Question: Do you carry an ID with you at all times? If so, what's the hyperventilation about asking illegal aliens to do the same or go home?
We’ve never understood two things about all those on the Left who enjoy taking to the streets screaming and yelling for amnesty and open borders:
(1) Why they think waving the Mexican flag at these events helps their cause
(2) Why they have such a problem with the enforcement of existing law
In Chicago, we need to carry an ID with us at all times, because at least three or four times a day we are asked to show it.
80% of the time we use a credit card here in Chicago, the clerk at the register asks to see an ID.
IDs are required to get into any bar or club, and even some restaurants after a certain time of night.
None of us drive on a regular basis, but if we did, we’d be required to have that ID with us whenever operating a vehicle.
If we didn’t have an ID on us, we wouldn’t be able to do things like pick up packages at the mailbox store, cash checks at the bank, sign up for a gym membership, or do any of the other random things we do frequently here in Boystown.
So, eliminating the larger issue of why having no borders at all is a civilization-killing, culturally-suicidal idea, we just can’t understand the argument made by the Left that it’s improper to require illegal aliens to hold identification documents…because we, American citizens, are required to show such documents multiple times a day.
Have you ever understood this?
As we watch the Left screech and wail over Arizona being the first state to grow a pair and start cracking down on illegal aliens, we anecdotally see support for the Left crumbling the longer unemployment stays so high. Here’s what we’re seeing in Chicago, in just the food & beverage and private event industry.
We know of at least three guys who can’t find work as cater-waiters, like they usually do, in Chicago because staffing companies have too many illegal Mexican workers employed. Instead of paying an American citizen $12-15 an hour for a job, the staffing companies pay the Mexicans $5 an hour, cash.
You’d be surprised who uses these staffing companies. It’s not just for private events.
The City Club, Union League Club, and all the other big, fancy, private clubs in Chicago use staffing companies to lessen their payroll costs. Hotels do this too. Instead of hiring staff outright, these companies sign a contract with a staffing agency for x-number of warm bodies for events. The City Club or big hotel never knows these people’s names, so they never have any documents on them in their HR files. Instead, they just do a pay-out to the staffing agencies for 50 workers at x-dollar and hour on a certain day, and then the staffing agency distributes that money to its own workers, however it sees fit.
The bulk of the staffing agency’s employees are illegal Mexican workers, serving banquets, doing janitorial and housekeeping work, toiling as gardeners and other laborers, etc.
So, the racquet that exists keeps American citizens unemployed, while companies save money on staffing costs by using these third party staffing agencies to bring illegal workers into the employment pool — off the company’s books.
Just about every restaurant, hotel, and bar in the city uses illegal workers in this way, since they work for essentially slave wages — at least half what they should be getting in the job market if the company was forced to pay the standard going rate.
This practice will only INCREASE if Obamacare’s taxes and penalties become a reality.
Just think about what Obamacare is going to do to the unemployment numbers, when you realize companies forever look for creative, if not outright illegal, ways to lower their biggest expenses: payroll.
If a company wants to avoid paying health insurance costs for its employees, it will just fire the staff it has and instead contract with a staffing agency to provide the workers it needs, at a lower cost (and no insurance requirement).
Democrats are fools because they didn’t fully think out Obamacare before ramming it through — but this bill is going to put millions of people out of work in 2011, if Republicans don’t succeed in taking back Congress and killing it before then.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious the Left’s goal with illegal immigration is to perpetuate a slave class of undocumented, uneducated, hopeless and helpless individuals to serve as the lowest rung in society, working for as little money as possible so that the Liberals in their ivory towers can live the high life — and have their little pets to use for their own array of purposes.
But, we still can’t understand how the Left can continuously claim that asking these illegals for their identification is such a crime, when American citizens are asked for their identification multiple times a day.
Is this more Liberal irrationalism, where the Left screams and shouts about anything when someone gets too close to calling them out on one of their crazy schemes?
Or, are we missing something about the heinous burden of showing an ID when asked in public that we’ve just never been apprised of?
© 2010, HillBuzz. All rights reserved.
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
If you have nothing to hide, it should not be a problem!
Speaking of ID’s or proof of citizenship, this is circulating:
WHO the IS HE ??? (OBAMA)
Read this…
Why was his law license inactivated in 2002?
Why was Michelle’s law license INACTIVATED by court order?
There is only one Barack Hussein Obama according to the U. S. Census and he has 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.
The one he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is not ever reported to have lived. No wonder ALL of his ‘records’ are sealed!!!
It just gets worse!!!
At least we only have 3 years of this mystery man left before we can replace him.
Was He There?
Who IS He?
I have always wondered why NO ONE ever came forward from Obama’s past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.
NO ONE, not one person has ever come forward from his past.
VERY, VERY STRANGE.
This should really be a cause for great concern.
To those who voted for him, YOU HAVE ELECTED THE BIGGEST UNQUALIFIED FRAUD that America has ever known!
This is very interesting stuff. Sort of adds credence to the idea of The Manchurian Candidate thing having happened here!
Stephanopoulos of ABC news said the same thing during the 08′ campaign. He too was a classmate of BO’s at Columbia class of 1984. He said he never had ONE class with him.
Was he there?
While he is such a great orator, why doesn’t ANYONE in Obama’s college class remember him?
Maybe he never attended class!
Maybe he never attended Columbia?
He won’t allow Colombia to release his records either.
Suspicious isn’t it???
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA!!!!!!!
Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him.
Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983.
In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a SINGLE PERSON at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me.
I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. EVER! Nobody recalls him.
I’m not exaggerating, I’m not kidding.
“Root adds that he was also, like Obama, “Class of ’83 political science, pre-law” and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that.
Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.
At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack!
And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.
Is that not strange? It’s VERY strange. “Obama’sphotograph does NOT appear in the school’s ‘yearbook’and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root#column-one
NOTE: Root graduated as Valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major (in the same class as Barack Hussein Obama WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN).
Can it be that BHO is a complete fraud??
More intrigue concerning “The Man who WASN’T there.”
I m sure the truth will be found out, but too bad not soon enough!
I posted this in another blog today, but it bears repeating. In May Pastor Manning will hold a “trial” giving proof that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. It centers around Columbia University in NY where Obama alleges to have attended. Am very anxious to hear what develops with this!
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/27/dr-manning-we-have-proof-of-obamas-ineligibility/
when BO is out of office, the truth will start coming out, bit by bit, piece by piece.
From your mouth to God’s ears.
He’s a muslim. Muslims hate jews.
I think they found one article in the Columbia University newspaper.
Not just Left, far, far, far left!
It is entirely possible that Zero will release no records for the reason there are no records to be released. Was he born in Hawaii? He cannot prove it beyond a COLB that is meaningless. There may be no actual paper BC so for him to refuse to release his BC is disingenuous- there may be NO BC to release. It is similar with other records he ‘refuses’ to release. Law practice records? Nonexistent. Columbia and Harvard records? Nonexistent. The paying of millions to hide his records may be, then, just a red herring to hide the fact there are no records to be released.
As for the topic question, yes, I carry ID. Failure to identify can get you a night in jail in Texas.
This tale from Texas lore comes from Chicago Law Dog Michael Brennan, Esq.!
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, who‘s
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to
Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle’.’
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was.
The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you
come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.’
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he
continued to explain. ‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he
doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up
there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.’
Great article. I have been thinking the exact same things.
