming to this country illegally in huge hordes; in fact the population of illegals in this country is at least one third of Canada's total popualtion. It's not racism; it's just a fact that the people invading this country happen to share (sort of) certain physical attributes. The fact that those attributes is something other than what "white people" are thought to share does not mean we should not enforce the law.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:55 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
I really dislike the requirement because it's either superfluous and annoying or it basically singles out honest people who made a mistake for punishment.


It is not superfluous, annoying is irrelevant, and laws that fine people for causing a traffic accident single out honest people who made a mistake for punishment too.

Quote:
Remember, an illegal immigrant can simply lie and say he's a citizen to explain why he doesn't have papers.


Then he can provide his name and date of birth which can be checked through a car computer or by redio through dispatch. If no information is found, the person is almost certainly lying if they're over 18. They are using fictitious information because there's a warrant for them or they're here illegally.

Quote:
If the police can verify whether such a claim is accurate, why are we burdening people by forcing them to carry documents?


The same reason we require people to carry a driver's license even though the police can verify if you have one. It makes it harder to lie, and when the system is down the information is right there.

Quote:
If the police can't verify that claim, then the only people who are going to get nailed by the law are the honest ones who admit they aren't citizens and don't have papers.


You have no idea how the mechanics of stopping someone to enforce the law actually work, do you?

Quote:
I'm really having difficulty figuring out how such a requirement could ever assist in detaining an illegal immigrant, unless you somehow got a really stupid one that claimed they were a legal immigrant, but not a citizen.


Easily. It saves a ton of time screwing around verifying names and dates of borth.

Quote:
As far as the actual AZ law goes, they changed it so having a valid driver's license is a presumption of innocence anyway, so for people here legally it's not a burden, they don't have to carry their expensive INS documentation around.


Exactly, so what's the problem?

People who carry no ID habitually and are simply honest citizens are a great rarity. Most people want ID; many private establishments ask for it in the course of routine buisness like purchasing with a credit card. When people don't have ID there's a much better chance they're up to no good.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 am 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
You know what?

**** this argument about "carrying papers." You want to live in my country, come here legally. You want to stay in my country, live here legally. Guess what part of the requirement for both those is? Having a **** ID that says that while you may have an accent, you are indeed allowed to be here.

My Scottish neighbor has had to carry her green card on her for 30+ years she's been living in this country, because she actually complies with Federal law.

So here's the bottom line in my mind at this point, because I'm tired of the discussion (and I don't just mean from people here, I mean the country at large):
If you don't want to enforce the law, you are personally advocating and encouraging criminal behavior.

Furthermore, by doing so, you encourage other usurpations of the rule of law as well, and by extension should have no rights.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
The point is that everyone who is driving a car is required to have a driver's license. If the police stop you while driving and you don't have a license that's an offense right there that they can then use to follow up on you. The vast majority of people here, however, are not required to carry a green card by virtue of not needing one. So if the police stop someone and need to verify immigration status the vast majority of the time the green card is not going to help because that person does not have one. I mean, are legal immigrants vastly more likely to raise suspicion of possibly being illegal immigrants than citizens are, such that having this documentation readily available to ease the process of verification is needed? I really don't think so. Unlike the driving a car example, where 100% of people driving cars need a license on them to verify, it's only going to be a tiny number of cases where the target of suspicion is a legal immigrant rather than a citizen or illegal immigrant and could produce this document.

Quote:
You know what?

**** this argument about "carrying papers." You want to live in my country, come here legally. You want to stay in my country, live here legally. Guess what part of the requirement for both those is? Having a **** ID that says that while you may have an accent, you are indeed allowed to be here.

My Scottish neighbor has had to carry her green card on her for 30+ years she's been living in this country, because she actually complies with Federal law.

So here's the bottom line in my mind at this point, because I'm tired of the discussion (and I don't just mean from people here, I mean the country at large):
If you don't want to enforce the law, you are personally advocating and encouraging criminal behavior.

Furthermore, by doing so, you encourage other usurpations of the rule of law as well, and by extension should have no rights.


