The Glade 4.0

RD, I don't know why you don't understand the libertarian argument here.

1. The right to association allows a people to form their own rules for joining that group.

2. This group is the US population since people have agreed to form and set borders and to use taxation for those within the border for certain services, as well as subdivided entities (such as states who have agreed to allow open immigration from and emigration to any other state) and these entities have also formed agreements for services and dues.

3. Just law already exists in order to facilitate these associations confirm to the rules.

4. The current entity usually tasked with such enforcement fails to do so.

5. The state has simply copied already existing Federal Law and given enforcement powers to their police.

6. This law infringes on no rights of any person under the jurisdiction of the US.

7. The non enforcement of the Federal Law has lead to rights infringements which it is the just function of government to take action to end.

_________________
"...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

That being said I think liberals who side for this are making big long term political mistake. while latinos immigrants tend to be Democrats on 1st and 2nd generation they start trending VERY conservative on the 3rd generation.

_________________
"...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

It's simple RD. If I see it as a protection in the Constitution, I support it. If it isn't directly enumerated, I don't. It is clearly mentioned that naturalization and protection from invasion are undeniable powers of the legislative branch. Arizona, as a result, has the right to determine if people are meeting this naturalization requirement that the federal government set in order to protect the liberties of it's own citizens. I don't get. Our founding fathers made it clear what the federal government and state governments could and couldn't do. Why is it so hard to follow their document?

For instance, I used to support the Patriot Act, but after viewing it more carefully, I don't anymore. It is too easy to abuse. Will it ever affect me? Most likely not. But I don't support it anymore because it is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution, unless you use a pretty loose interpretation. It has nothing to do with what powers affect me or not. A lot of things liberals have passed would directly help me, since I'm not in as high a federal tax bracket as most. That doesn't mean I think it's just to take money from millionaires to give it people in my bracket and lower.

I don't see where this law is easy to abuse RD, I've read it and my only concern was "lawful contact" which has since been removed.

_________________
"...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

It's not that expensive to actually make, the expensive price exists to stop people from selling their green card onto the black market for people to make forgeries and then claim it was lost or stolen. They only charge you $50 if you have the old one and are replacing a mutilated/damaged card, or renewing an expired card, for example. If you gave every immigrant three cards there would be a huge incentive for them to sell two of them.

So you're complaining it's somehow unfair to require people to carry around an ID because it's expensive when they lose it, then turn around and point out that the reason its so expensive is to prevent fraud? Well, then the fact that it's so expensive ought to be at least as god an incentive to not lose it accidentally, either, and if you do, no it isn't somehow more unfair to make someone pay to get a new one than it would be if it were relatively cheap.

All you're doing is trying to make the problem appear unsolveable. "It's not fair to make people present this ID because then they'd have to carry it and it might be expensive if they lose it. We also can't give them 2 copies because then they'd sell it. Clearly, we need to just never ask them to produce ID!"

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

No, I'm just extremely annoyed that there are people who insist that it is major travesty and evidence of massive government overreach that they personally even have to carry around any ID at all, even complaining about having to carry a driver's license worth ten bucks while driving. At the same time, these same people insist that legal immigrants must carry around ID worth several hundreds of dollars and are perfectly fine with a multi-year prison sentence for not complying, while whining about $125 fines for not having a driver's license on them and the horrible injustice of having to show ID to a police officer when stopped.

Imagine if you get mugged. Beyond the replacement cost, do you now not get to leave your house for two weeks while they make you a new card? There's no provision for that. With the federal law being a $100 fine you could risk it, if you're facing years in prison? Not so much.

If I have to carry around ID or face years in prison, everyone should have to.

Again, I don't feel it is anything approaching ideal, or for that matter, even just. However it is absolutely economically responsible and necessary given the basic principals of Modern American Social Democracy. As much as some of the left might wish, we can't be all things to all people. At the end of the day there are bills to be paid. The bills can't be paid if there is no way to restrict foreign access to these social programs, and since it is Americans paying the bills, it seems logical that Americans should decide the policy surrounding them.