I always have my ID in the car…not far if I needed to have it. However, in Indiana they will give a driver’s license to an illegal…if you are a legal citizen in Indiana it is best to get the new secure ID..you have to show more identification to prove you are a citizen to get this ID..
I am just old school and I do think that it would be fine with me if authorities went door to door and sent all illegals to their country of origin. In almost every other country in the world if you enter illegally you can be fined/imprisoned, etc. That’s the way the US needs to handle it. Until we get serious it will never stop..
Seems to me if illegals could not get driver’s licenses they would go someplace else or live where there was public transportation.
Here is my idea of a border fence:
No driver’s license
No anchor baby Mommy status. You want your baby to be an American, leave it here for an American to raise BUT you go back to Mexico.
No medical care except for immediate life-saving measure and within 72 hours are shipped to Mexican Hospital. If your own country’s hospital does not accept you, let you family and friends start to think about how to change things and let them sue their own government for killing you.
No illegal criminals in our prison system. They have their choice: The death penalty, for any crime, or go back to your own country. If a country refuses to take their citizens that committed crimes here in America then we do not engage in commerce with you AT ALL. You say “nO’ to taking back to just one of your own that we don’t want and our relationship with your country is OVER. We will renegotiate in five year increments.
If you are illegal here you cannot marry a US Citizen. If an American wants to marry an illegal, do so but you become a citizen of your spouses country and are now here illegally. Go live in spouse,s country and go through correct channels to immigrate to America.
No foreigners in our military in exchange for citizenship. Instead, once you have become a citizen, legally, you may apply to serve this country.
If you are here illegally, your children do not get public education or public health care or public welfare, whether or not they are “anchor babies” because the whole concept of such is unconstitutional.
And another thought is if companies are going to be fined or shut down, as some Republicans are promoting, than I guess we will have to close down the IRS because illegals have social security numbers a lot of times and actually have payroll taxes deducted.
Off the soap box now.
When we get the dimiots out, we need to change the law. At least one parent needs to be a US Citizen!
I live in California and we’re overrun with illegals. It used to be that if you were here illegally that you’d be nervous about it. Now, not only are they not nervous, they’re demanding services that the rest of us are paying for, and demanding that we speak Spanish so they can demand it more easily. Just try to get a state or local job and not be bilingual!
I also work in the event industry but don’t see as many illegals working events, most work in the kitchens or do setup and breakdown. The last company I worked for stopped hiring them for December events because they’d all take off for Mexico for the holidays, right when they needed them most.
It isn’t just about the illegals it’s about all of the groups of people who support them. I’m not just talking about employers. There are those who rent them places to live, sell them cars, and most insidiously, those who educate them on how to work the system. Let’s face it, most of these people are ignorant, there’s no way they know which offices to go to and how to fill out forms unless there’s someone doing it for them. The people who actively seek to defraud the government by assisting illegals should be prosecuted.
“The people who actively seek to defraud the government by assisting illegals should be prosecuted.”
AMEN!!!
Except, as a physician, if I didn’t treat an illegal I would be thought of as inhumane.
I can see your point on that…but then again…hopefully you are not helping an illegal to defraud the government..
If you haven’t already, do have a look at this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-remains-of-a-california-day/?singlepage=true
Right-on sister,,, my fellow Californian– Yes’ it’s all about the money period. Low wage’s, they don’t ask or care because it’s getting them to the end result, as long as the job gets done!
Yep’ if you want to know how to work the system or our government? ask any hispanic,,,” Not only are the illegals feeling secure they are catered too. It just leaves me speechless..!
If you are bilingual, your getting the job, hand’s down. It seems to be the only requirement these day’s. We have become a nation of pleasing the illegals and they don’t fill the need to show ID– because everything else has been a pass for them.
I can go on and on about their behavior but’ what really bothers me,,, “is their attitude’s and the total lack of dis-respect for our law’s” Yeah’ Boyz waving “the Mexican flag” really sends a clear message does it not?
It’s a big MESS, and it’s out of control– because anyone involved with the illegals, is making a profit’ from something…” Until we make it against the Law for illegals to be here, and build the Great Wall of America’ were stuck with all their Chaos, and they will continue to defraud our government.
Waving the Mexican flag was the trigger that killed the amnesty bill when GW Bush and McCain/Graham were bullying a bill through the senate in 2006/2007. There was great push-back from the citizens calling their reps in congress. When there was discussion of a vote, we shut down their computer system and their phone system from overload. They got the message and backed off.
The main issue with the citizens has always been:
Build the Damn Fence! Our government refuses to secure our borders, leaving a frustrated and overwhelmed populace with no choice but to pass state laws – i.e. Arizona – to make sure their citizens are protected from drug lords, kidnappers, murderers. If it is so easy for people to come across the border, wouldn’t it be easy for terrorists to get through with some kind of chemical/biological or nuclear weapon?
They appropriated the money, but never finished the fence [thanks to the D's in congress and then BHO].
The second problem with congress and the WH looking for an amnesty bill for those that are here hails back to the fact that they can’t control the border. We gave millions amnesty in 1986 – and millions more kept coming in. So how do they stop that if they don’t secure the border?
Illegal immigrants will never understand the will of citizens who came here legally or the ancestors of those who came here and weren’t allowed to set foot on the soil without a medical examination for disease such as TB. They were also required to have a support system – a place to stay, promise of work.
I don’t know one person who is against “immigration”. Everyone I know is against “illegal immigration”.
I think this drive for a new bill might be a loser for Obama and the congress. Even D’s in safe seats will not be going back to congress if they have to explain that vote. Asking them to support their own suicide is just one bridge too far.
It might just define the failure of this president.
All very good point’s JerseyG’ and Yeah– just build the damn fence already,,,! I will say that Guv. Brewer has my respect for this bill– it took a lot of gut’s on her part. I pray she stays safe!
We left So. California in 1996 for the reasons you give.
We left in 1977, it was really bad then
We lived in a snooty area too (Coronado)… the little Mexican thugs just walked up the beach to break into our homes.
My husband caught one breaking into our car, I called police as he chased after him with a military billy club. The police stopped my husband because he had a weapon. DUMB!
Give them loans to buy homes they can’t afford…..
My Dad came into the US(from Germany), from Canada, in the early 50′s. He married my mom, then had to go back to Germany to come into the US legally..
I have noticed that Hispanics(Denver area) have become very arrogant, condescending.. They think it’s owed them.. I don’t understand the lefts thinking it’s owed them too…
I have a former friend who said I was a bad mother for NOT voting for Obama. I kept telling her don’t know NOTHING ABOUT HIM!!! I won’t ever talk to her again. I am curious to what she thinks now tho…
A few years pack I misplaced my SocialSecurity card. When I was offered a job they asked to see my SS card, which I didn’t have. I had to go to SS adminstration bldg in Vegas and get a new card before they would hire me.
pack=back
The Left can scream asking illegals for identification is a crime because there are multitudes of Lib-bots willing to believe this. Intellectually, I understand the appeal of Lib-botism to blacks and Hispanics – they are given incentives to claim victimhood. The ones who bewilder me are the whites overwhelmed by guilt because of their skin color. Fine, go wallow in guilt, but I’m too busy trying to be the best person I can be to join you.
Yeah, I have no white guilt. I never did anything bad to anybody and I can’t answer for the whole human race. Africans sold fellow Africans into slavery. Native Americans regularly scalped and murdered each other and took slaves from other tribes. Aztecs sacrificed their neighbors, family members and children to stave off the end of the world (kind of like the global warming scam of its day). Arabs use slaves to this very day.