Sorry, I've never carried my green card around because of the hellish expensive nightmare that would result were I to lose it. Enforcing the federal law would be a colossal waste of time and resources, especially for something that only carries a $100 fine anyway. Even Arizona seems to realize that it would be horribly impractical to check for green cards on people whom that they don't know are a citizen/legal/illegal in the first place and accepts a driver's license as proof of legal status.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:15 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Vindicarre wrote:
Since you feel so strongly about that, perhaps you'd best familiarize yourself with Federal immigration laws.
I'd suggest looking at when people who are issued Green Cards, and proof of Permanent Resident Alien status are required to carry them.

As you are so vehemently against the AZ law, which requires a citizenship check after a lawful stop for another matter has been made, you might want to research unanimous Supreme Court decision in the matter of Muehler, Darin v. Mena, Iris (03/22/2005).

A little research will alleviate your ignorance on the matter, as well as show which direction you should be directing your venom. When you argue from a position of ignorance, it really hurts your credibility.

Sorry I stepped on your line Elmo, but I'm sure there's plenty for you to add.


It's cool. I just got to work a bit ago. I've been hacking up pea soup from my lungs all night, fever, wracking coughs so bad my stomach and sides are aching now. No voice. Works been short staffed so I gotta help out. You were going right where I was going. Although I was going to ask Monte if he thought having to carry ones drivers license was a presumption of guilt (no idea how he even maintains that its a presumption of guilt but thats another matter).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:19 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Xequecal wrote:
Sorry, I've never carried my green card around because of the hellish expensive nightmare that would result were I to lose it.


Then get the **** out. Don't like the law? Change it.

You chose to be here, so you CHOSE that risk of expense. That's your problem.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:21 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Furthermore, if we're only to enforce laws based upon what is practical or what carries a large fine, what kind of ethical code is that? What does that say about us as a society?

"Oh, I'm sorry, I can't investigate that murder, because we can't bring them back anyway so it'd just cost a lot of money and there'd be no return on our investment."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
You're making an excellent case for having fewer ridiculous laws that impose a huge burden for no real benefit. Seriously, you want the government to enforce every law? You have some idea how many laws there actually are, right? Especially the legacy ones that are horribly retarded. (This would be a good example.)

I have no idea how anyone could read that Federal law and think that it's a good idea to carry their green card around. The chance of you losing it or having it stolen is an order of magnitude greater than a law enforcement official actually asking you to produce it, and the consequences if the former happens are far greater. You're talking about an offense here that's less serious than speeding, there's no reason to get all high and mighty over it even if you believe that there is some kind of moral duty to obey the law, because everyone commits more serious legal violations every single day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:44 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
The point is that everyone who is driving a car is required to have a driver's license. If the police stop you while driving and you don't have a license that's an offense right there that they can then use to follow up on you. The vast majority of people here, however, are not required to carry a green card by virtue of not needing one. So if the police stop someone and need to verify immigration status the vast majority of the time the green card is not going to help because that person does not have one. I mean, are legal immigrants vastly more likely to raise suspicion of possibly being illegal immigrants than citizens are, such that having this documentation readily available to ease the process of verification is needed? I really don't think so. Unlike the driving a car example, where 100% of people driving cars need a license on them to verify, it's only going to be a tiny number of cases where the target of suspicion is a legal immigrant rather than a citizen or illegal immigrant and could produce this document.


Non citizens don't have Social Security numbers. When you check a DL through the computer an SSN is linked to it. If a person's DL comes up with NO SSN, chances are outstanding they're not a citizen. To my knowledge no state shows SSNs on the actual license anymore to prevent identity theft, but its associated with your records. That's how a warrant anywhere in the country can be verified to go to a particular identity.

So agian, you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Sorry, I've never carried my green card around because of the hellish expensive nightmare that would result were I to lose it.


Waaa. Then get the **** out.

Quote:
Enforcing the federal law would be a colossal waste of time and resources, especially for something that only carries a $100 fine anyway.


Except that it wouldn't because then we'd get rid of a lot of illegal immigrants, not to mention assholes who think their personal convenience is how the law should be written.

Quote:
Even Arizona seems to realize that it would be horribly impractical to check for green cards on people whom that they don't know are a citizen/legal/illegal in the first place and accepts a driver's license as proof of legal status.


Because as it is right now, the Federal government doesn't enforce that. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep doing it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:44 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Diamondeye wrote:
When you go to a foriegn country, you're expected to carry a passport.