As I said before, the problem was started with the initial rights violation which took money from some to give to others in the first place. This rights violation is a logical reaction to the original. Until you understand that, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

1) I haven't seen anyone complain about having to carry a driver's license while actually operating a motor vehicle on the public streets.
2) The people being required to carry green cards are not citizens.



I don't quite see how there's no provision for it, since being unable to comply with a law because someone else committed a criminal act against you and which you lawfully report is an affirmative defense agaist pretty much anything.

As for you having to carry around ID so everyone should, unless you've become a citizen, no, there is no good reason at all why everyone else should need to carry ID if you do. Become a citizen already if you don't like it. Otherwise, quit whining.

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

Xeq, on my quick scan of the law itself, I don't see this multiple year penalty you are speaking of. For simply being undocumented, the penalty is a Class 1 misdemeanor. In the state of Arizona, this is the severest misdemeanor charge, punishable by 6 months in jail and/or a $2500 fine. 1070 adds on an additional $500 to this for the first offense, and doubles that additional penalty for repeat offenses. Felony charges only occur when the offender is also determined to be involved in further activities which are already felonies in the first place, such as human or drug smuggling.

Where are you getting this idea that not carrying your federally issued resident alien documentation warrants a felony charge? This makes absolutely no sense if an illegal not involved in other crimes only merits the severest misdemeanor charge.

_________________
Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel

I got the idea from where RD posted it a few pages back. If that is the actual extent of the punishment then I have far less of an issue with it. I would still be pretty annoyed by having to carry a $500 ID card around everywhere, but it least that's not a horrific injustice on the level of a felony and state prison for leaving your wallet at home.

Are you also aware that the law accepts as proof of legal residency a valid US state-issued driver's license? This is because currently only legal residents can be issued such licenses...of course, if any state were to change this like some groups advocate (most famously in California), it would likely change Arizona's willingness to accept that state's licenses.

_________________
Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel

I got it from this section of the law, Cophax:



So, if a legal immigrant is in Arizona (A.1) and isn't carrying their Federal immigration documents (A.2), it's a Class 1 Misdemeanor (G.) unless it's their second violation (G.2.a), in which case it's a Class 4 Felony (G.2). A quick Google of AZ sentencing guidelines showed that a Class 4 Felony gets you anywhere from 1 to 3.75 years in prison for a first offense, with 2.5 years being the baseline.

Disclaimer: I am not licensed to practice in Arizona, and nothing I've written here or elsewhere on the Glade is intended or should be construed as the advice of a lawyer. Natch.

I'm going to just assume this is fake somehow:

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

This is a problem because...?

By the way, I heard from a friend who works for the Phoenix PD. Evidently things were a bit rough for a few days, but they have calmed down and he's not carrying his helmet and gas mask everywhere again.

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

The punishment is wildly disproportionate to the crime.

No it isn't. You're not supposed to be in this country. Therefore, you're tresspassing, which is a fairly serious matter in and of itself. There's a reason it's a high end misdemeanor: People who are in places they aren't supposed to be are usually there to do things they shouldn't be doing.

Now on top of that, you're evidently back doing it a second time if its a felony.

Explain how this is disproportionate.

The only way I see that you can argue its disproportionate is maybe that its disproportionately expensive to jail these assholes.

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

Its disproportionate because at his core he doesn't believe it should be criminal at all.

_________________
"...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

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying, DE. The particular section of the law I quoted is referring to legal immigrants (e.g. lawful permanent residents, professionals here on NAFTA work permits, etc.), and the only violation they're committing is failing to carry their immigration documents on their person while in the state of Arizona.

Everything else about the law aside, this particular section is just bizarre to me. Nailing border jumpers is one thing, but I don't get the point of imprisoning legitimate, lawful immigrants who just left their Green Card at home on the day they happened to get a ticket for jaywalking. That's what I think is disproportionate.

For me this is partially correct. The immigration laws have become too strict, and they are artificially trying to reduce the number of people coming into the country to work. While there certainly are problems with some immigrants, the vast majority of them (illegal or not) are hard working people trying to improve their life. The VERY concept that this country was founded on.

The problem is that carrying the ID is what establishes that they are here legally, not just tresspassing. Again, if they are being charged with a felony it indicates they forgot their green card not once, but twice.