I’m not going to own all the sins of the world. BS on that!
Freakin A, I do not have one shred of white guilt, in fact I have a whole lot of WHITE PRIDE. I happen to think white people are pretty damn awesome. If you were legal and loyal to this country you would be PROUD to show proof of citizenship whenever asked. If Arizona is forced to cave on this issue the results will be catastrophic. We are all ARIZONANS now.
Well said and totally agree.
“It’s becoming increasingly obvious the Left’s goal with illegal immigration is to perpetuate a slave class of undocumented, uneducated, hopeless and helpless individuals to serve as the lowest rung in society, working for as little money as possible so that the Liberals in their ivory towers can live the high life — and have their little pets to use for their own array of purposes.”
Ah finally, the liberal love affair with e.g. Dubai is explained! They want to transform the country into their own private Dubai …
Exactly! They want to be the ruling class and they think they can use minority groups to get there.
They certainly believe they are better than eeeeveryone else.
I think the worry is that it will give the police carte blanche to just stop Hispanics and Latinos (what’s the overall term here?) and demand evidence that they are not illegal. After all, how are they going to know if a person is even an immigrant?
Frankly, I’m worried too, although I know the bill expressly forbids that. I’m just not so sure I trust any government that much.
But yes, the illegal question needs to be solved. I’ve always wondered if the liberal “intelligentsia” are so fond of illegals only because it creates a de facto slave class. What would happen if the same numbers of skilled workers started coming in and competing for their jobs at lower wages? I think we all know the answer to that.
This article will arm any one to discuss the Arizona Immigration Bill calmly and logically and WITH THE FACTS, which most do not know. I have linked it, as well as copy and paste the full article for those who prefer to read it here.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html
A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
By: BYRON YORK
April 26, 2010
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs the illegal-immigration bill — which will go into effect this summer — at the Arizona Department of Transportation in Phoenix on Friday. (David Wallace, The Arizona Republic/AP)
The chattering class is aghast at Arizona’s new immigration law. “Harkens back to apartheid,” says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker. “Shameful,” says the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne. “Terrible…an invitation to abuse,” says the New York Times’ David Brooks.
For his part, President Obama calls the law “misguided” and says it “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Obama has ordered the Justice Department to “closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.”
Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…”
Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”
As far as “reasonable suspicion” is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It’s not race — Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.
For example: “Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling,” says Kobach. “An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor.” That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.
But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver’s license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There’s no reasonable suspicion.
Is having to produce a driver’s license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver’s license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it’s a burden, it’s a burden on everyone.
Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. That hasn’t changed.
Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. “The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit,” he says. “It’s drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny.”
The bottom line is, it’s a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused — no matter what the critics say.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com.
Good article – very clear and hopefully 100% accurate.
Arizona law seems “safe” for now – we’ll see how it holds up in the Supreme Court because that’s where it’s headed.
Yeah– I’ve heard this info on several different shows in reference to the bill and how it was drafted to with-stand such a lawsuit and will be foolproof to any legal loophole’s and scrutiny…”
That’s hopeful and let’s hope for once, we get to win this battle, with a big nod from the Supreme Court!
I don’t understand how the Democrats think that this is a winning issue for them. Polling suggests otherwise. If they think that the Hispanic vote is going to carry them into the next century with a ruling class (which is what I believe their ultimate goal is) they have a LONG way to go to get to that point. If they think that Al Sharpton rallying the race-baiters on TV is going to help them…they’re sadly mistaken. Law-abiding Americans want fairness…not social justice. We have an unemployment issue in this country if they haven’t noticed.
I understand that Reid and Boxer have large Hispanic populations and that they are trying to save their hides. We should focus on those Dem leaders and make sure the Hispanic people in their districts understand how they are being used by the liberals. We’ve got to win this November. We’ve got to make sure that Reid and Boxer get defeated. Getting Pelosi off her perch and getting those Dem leaders out of power will take us far. But we can’t drop the ball once we accomplish that mission. We’ve got to address and fix problems now before they become a headache later. Border security can’t be ignored or 20 years from now we are going to have socialists coming out of the woodwork. The older I get the more I realize how consequential things are. Our actions now will affect our children and their children. Ignoring these problems does not make them go away. It just gives the people who hate us a door to walk through. Thirty years ago the illegal immigrants were a problem…and we did nothing. We can’t afford another 30 years.
Well said, Bev…
Sharpton may be able to rally “some” Black people – perhaps SEIU members or pay some ACORN people to show up – but the unemployment rate amongst the Black population is MUCH higher than other groups and the young Black population’s unemployment statistics was in the 20′s as reported last month. If my kid couldn’t get a job no matter how hard he tried, would I rally for a group that is taking those entry level or low paying jobs out of the economy? No sir. And having Sharpton mouthing off about the status of the illegal immigrants would just make me angry.
He might be able to get a “show” crowd for the cameras together, but if Black people were polled about this, my guess is they would be of the mind that we are. Not fair.
Jersey:
You are right on the money. In fact, Rush had snippets of Sharpton’s radio show, stating that members of his own “Action Network” oppose his immigration stance. Rush went on to say most black probably oppose illegals b/c of the jobs issue. So, Bev is right too, this is a losing issue for Dems, but never let facts get in the way of racial demonization.
Yeah, they are trying to make it an issue of race which is a mistake on their part. It’s not about race. It’s about the Dems wanting to use the Hispanic people as a voting block. And it’s amusing that they want to lump together black activists with the Hispanic people considering a few years ago Sharpton and Jackson were both whining about the Hispanic population becoming the largest minority group. They’re a bunch of USERS.
CA allowed illegals to destroy the black middle class in LA.
Remember South Central? That wasn’t always a poor ghetto-type area, ripe for riots. That was, for decades, a solidly middle-class black area. These dads (yep at home, as heads of their families) were in the construction trades. Many of them owned their own small drywall installation companies. As their sons got older, they would join the family business, and so on.
Companies started hiring illegals, one at a time. But here’s what would happen (and still does): The first illegal hired would bring along his brother, cousin, etc. Eventually, you reach a tipping point. Once half of the crew speaks Spanish and no English, they get rid of the remaining American employees.
The only one left, thusly, who is bilingual is the foreman of the crew.
Reid and Boxer also have high crime rates in those communities. No one questions how crimes by illegals will be lowered, what will happen when this spills into other communities or when the cartel problems cross the border. (All real problems politicians are great at ignoring.) And they can’t be sued for not applying the laws they write or the santuary cities they create. Ignorance is a bliss.
Think of what millions of people are subjected to every day at the airports. Not just a demand for ID, but pat-downs and searching through your underware in your suitcase.
Asking someone for an ID is just not a big deal!!
seriously! I have to show id to buy alcohol. Should I be outraged by the discrimination against me?
Sorry for the long post, but it’s important..
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3735
An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
27 April 2010: I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?
In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.
At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that states:
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?
In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.
This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.
Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts
Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.
Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”
While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:
——————————————————
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay.
——————————————————
A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so, as it was over 200 years ago.
Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best” definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.”
In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.
Presidential eligibility; historical & current oddities
Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.
Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.
It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt. To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.
Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther” became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.
On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.
Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.
The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.” The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).
The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.
Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers” are born
Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this: Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?
There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real” crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level. Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.
Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.” The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.
The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,” often lumped together with “9/11 truthers” and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.
In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.
Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.
The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?