I don't have a stake in this argument, or care one way or the other, but I'd like to point out this is not always true. Having been on several Caribbean cruises, passports are required for the trip, but you are generally not advised to bring them with you when you go ashore at one of the ports it stops in. At times, it's a good idea. Other times, they'll specifically recommend you leave the passports on the ship. It really depends on the country and such.

Of course, when your entire economy revolves around tourism, and a massive ship is in port with 3000 passengers spending their money on your island, as a local official, you are probably disinclined to start cracking down on identity checks. Every situation is different. Until two years ago, passports were not needed to cross the Canadian/American border at all.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:48 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
You're making an excellent case for having fewer ridiculous laws that impose a huge burden for no real benefit. Seriously, you want the government to enforce every law? You have some idea how many laws there actually are, right? Especially the legacy ones that are horribly retarded. (This would be a good example.)


Which is not relevant since you haven't shown any "huge burden for no benefit". The only benefit here is you personally not wanting to have to carry it. It;s really about you feeling entitled to remain in this country under conditions you find favorable.

Quote:
I have no idea how anyone could read that Federal law and think that it's a good idea to carry their green card around. The chance of you losing it or having it stolen is an order of magnitude greater than a law enforcement official actually asking you to produce it, and the consequences if the former happens are far greater. You're talking about an offense here that's less serious than speeding, there's no reason to get all high and mighty over it even if you believe that there is some kind of moral duty to obey the law, because everyone commits more serious legal violations every single day.


Yes there is. The people required to carry green cards are guests here, not citizens.

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks its a good idea because of the cost if you lose it; part of the point of that cost is to get extra money for this country out of people who come here and are then careless. It's for our benefit, not yours. That right there is a good reason to start asking for it; so that you have to carry it, and when you lose it, you have to pay or GTFO. Your sense of entitlement to be here is another good reason.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:49 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Talya wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
When you go to a foriegn country, you're expected to carry a passport.



I don't have a stake in this argument, or care one way or the other, but I'd like to point out this is not always true. Having been on several Caribbean cruises, passports are required for the trip, but you are generally not advised to bring them with you when you go ashore at one of the ports it stops in. At times, it's a good idea. Other times, they'll specifically recommend you leave the passports on the ship. It really depends on the country and such.

Of course, when your entire economy revolves around tourism, and a massive ship is in port with 3000 passengers spending their money on your island, as a local official, you are probably disinclined to start cracking down on identity checks. Every situation is different. Until two years ago, passports were not needed to cross the Canadian/American border at all.


Ok, generally you have to have one. As to the specifics of Canada and the U.S., my understanding was that they'd be required to go either way but I don't know if that ever came to pass.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Diamondeye wrote:
Non citizens don't have Social Security numbers. When you check a DL through the computer an SSN is linked to it. If a person's DL comes up with NO SSN, chances are outstanding they're not a citizen. To my knowledge no state shows SSNs on the actual license anymore to prevent identity theft, but its associated with your records. That's how a warrant anywhere in the country can be verified to go to a particular identity.


I have a Social Security number. I had one even when my dad was an E-1 nonimmigrant (temporary worker requiring sponsorship) and we were just here as his dependents. The card said "not eligible for employment" or something like that but I did have a number. That line might come up when the computer checks it, I don't know. When we got our green cards and became permanent residents I got a Social Security card that looks like anyone else's Social Security card. I suppose it's possible the computer might still flag me as a noncitizen but I doubt it.

Quote:
Except that it wouldn't because then we'd get rid of a lot of illegal immigrants, not to mention assholes who think their personal convenience is how the law should be written.


How does it get rid of a lot of illegal immigrants? How does legal immigrants suddenly carrying documentation suddenly make it so much easier to get rid of illegals? Legal immigrants are already a small minority, you're talking about minor efficiency gains involved here by making it somewhat easier for the police to verify immigration status should they stop and suspect a legal immigrant of being illegal. If they stop a citizen or illegal immigrant, this law does not help them investigate that person at all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:58 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Diamondeye wrote:
Ok, generally you have to have one. As to the specifics of Canada and the U.S., my understanding was that they'd be required to go either way but I don't know if that ever came to pass.


Yes, it did. As of about two years ago. However, again, that's not the law. That's just the policy of the border guards. Note that most of the Canada/US border is unguarded, and one is not breaking the law by crossing there without a Passport.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 218 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group