Currently in Ohio it is a first degree misdemeanor to drive your car without having your driver's license on your person. A first degree misdemeanor is punishable by 6 months in jail.

Do you have any idea how many people forget their purse or wallet or just don't give a ****? We could fill jails exclusively with people who don't carry their license, but as a practical matter the law exists to make them come to court with the license to establish that they are, in fact, the person with the license, not just someone else whose information they're using.

When they actually do come to court, the charge is almost always dismissed if they present the license.

I don't see why Arizona would have any pathological desire to cram its prisons with people who forget their wallets. What would almost certainly happen is that the charge would get dismissed as long as they show up at court with the green card. (That, by the way, eliminates the "cost to taxpayers" problem) and making it a felony on the second offence is really not going to come up in just a handful of cases since very few people will ever get even a first conviction.

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

Actually no, they aren't trying to artificially reduce immigration at all. They're trying to get immigration back to reasonable levels, and the immigration laws are too lax or too laxly enforced, not too strict. Immigration has been artificially inflated by Mexico using the U.S. as a sponge for its extra people and a crutch to avoid solving its own problems.

Furthermore, this country was not founded on any "principle" of hardworking people trying to improve their life. People worked hard in those days because unless you were rich you had to; survival demanded it since no tasks were automated.

We allowed generous immigration early on in order to build our population because we had tons of empty, unutilized space, and because it increased our security and industrial output. We needed population expansion beyond what birth could provide. We don't now. We allowed more immigration at one time because it was good for the country. Now, it's a drain.

Just because we allowed lots of people to immigrate at one time does not mean it's somehow our obligation to maintain such policies forever, nor does it mean we've violated any principle or something if we don't. Just because some ******* wrote a poem about "give me your tired your poor" at one point, or whatever else, doesn't mean anything. When people ask "What happened to give me your tired your poor?" the answer is "the same thing that happened to the cavlary attacks in 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. They're a bygone era." So a poet wrote something. Big deal. We don't need to keep doing a certain thing forever just because someone wrote poetry about it or because people have sentimental attachments to the past.

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

Actually, people have been reacting the way they always do. We got a **** ton of Irish immigrants during the potatoe famine too.

The issue today is that the immigration process is so much more convoluted and time consuming/restrictive than it used to be, so that people who even would be an asset to the US aren't being allowed in. In my opinion that is not smart.



Really? Apparently I dreamed that whole "Land of Opportunity" line.



I don't see how immigrants who do work that needs to be done, that American citizens don't appear to be interested in doing is a drain. And that's just the stereo typical migrant labor example.



Certainly we don't have an obligation to do anything. Nor am I trying to claim that we do. It is, however, interesting how we've changed and the poem on the Statue of Liberty is no longer a reflection of our countries ideals as it once was. Maybe it's the closet conservative in me, but I find that unfortunate and misguided.

And that was an issue of Ireland/England shoving their problems on us; the difference was we needed the people at the time. IT is not excessively convoluted, time consuming, or restrictive now, compared to our need for more people. There really isn't anyone we need that can't also go through the process.



Yes, you dreamed it if you thought it was some sort of "principle". The only principle involved was that you could work hard here and prosper, as opposed to just survive while the King took all your surplus. It was never a principle of "We can accept as many people as want to come indefinitely". All you're doing is appealing to tradition.



Because the reason Americans aren't willign to do it is the availability of illegals, who A) take the jobs for under minimum wage and B) create a labor surplus. If there weren't hoards of illegals, Americans sure as **** would do those jobs because the bosses would be forced to pay enough to get workers.



Ok, so our ideals have changed. Ideally we'd have unlimited ability to accept more people, but I doubt practical matters were in the mind of the poet when he wrote it. It's inscribed there to reflect things as they were at the time, and the way we'd ideally like things to be. They aren't going to be that way again any time soon though, because the world is irrevocably changed.

How exactly that's unfortunate and misguided is beyond me. Maybe it has something to do with imaginary ways in which if we only just followed those ideals everything would magically workout.

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

When the Irish came here they recieved no subsidization from the federal or state governments, they were refused employment in the private sector, and most were enlisted in either the Union or Confederate armies to fight the civil war.

I think you are using a poor example, Aizle.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20