No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate” purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at http://www.dailykos.com, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.
Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears” website reproduced the document here. While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.
Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “FactCheck.org,” which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.
Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove” that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.
Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.). Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.
This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.
Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting” its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certificate of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certificate of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”
Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible
Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.” Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.
Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility
Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.
Coming next: Legal Stonewalls & identifying the money & people behind the fight
This report is available for downloading in PDF format.
Thank you for your post. I will gladly pass this to others!
” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief”.
looks like we alrady have a foreign enemy within.
.btw, any one see the sunday jews for israel protest? there were thousands in the rain protesting nobamas israel/iran policies..and we all thought they were being silent!
not much mention of this on the LSM!
Not one word in the Jersey media yesterday or today. Hubby gets the NY Daily News delivered daily. Nothing in there either.
I would not have known about the rally/protest if I hadn’t found out about it on blogs and forums like Hillbuzz.
What a disservice our media does to the citizens. And to think at one time they were lauded by our forefathers as truthtellers and necessary to the Republic to make sure government is acting responsibly. Same forefathers are probably rolling over in their graves these days.
Interesting theory about CIA involvement
in O’s past:
http://prorev.com/2009/01/strange-rise-of-obama.html
Could explain why his records are sealed &
things have happened they way they have!
If you think it’s possible, send it on!
It will be interesting to see how the Al Sharpton camera show plays off in the media. I’m not convinced it will be to the benefit of the Democrats. Again, they’re trying to drum up protesters and violence. I think the American people are seeing a pattern and seeing it for what it is.
I think I’m seeing some troll droppings….interesting.
They figure that it’s best to have their say before they’re flushed from their lairs and deported! …
Yeah Bev’ we’ve got some thread baiting here, do we not?
Yes we do and I’m seeing a pattern of names….you see it?
Yep’ the boyz need to be aware of this pattern too”
I bet they’re watching =)
Look, buddy!
I am no troll. I just wanted to publish a well documented article about his status.
That’s all. Any good reader can deal with more than just one subject.
Keep practicing “looking for trolls”.
I have gone back over all the preceding posts and I am probably going to disappoint Troll Professor Hillbuzz since I took their class on how to dissect a troll posting and I am not seeing any in the posts up to this here.
Gimme a hint.
it is the same here. I cannot see the troll droppings.
Peeps’ this thread clearly is a topic about Immigration– So’ when other’s post topic’s that deflects or takes away it’s substance– it’s baiting.
There’s a lot of disrespecting towards Hillbuzz when this happens…
We need to make sure that these thread’s are not hijacked’ it distracts from the decorum and the hard work the boyz do, to keep their forum going..!
The boyz are our host’s’ they dictate the discussions,,, not us!
that’s what Bev mean’t by “troll dropping’s”…….
We saw it because there were just a few of us here at that time. It’s harder to see at the end of the day when people have inserted all their comments. We saw it happen all at once. I’m sure HB saw it, too.
oh, gotcha. I did not see it because the thread was about illegal immigration and carrying i.d. and The Won doesn’t have papers. Just gotta be more alert!
Are you kidding?! We HAVE to carry ID with us. Granted I was driving but once, years ago, I was driving within blocks of my house(forgot my wallet) got stopped. the policeman told me he could actually throw me in jail for driving without ID license. instead he followed me home to get my license.
Try NOT carrying an ID in this country. You won’t get past the corner.
Liquor? No license – no liquor
shopping? prove you are the owner of the credit card.
ATM – self explanatory.
long story short. you can’t buy or go anywhere without your ID needing to be shown.
One more – try getting on a airplane without and ID
Try getting into a tall building in most major metropolitan areas without an ID.
try being a foreign international!!!!!!
Hillbuzz, home of conspiracy nuts.
Congratulations.
meh.
OK I found the troll…. TROLL ALERT>>>TROLL ALERT>>>TROLL ALERT
We saw them when we started this thread. They plopped at the same time. As the day goes on people insert their posts and the thread changes but it was pretty clear at the time. Kinda like bots.
Suck it Lou, who invited ya anyways? If you don’t like it here LEAVE. Ridicule won’t work anymore, in fact be prepared to have it shoved back in your PIEHOLE.
Gosh, you all showed poor Lou. I’m shore he’s shaking in his boots.
Maggie, will you marry me?
Lou you are an idiot. I am a married woman and I do not believe in bigamy
Well you’re here, aren’t you, Lou?
Best line I heard today on this was from a comedian on Dennis Miller’s show in regards to the left calling Arizona’s immigration law, Nazism….”if you look back in history, you don’t see a bunch of Jews trying to get INTO Germany.”
I’m paraphrasing, but it is a great response to those who try to make this racist.
Will the plan that Graham, Schumer, and Obama are floating for a national biometric ID card elicit similar levels of outrage from the usual suspects? I won’t hold my breath.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954904575110124037066854.html
(My word, Jim DeMint really ought to take his fellow Senator aside and get some sense into that stupid head of his.)
I am in full agreement with you on all points. I don’t understand why arresting illegal immigrants is even an issue because they’ve committed a crime. If I rob a bank, you bet they’d arrest me because it’s illegal. Why is this any different.
As to the issue of the hotels and other organizations using staffing companies, you can thank the unions for that. It’s easier and cheaper to get non-union people through staffing companies than deal with the unions and their outrageous demands.
I don’t understand the controversy. I have to show ID several times a day. I also have to lug around 50 pounds of paper work, building permits, business licenses, bonds, registrations, tax id numbers,liability insurance, etc.
I’ve also been pulled over twice by the border patrol and been asked for ID and proof of citizenship. I resent the intrusion and all the paperwork, but how come nobody is staging a protest for US citizens?
Exactly! Betcha had to do a whiz quiz for employment/randoms, as well. But do these undocumented Democrats have to provide that for welfare? Food stamps? Housing Assistance? Blah, blah…..?
I see that this is the classic “If you don’t have the law or the facts on your side, pound the table” approach by the media and opportunistic politicians.
The requirements of this law do not materially violate civil rights. There is potential to do so, but any time you enact a law, there is potential to violate certain rights.
What is reprehesible is that the political class is more interested in protecting the rights of non-citizens than US citizens.
I think it would be wise for all of us to become undocumented workers for various reasons. Why is someone undocumented? The part I would like to focus on is the cash part. Our government knows everything we do, our tastes, our latest hobbies, get aways, clothing choices, bars visited, movies seen, electronics purchased, cell phone calls, etc. Why? Because we don’t operate on a cash basis with anonymity. How many times do we write checks, use the debit or credit card for purchases, give our phone number to the cashier for “marketing” purposes, on and on? We should get in the habit of cashing our paychecks at a fast cash/check joint, skip the bank account, and make all purchase that are possible as cash. It should be all of our goal to get to a cash basis lifestyle to drastically reduce government in our lives and to increase our privacy and security.
My dad is 80-years-old and is so paranoid he will not use a debit card and with good reason. In his day you feared the government. He will not give his social security # to anybody. Period. If he goes to order something or buy something if they ask for it he will refuse to give it or just walks away. I used to think he was being silly but now I understand why he is like that.
As far as I understand if you are not a citizen of the USA then you are not entitled to the civil rights afforded us by the laws of the country? Am I wrong about this? Honestly…it confuses me at times…please enlighten me..thanks.
Nope – you are entitled to many of the same civil rights. There are some to which you are not entitled, like voting, or carrying weapons.
Another way to view it – rights like a fair and speedy trial by your peers, legal representation, free speech and assembly, and Miranda to name a few.
Citizens also have rights that I also view as privileges by nature of being residents of this great country such as voting and gun ownership. Being a convicted felon translates to forfeiture of some of these rights such as gun ownership and voting in some/all States.
You’re not wrong. obama is burning the constitution claiming we have no laws here – he can do whatever he wants.
The people, by vote, are the only ones who can change that mentality OR let him continue to destroy this great country
Don’t forget this is the same bunch that gives consitutional rights to terrorists.
In Afghanistan.
Well you know, Dr. Utopia IS a constitutional scholar!
First of all, the law merely codifies FEDERAL immigration language into state law. Arizona can’t deport anyone, or stop anyone because of how they look in terms of race or ethnicity.
Hillbuzz, you are right – this is not a civil rights violation. And professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has a good write up:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/did-danish-king-wear-i-could-be-illegal.html
I always carry my driver’s license and if abroad, my passport. If I end up dead in the street somewhere, the authorities will be able to identify me.
Hillbuzz:
You ask a very pertinent question about the Left regarding immigration policy. Here’s another one along the same lines, if this immigration bill is going to do “so much damage” to the Repulican Party with Hispanics, then 1) why do they care so much? Let the Republicans screw themselves, and the Dems can pick up the pieces. And 2) why do liberal writers care so much about Republicans not getting or getting elected? It seems they spend an awful amount of time hand-wringing on which Republican is “electable” or not. Shouldn’t liberals be rooting for the “most polarizing” candidate so that they would go down in flames? Wouldn’t that be the logical thing to do?
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-the-gops-short-sighted-immigration-strategy/19455229
Aol is so liberal, that everytime I go to check e-mail, I am always greeted with some left-wing garbage.
Along the same lines, where is the evidence that Hispanic voters are opposed to enforcing our immigration laws? If they are voting, chances are they are here legally. Why does the left presume that legal immigrants would want reward those who did not follow the rules to obtain citizenship? Seems to me that legal immigrants benefit from tougher enforcement because the default position will soon be to assume that they followed established rules to get here and become citizens. I suspect the opposite now happens.
If he gave them amnesty they would vote for him.
I think he’s realizing this is a bad thing to fire the American people up about right before the mid-terms. Today they were talking about shelving it and going back to the cap and trade thing. I don’t know which is worse, tho.
I’m expected to have my driver’s license at all times as well as the insurance and registration for my car. I’m ALSO expected to have all my professional credentials with me also…. so if I get asked in a hallway I can show that I’m still licensed.
AND I have to wear a picture ID Badge or I can’t work.
I carry my DL and concealed carry permit at all times.
My mom’s side of the family came to America legally and fought to preserve the Union only a few years after they got here. My dad’s grandfather came to America legally when he was thirteen and grew up to own and manage a hotel. Every morning when he woke up he’d go in the kitchen and sing the Star-Spangled Banner before he’d do anything else. Illegal immigrants break the laws of the country they want to live in, obnoxiously demand that we all speak to them in their language, and maintain a primary allegiance to the country they came from. What. The. Hell.
And that is their biggest problem with the citizens of this country, M. The waving of the Mexican flag is like waving a red banner in front of a bull. The left has convinced the illegals that if they are out in the streets protesting, it will help them. NOT. They also tell them not to comply even if they are required to identify themselves – because it’s against their civil rights. They tell them that they shouldn’t be “forced” to learn English and that they should DEMAND all signs, forms, and answering services to be in Spanish too. The left has hurt these people more than the illegals will ever know. Their “in your face” advice creates anger, resentment, and bitterness toward the people they claim to be “helping”.
But how can we expect anything else. The left does not like our laws, nor do they adhere to many of them. They spend their time trying to overturn them.
The strangest thing about this is that the AZ law specifically prohibits stopping just anyone to check if they are a legal citizen. They must be involved in a suspicious behavior ….. heavily loaded van, breaking and entering, etc … and even then they can only hold them while ICE is contacted.
Think about that for a moment …. for the last decade (at least), it has been against the law for police to call the immigration agency when they’ve arrested or held an illegal immigrant. On the ludicrous scale, that’s waaaaay up there.
Hot Air has an interesting post up about the vacillation between Cap and Tax legislation on the one hand, amnesty on the other, on the part of Reid and Pelosi:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/27/who-killed-the-climate-bill/
Joe Lieberman was on Cavuto talking about this yesterday. He said Graham told them a month ago he would not work on the illegal immigrants and climate change together. And he said that Reid pulled a switch to save his own butt in Nevada and so Graham called it a no-go.
I meant this to link with Amsterdam’s post.
The Hot Air reports strongly suggests that Reid’s maneuvre may be just for show to bolster himself come election-day; it seems that amnesty legislation has not even been written yet. But whether this will help him in November is rather doubtful.
But it may mean that we are spared both pieces of legislation — in which case, the so-called financial reform effort (a.k.a., let’s bail out our own big donors) will probably be moving ahead.
Did you see the update to the HotAir post? Graham says no immigration until 2012, when the border is secure. Wow.
It certainly won’t help him if it is seen as what it is…a complete sham designed to engender votes when he knows it can’t be passed.
And if enough people from Nevada are aware of this, he will not get very many Hispanic votes. It would be a good thing for one of the election teams on Hillbuzz to start writing “letters to the editor” in every Nevada newspaper available to make sure that it is known.
I don’t speak or write Spanish, but if anyone knows people who do and are upset with this charade, ask them to write to the Spanish newspapers in Nevada. Harry should stop being so cynical and take his lumps. He deserves to lose because he has disrespected his constituents, including Hispanics with this contemptuous plot.
No, it probably won’t help him — the Senator is not so much dingy as he is clumsy. But it makes for some morbidly fascinating political theatre …
I’ll check the Hot Air update, but if Graham has said that it’s a good sign — especially as, let us hope, he will not have nearly the influence he now holds as a prospective vote for cloture.
On the other hand, Graham says many things he doesn’t mean …
According to Lieberman he really means it…
h/t Rush Limbaugh: “Lindsay Grahamnesty”
Very good questions.
I think part of the issues though are the perceptions of the various regions when they read and hear of the ‘illegal immigration’ issues.
I know Cali is overrun and being sucked dry by entitlement.
Arizon and other borderstates are overrun since they are ground zero for entrance.
Where I live however the illegal hispanic community just works. they are too busy too commit crime or mischeif since they are finishing their 2nd job to get to their 3rd job on time.
I think the perceptions of where you live helps shape the reaction and response to this topic.
I am lucky and unlucky in that I can usually see all sides to an argument. It can create wishywashy issues but at other times it is a blessing.
I know if I lived in a borderstate and had been overrun and occupied by a crime cartel and illegal alien cargo then I know I would speak and feel differently than someone from an area with little to no immigration, legal or otherwise.
I try to ignore the chattering ones, or use them as a windvane to see where i should look for ‘the rest of the story’.
I think it was Milton Friedman himself who said you cannot have a welfare state with open borders. Our borders have been open for so long because we were the very opposite of a welfare state and now that we have tilted so far down entitlement lane we must tighten our borders and control them.
Now it is time to also enforce already existing penalties on the ones employing illegal alien labor but to up them as well. From the factories to the suburban joneses getting cut-rate lawn care and house cleaning….fine them, enforce the law and throw the book at them as well.
The thing about the IDs is whatever. The real bastardized evil of this bill is sections 6 & 7.
IF you hire an illegal knowingly (kinda hard to prove you didn’t, even if they snowed you), you’re put on 3-5 years suspension. IF you do it again in that 3-5 years, you lose your business license. You lose your business.
This is bad. Like a whole lotta different kinds of not good bad.
Here, check this article for an alternative to the immigration ‘reform’ both sides are bullshitting at us: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/27/fixing-americas-immigration-bl
A very close friend of mine is a policy analyst in a conservative/libertarian think-tank, and this issue is his focus. That’s his co-authored article. /shill
I think that might have been an attempted thread hijack. Let me actually ADDRESS what you wrote about now:
Yes, the Left is shrieking about something that people should already have taken care of. My fiancee has dual citizenship with Israel. If she wandered off somewhere without ID, she could very easily be detained. I, uh…actually WAS detained when I left my passport back at her uncle’s place. That sucked.
So the Left can go hang itself. Like I said, the ID is whatever. Again, what I’m concerned about is the fact that businesses can just be shut down like nothing.
Or maybe I’m a radical open-borders libertarian (which I am). I dunno. I think people should be allowed to work, and the cheapest guy wins, because minimum wage is absolute nonsensical garbage.
Shit, I think that was O/T too.
good. I support that one hundred percent. Put the onus on employers as well as the crime enforcement.
They should extend that to housekeeping, yard work and babysitting/nanny jobs.
Oh, and profanities dont prove youre passionate, they just show you are lazy and vulgar.
Seriously? You support destroying businesses over a perceived screw up? You honestly see no problem with whoever’s in power telling you who you can or can’t hire? (which they already do at the Federal level, but there we are)
“They should extend that to housekeeping, yard work and babysitting/nanny jobs.”
THEY DID. Way to read the whole response. *thumbs up*
How is this any different from the government telling you…well, telling you to behave in regards to ANYTHING else? Why don’t you tell me exactly what part of government interference makes your life better, rsj.
Re my language: being self-righteous doesn’t make you right, it makes you officious.
Emergency response, Roads, Highways, Military and defense, courts…there is plenty of government interference that I support.
Atlas Shrugged was one of my favorite books ever. Until I realized that a pure libertarian world would be just as hellish as a pure communist/socialist world. Si yes I do not share your sense of injury regarding this issue.
I celebrate it. Close the borders, police the borders and eliminate employment opportunities and hiring opportunities for illegal aliens. Anyone knowingly employing an illegal alien is abetting a crime and should be punished, up to and including fines, imprisonment and closing the business.
If the designers of this law have vetted it as carefully as they say they have then there will be checks and balances. That I do agree on, it should not be whim, willy nilly or because the employer was fooled.
However I know from observing many small business that they cooperate with being fooled, and they dont care if legal or illegal and I firmly believe that needs to end.
I have said to other posters i am not conservative or liberal, neither libertarian, communitarian or any ism….any political ideology taken to the edge is idiocy including libertarianism.
So,thumbs up right back at you vulgar and rude person.
I re-read and I did not mean to sound as rude as I did, for that I apologize. I was reacting to feeling like the thumbs up was pretty snotty…it did not deserve as strong a response as I wrote and I am sorry.
even in my country it is never a screw up if businesses know that they are hiring illegals.
So, you want to keep the illegals out – but you want them to be able to work if they get in somehow?
All an employer has to do is see their SScard and call in to find out if they are legitimate.
If they aren’t – no job. If he hires them anyway, that’s his own fault. And there should be a penalty for abetting an illegal entrant.
I carry my CA driver’s license everywhere except to the corner store if I’m just in sweats. Funny thing — S.F. has had a rash of ABC over-enforcement of piddling rules against clubs so now they card obvious senior citizens. Friend visits from Germany — she’s 39 — but she doesn’t bring her passport and I don’t even bother to try to fudge (club is 18+) and we scamper back home. Melanie, never go anywhere w/o your passport. (I do the same overseas, take it everywhere.)
I have a young ladyfriend, 22. Very pretty; 5’6/110#, fairly smart. Got laid off. Couldn’t find a job. She started doing jobs “Americans” won’t do — she cleaned houses. Not that she likes it, but she’s a credit to her generation and perhaps one of the saviors of ours — those ahead of her.
Mark Kerkorian at The Corner notes that some critics of the Arizona law are quoting the WONG VERSION OF THE STATUTE:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjAxNTMxYTRlZDJkM2YxMWZhOTcyNzU2NWZlMGJlMGI=
Gotta love those liberals! Facts don’t matter only feelings do!!
Why let the truth get in the way? They have the networks parroting their lies for them.
The ‘Immigration Reform’ discussion is not about Immigration Reform.
It’s about buying a voting block with taxpayer money. Both Democrats and Republicans are vying for this block.
If our laws can be broken by illegals why should any of us care about abiding by any of our laws?
Illegals are illegal. Full. Stop.
According to the new health care bill millions of American citizens can be fined or jailed for not having some sort of government approved health care.
Illegals can come here, receive health care at our expense and be pitied because Mexico cast them off.
Let’s take a look at Mexico. Doesn’t Mexico have a moral responsibility for their own citizens? One would think so, yet the Mexican government exports their own citizens the same way China exports cheap knock offs of computer parts.
Mexico receives billions of remittances from illegals each year. It’s their second source of income despite the fact that Mexico is a resource rich country that could do far better for its people. Their president lectures us on our domestic policies because he doesn’t want to be bothered with his poor, destitute citizens.
Mexico is morally corrupt. They are like neighbors who dump their trash in your yard and tell you to clean it up.
The difference is that Mexico dumps *people* and tells us to take care of them.
Who has rights here? American citizens or illegals? Who’s paying the tab? You know the answer to the last question.
Arizona has every right to enforce the laws that the Feds are responsible for enforcing.
Apparently, the late Sonny Bono said, “Illegal – that means against the law. Why the confusion?”
Why don’t they fight for better conditions in Mexico instead of putting so much pressure on our country?
It’s Mexico’s problem; not ours.
Because of supporters and enablers.
I really get tired of the United States being seen as the “bad guys” as soon as someone doesn’t get their own way.
I am all for LEGAL immigration and even helped someone study for her citizenship test.
But we have limited resources, too. We can’t save the whole world.
Hi Boyz -
“Is this more Liberal irrationalism, where the Left screams and shouts about anything when someone gets too close to calling them out on one of their crazy schemes?”
ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
This issue has had my blood boiling for years! I went to a meeting with a guy who is a Minuteman & used to work for border patrol. He lives in Arizona. He showed us maps of the drug trafficking routes – they are everywhere in this country commiting murder & mayhem. I’m not saying they are all drug dealers, but if they are here illigally, they are criminals, period.
God bless Arizona – America is finally waking up!!!
Susan
Glenn Beck is all over this story and boy did he hit the nail on the head. He’s saying to watch Thursday for a vote to make Puerto Rico a state? The Ruling Class is on the march….Americans better be paying attention.
Some from Puerto Rico are Republicans. The man who was rejected as a Supreme Court justice, or at least subjected to filibuster until he quit, he was from Puerto Rico I think…
I agree though, that this is something that should not be passed… or at least it should be put to a people’s vote !!!!!
There are some interesting angles to this story, though. Prof. Jacobson has a post worth reading on it:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/rising-conservative-star-from-puerto.html
Bottom line, the Dems are trying to make the illegal immigrants situation about race. It’s not about race. It’s about securing the border. But thew MSM is going to try to frame this as a race issue and ignore the truth.
It’s about the Dems USING this as a political ploy. If they grant amnesty to all these illegal immigrants they will have a ruling class for decades.
Okay, let’s be informed here. It’s not ID they are requiring, it’s proof of citizenship. Big difference.
How many of you carry around your birth certificate? I do not.
The concern is racial profiling; that they will only ask people who look Hispanic for proof of citizenship. (I personally have no problem with this, but I can see why it makes people nervous)
But here’s the thing…..they have to have a REASON to ask you. If you can manage to get through your day without breaking the law, you will not be asked to prove anything.
I live in southrn California, and think the law is a wonderful start, but I DO understand why some people are nervous about it.
However, in any forgeign country you go to, you have to show your papers if asked. Mexico has some of the most rigid immigration laws ever. Time we did, too.
I don’t carry my birth certificate, but I did have to show one to get my first license and I have to carry my license with me when I drive.
I believe that legal immigrants have to carry their green card or visa with them, correct me if I am wrong.
I am from MI and we had a problem with illegals also- no valid ID, no legally registered car, no insurance, usually problem drinkers, violence against others among other things.
When my daughter left Virginia to go to NYC for college, she needed her ORIGINAL birth certificate and SSN card to get a student i.d.
Then later, a NY state i.d. card when she left school and had no driver’s license, so she could rent an apt, order utilities, cash a check, etc.
And she needed a PASSPORT to go to another country…..and get back in ours!
Oh, and a library card to check out books!
What is this, Nazi Germany? /sarc
Those in AZ with proper id will be fine. Those without, are breaking the law.
Indeed, they will be fine. As a graduate of the Pima County Citizens Prosecution Academy, headed up by Pima County attorney Barbara LaWall (a Dem, btw), I can tell you that law enforcement is overall very responsible.
AND, AZ has many, MANY more Hispanic police officers, police chiefs, and sheriffs than I’ve ever seen in any other state, incl. CA and NM and TX.
I wish I could find the stats, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratio is 50-50: 50 percent Hispanic/Mexican and 50 percent everything else.
Yes, I always carry my ID–even if I’m just going for a walk. It’s the responsible and considerate thing to do.
As someone who has lived in Tucson and on the Tex-Mex border, I say, “Viva Jan Brewer!”
Though I am sorely disappointed in Marco Rubio, who has spoken out against the new state law.
So has Jeb Bush. Lame.
They talk about racial profiling. The sad irony they overlook is how cartels are kidnapping Hispanic teenagers in the US to retcruit because they “blend” by speaking English and Spanish and would have no problem crossing the border.
Where are all the “environmentalists” (my azz!) who KNOW full well how illegals have devastated the Sonora Desert in the entire Tucson corridor. I’ve posted links to pix here previously.
Also, among those “peaceful” student protesters, where were the classmates of 15-year-old Brenda Arenas, who was MURDERED by illegal Mexican carjackers in Tucson last year? Why weren’t they marching in SUPPORT of the law?
HYPOCRITES, one and all!
Watch out who you vote for, folks. Make sure they support enforcement of the fed immigration laws and are in favor of an anti-anchor-baby law.
Ohh that’s sad. I lived in Tucson in the early 80s and it was so beautiful. I heard today that Phoenix has the second highest kidnapping rate in the WORLD. That is mind boggling.
Sorry to hijack this thread, but the issue has long been important to me, even through my Dem years (35 of ‘em). Check out this posting from Facebook:
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?
Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, ‘Mexican Visitor’s Lament’
She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver back in October of 2007.
Hernandez said, ‘They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes… What Happens to your country’s economy if 20 million people go away?’ That’s a good question – it deserves an answer.
Over 80 percent of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers may surprise you!
In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways
cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids – would move back ‘home’, mostly to Mexico . That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone. Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our grid locked cities in Colorado. Denver’s four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.
In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned ‘home’, the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn’t be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.
No more push ’1′ for Spanish or ’2′ for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded
schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.
In cities like LA., 20,000 members of the ’18th Street Gang’ would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!
America’s economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn’t return to the aliens’ home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America’s economy – which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt.
At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
Americans wouldn’t suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the ‘progressives’ on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.
Over one million of Mexico’s poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California what the New York Times called, ‘colonias’ or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation.
The New York Times reported them to be America’s new ‘Third World’ inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I’ve seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it’s sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico .
We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It’s time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.
One last thing about ID (sorry!): in NJ, people under age 40 are carded before they can buy cigarettes. (Unfortunately, I have not been asked to show ID…sniff…
If Israel can build a fence to keep its borders safe…surely we are intelligent enough to build a freaking fence that works.
They built a three-tiered fence. Not just one fence. There are three with razor wire on top…and gravel in between each fence so if the aliens get thru then they can see the footprints and know where to fix it.
Yes, it’s expensive and would take money and effort. I bet it would be cheaper than having millions of illegal aliens leeching off the public. We need to have a legit work program for folks who want to work the jobs nobody else wants but we need secure borders.
It’s not just Mexicans coming across wanting to feed their families. We have terrorist enemies. And the drug dealers ESPECIALLY. They are thugs. It’s common sense.
Obama is a danger for this nation’s sovereignty. This man is a Kenyan communist and he doesn’t cares about the USA.
OK… I am Australian… this should not be my business…. except that I have for a time lived in the USA and recently I was a visitor, plus I have relatives in Michigan.
When I lived in the USA I did not have a USA drivers license. I actually got away with using my Australian license. I did not have a SSN and when asked for one I used my drivers license for that number… we kinda made one up… this was mostly due to the need to purchase groceries and other goods. It was a unique situation. We were there as representatives of the Australian government. We were paid by the Australian government. We paid taxes in Australia. I did not work at the time. Yes I drove a car and yes I had contact with the police (a funny situation) and I had no problems with regard to using my Australian license. We were temporary residents.
Now, my relatives are in Detroit Michigan and we went there a few times plus we crossed over the border and into Canada a few times. The Canadians were very strict… and 20 plus years later they were stricter. We had to produce our passports and we had to answer questions plus we had to face searches to go across the border back in 1984-85.
This brings me to last year when we returned to the USA and entered via LAX before moving on to NYC and CT… and then crossing into Canada. The immigration process at LAX was painful but we did get ahead of the crowd so it was not that bad in terms of waiting in line. We had to answer questions. We filled out a card but no one on the airplane told us that only one of us had to fill out the card… that seems to have gotten one person upset. We were fingerprinted and had our pictures taken.. then moved on. We do not face a bag search. Landing at New York was a breeze too.
After our stay in Hartford we began the journey into Canada. On the day of our train ride to Montreal we were stopped at a border in the middle of nowhere. The border police came on board and we had to just sit there. We were grilled. Even a Canadian who was returning to family was grilled and had to show his passport. In the case of us foreigners – that included a German family in the same carriage – we got more of a third degree questioning. Not only did we have to produce our passports but we had to show proof that we were leaving Canada!!!! Luckily we had the evidence available since we had already picked up our train tickets from AMTRAK.
On the Vancouver-Los Angeles leg of the trip, we went through immigration in Vancouver. However, at the border, in the middle of nowhere, the border patrol came on board the train. It was a lot easier because all we needed was to show our passports.
This is what those Mexicans should be doing. They should at least have their passports if they are not citizens of the USA.
If the rest of the world has to show their passports and other means of identification then they should have to show the same thing.
This is not about race. It is about border security. The southern borders are very porous and they are a great way to allow foreign agents to get into the USA. This needs to be stopped at all costs.
My late uncle was a Mexican-American. I do not know much about his background from that point of view. However, he served as a USA Marine in the Pacific region war. That is how he met my aunty Doreen who became his fiancee and then she moved to the USA after the war.
I got no issue with this law. And yes, I carry my ID, driver’s license everywhere.
what’s the issue?
I saw one of the stupidest headlines as MSN-BS
“Its now a crime in AZ to be an illegal immigrant”
noh! really!??!?!
Isn’t that unbelievable?
And the CONGRESSMAN from Tucson wants to boycott HIS OWN STATE. If that is not a direct violation of his oath to this country I do not know what is. He wants to bankrupt his own state. He is an open borders advocate.
Again, AZ did the right thing. All they did was reinforce federal laws that were already in place. This is a border security situation. Not a social justice situation like the Democrats are trying to make it out to be.
Grijalva should be booted out of office immediately for choosing illegal immigrants over the citizens he is supposed to represent.
He’s the congressman from the uber-Left district I lived in. He’s disgusting, vile, repulsive, unabashedly ethnocentric, and despicable. Not sure how Tucsonans will be able to get rid of him…though anything is possible.
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/04/community-disorganized-chicago.html
Had to drop this off. Just a thought on the National Guard being used to fight crime in Chicago. But, that isn’t a big deal because it’s not Arizona. And……it’s the Dems suggesting it!! Hypocritical.
My German born husband had to carry not only his driver’s license, but also his green card until he became a citizen. I see zero wrong with Hispanics, Chinese, Russians, Poles or anyone else having to do the same. If you don’t have your card, leave.
First, as a citizen of Arizona I want to thank all of you for your support on the Immigration Bill. My hope is that other states will step up and be counted with us.
I have had a few thoughts today as I have heard comments here and at work.
Gov. Brewer would be smart to have this law go into effect on the hottest day in June. I would love to see Al Sharpton (he promised to march the day it goes into effect)marching down the street when it is at least 115 degrees outside. In 1990 the temperature reach 123 in June, wouldn’t you just love to see him doing a couple of miles in that temp.
We had a couple of mothers come into the school the last few days quite upset that they may be arrested and separated from their children (of course they could not speak English). What kind of mother puts herself in that kind of situation! I would never do anything that would separate me from my children.
I heard on the radio that there was a company that had to let 300 illegals employees go. There jobs were immediately filled with Americans. Who said we wont do the kind of jobs they do.
As a young girl I worked in the grape harvest, that is where I met my husband. He also worked in the melon harvest. My sister worked summers in the tomato harvest. Working there taught us great work ethics. You learned real quick the importance of an education.
Thanks for letting me ramble on and thanks again for your support.
Amen to that! I live in Arizona too, and am very happy that there is support for what we are doing. I hope that more states do the same.
And yes to signing the bill on one of the hottest days of the year! On concrete and asphalt!
Maybe they’ll get kidnapped…lol.
I’m joking of course….
Oh. God. YESSSSSSSSSSSS!
He’ll be out of the state before you can say “Race baiter”! hahahahhaha
hillbuzz, check the law in Illinois. I work for a staffing company in Florida and everyone has to submit documentation and they go through back-ground checks. I think these staffing companies are breaking the law.
I remember many immigration raids in the suburbs of Illinois-restaurants of course-the government just hops between strict and loose. I think it was to put the fear of God in the illegals.
Hmmm….
Mexico’s Immigration Laws
courtesy Ace of Spades:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/300995.php
I carry I. D. just about everywhere I go, except if I’m taking a walk close to my home. I empathize with the governor of Arizona. It sounds like she needed to do something. You can’t have life and property constantly threatened by the overflow of Mexican drug thugs and gangs into areas of the border states. Who will want to live in your state?
I know this is not the same but for a number of years our family lived in the mid-town area of K. C., Mo. next to what was dubbed the “inner city”. Crime against residents in our old neighborhood went from “bad” to “worse” as illegal drugs became more of a problem. One or two drug houses in a neighborhood could jeopardize the property and safety for residents in these neighborhoods. Our home and neighbors’ home were regularly burglarized and neighbors were threatened at gunpoint both in their homes or outside their homes – sometimes for as little as a few dollars. A neighbor’s young adult son suffered what turned into a fatal gunshot wound in the park across the street from our home on a Sunday afternoon for the money he had been paid in cash at a restaurant that he worked at. The crime problems in our old neighborhood back then were not caused by illegals but by our own citizens but the result was the same. There was a flight to the suburbs and safer areas of town. Money and jobs and tax dollars for schools, roads, etc. left that part of town.
I don’t think Obama’s goal is to continue “slave labor,” but rather to usher in a lower standard of living. It will be the American citizen’s wages that go backwards.
For the record, we have a problem with illegal immigrants. They arrive by boat.
The first wave of boat people from Vietnam were legitimate. They were escaping from the Communists. Eventually people put it around that they only wanted to come to Australia to be wealthy and that they were economic refugees… in other words illegals.
Then we had them arriving from China, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Our nearest neighbours did not try to enter Australia illegally. They were allowed in on a temporary basis. Most wanted to return home, but some wanted to stay. Unbelievably the government was harsh with them.
The government was also harsh with the Chinese. The worst case was that of a pregnant Chinese woman. It was her second child. She was forced to return to China where she was then forced to undergo a late term abortion and then the family was punished in other ways…. believe me this was a genuine refugee case but the govt refused to see it that way.
At the same time we had allowed more than 20,000 Chinese students remain in Australia and become permanent residents because of the Tiennemann Square massacre. I believe that this should not have happened, especially in light of later and more recent revelations about Communist Chinese activity in Australia.
The real trouble though is the illegals from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are all Muslim. The Sri Lankans are Tamils and there is no longer a war. Quite frankly they should be sent back home without any of the going through the processes. There should be harsh treatment in order to stop the boats from arriving.
Whilst they are in the country they get free board and lodging in the detention centre. They get welfare payments, medical treatment etc. Since these are not refugees they should be sent home.
Other people who are British and the like suddenly find themselves in the detention centres even though they have been in Australia for a very long time. They get harsher treatment than these other illegals. It is pure madness.
In comparison to AZ..
Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens
You are so off base when it comes to our Staffing Agency – we do a lot of E-Verifying because our customers (client companiers) require it. We also never pay cash and most companies cannot do that – monies are traced in corporations and unaccounted for money is scrutinzed. Do some homework before going this far off teh deep end.
The probem is that the law doesn't specify what is an acceptable way to prove you are here legally. I had a legal birth certificate that showed my Dad as an Illinois born citizen and my mother as a naturalized citizen, had a legal social security card and driver's license and I was still detained by ICE for three years for being illegal because ICE lost my adoption paper. If your BC, SS card, DL, Passport and Voter Registration cards aren't sufficient for you to prove you are legal, America is in trouble because that's all many American citizens like my husband have. I am a naturalized citizen now but that certificate costs $600 and I have to wait for 2 years for another copy if it is lost damaged or stolen. In that 2 years I can't work and I can be picked up for not having it–and because I have already been picked up by ICE once for 'being illegal', if they pick me up again FOR ANY REASON it is automatic deportation. I have a disbled husband and an autistic son, I am the sole wage-earner in the family, we CANNOT afford for me to be deported!