Proof of Citizenship

[Anonymous]

"Mexican Standoff - Don't blame Arizonans—or immigrants—for the state's draconian new law."

A very interesting point of view on how quality of life has changed for all Arizonans (including brown-skinned) and why the border must be secured.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/237196

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Mexican Standoff - Don't blame Arizonans—or immigrants—for the state's draconian new law."

A very interesting point of view on how quality of life has changed for all Arizonans (including brown-skinned) and why the border must be secured.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/237196

An awful lot of that has nothing whatsoever to do with this law. Drug trafficking is not going to be affected by this law. And as for the human trafficking, it is the result of tightening borders which causes people to pay these people to get over the border. So you can expect it to get worse. I'm not condoning either of these activities, but this law is not going to affect these criminal enterprises.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Once again I am disappointed, though at this point no longer surprised, that there is so little interest in the constitutional issues. As Americans, we have no legal requirement to even show identification under normal circumstances. If I am stopped randomly by a police officer, I can legally not even identify myself, let along prove my citizenship. Arizona strips us of this right.

Second, but more importantly, the Arizona law assumes you are guilty until proven innocent. If a police officer stops you, suspects that you are illegal, it is up to you to prove he is wrong. Otherwise, you go to jail. This stands the foundation of the American justice system on its head.

How many people do you know that do not have a passport? How many of them may not be able to locate their birth certificate? How are they going to prove their innocence?

Every day our rights are being stripped from us. But, unless those rights involves guns or taxes, very few people seem to care.

You obviously have not read the AZ statute. It requires a lawful contact between the law enforcment officer and the subject (i.e., an arrest or traffic stop), and it requires that the law enforcment officer has a factual basis (other than race) to believe that the subject is illegal. If the 2 prongs are met, the law enforcement officer can verify citizenship/ immigration status. It mirrors the federal law is much less restrictive than the Mexican law. 70% of Americans support the law, and my guess is that if you lived in a border state (instead of your ivory tower), you'd support it as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Mexican Standoff - Don't blame Arizonans—or immigrants—for the state's draconian new law."

A very interesting point of view on how quality of life has changed for all Arizonans (including brown-skinned) and why the border must be secured.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/237196

An awful lot of that has nothing whatsoever to do with this law. Drug trafficking is not going to be affected by this law. And as for the human trafficking, it is the result of tightening borders which causes people to pay these people to get over the border. So you can expect it to get worse. I'm not condoning either of these activities, but this law is not going to affect these criminal enterprises.

This law is a reaction to the borders not being closed. Basically saying to the feds, "until you control things, we are going to control what we can". I personally think it's awesome.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You obviously have not read the AZ statute. It requires a lawful contact between the law enforcment officer and the subject (i.e., an arrest or traffic stop), and it requires that the law enforcment officer has a factual basis (other than race) to believe that the subject is illegal. If the 2 prongs are met, the law enforcement officer can verify citizenship/ immigration status. It mirrors the federal law is much less restrictive than the Mexican law. 70% of Americans support the law, and my guess is that if you lived in a border state (instead of your ivory tower), you'd support it as well.

I don't mind people correcting me when I am wrong. In fact, I'm glad to learn something new. But, I really don't appreciate the uniformed trying to inform me. Lawful contact was a requirement of the law when it was passed. Lawful contact is not an arrest or a traffic stop. Rather lawful contact is any contact that is not illegal. If a police officer is walking down the street and says "hello" to you, that is lawful contact. When I wrote the post that you quoted, the Arizona law allowed police to check immigration status if they suspected someone of being illegal during any lawful contact. In other words, basically any time they wanted.

Subsequently, the law was amended and now allows police to act only during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest". At the same time, police were empowered to check immigration status over violations of civil ordinances. So, park your car in your front yard and you will probably be getting asked to prove your immigration status.

I don't live in an ivory tower. But, I do take time to get my facts correct. You might consider doing the same.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I don't mind people correcting me when I am wrong. In fact, I'm glad to learn something new. But, I really don't appreciate the uniformed trying to inform me. ...

Ordinarily my policy is to ignore typos. But now and then there is one that is too tempting. So what I'd like to know, Jeff, is whether you were subconsciously resenting cops, soldier, or postal workers?

[Anonymous]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/us/12newmexico.html?src=me&ref=general

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Ordinarily my policy is to ignore typos. But now and then there is one that is too tempting. So what I'd like to know, Jeff, is whether you were subconsciously resenting cops, soldier, or postal workers?

Hah, spell check lets me down again. No problem with cops, soldiers, or postal workers. Shriners on the other hand...

[Anonymous]

70% of Americans support the law, and my guess is that if you lived in a border state (instead of your ivory tower), you'd support it as well.

And yet ironically while it's always the blue states that seem to be the target of terrorist attacks, it's the red state dwellers who always seem to be stumbling over themselves to throw their civil liberties away for an illusion of safety. Some of us don't operate entirely from brutish myopic self-interest, regardless of where we live.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ordinarily my policy is to ignore typos. But now and then there is one that is too tempting. So what I'd like to know, Jeff, is whether you were subconsciously resenting cops, soldier, or postal workers?

Hah, spell check lets me down again. No problem with cops, soldiers, or postal workers. Shriners on the other hand...

Shriners do a lot of good for children and a "Fez" isn't a uniform.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't you make the choice to live in DC as opposed to Maryland or Virginia where you would be better represented than Wyoming's sheep?

Yes, but I was a supporter of DC Statehood before I even moved from Illinois. One thing that really bugs me is people who are only concerned about their own interests. I'm male, but I supported and still support women's rights. I'm white, but I support minority rights. I'm straight, but I support gay marriage an all other rights for gays. I didn't have to move to DC to understand that taxation without representation is wrong.

I'm female and white and, oh, so grateful for the crumbs from your table, Mr. Astorbilt. You are just so fu@&ing wonderful, you're too wonderful to f@&%.

For your information, there are more cows in Wyoming that both sheep and lawyers.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Shriners do a lot of good for children and a "Fez" isn't a uniform.

Do these guys look trustworthy to you?



What's more. Just look at their logo. A crescent and a sword. Clearly, they are part of the Obama Islamic Secret Society to Impose Sharia in America (OPISSISA).

Just wait until the people of Arizona hear about this.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm female and white and, oh, so grateful for the crumbs from your table, Mr. Astorbilt. You are just so fu@&ing wonderful, you're too wonderful to f@&%.

For your information, there are more cows in Wyoming that both sheep and lawyers.

Wow, aren't you just a bundle of joy. If we imported cows into DC, would you support statehood?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shriners do a lot of good for children and a "Fez" isn't a uniform.

Do these guys look trustworthy to you?

<img src = "http://www.steele.com/shriners.jpg" />

What's more. Just look at their logo. A crescent and a sword. Clearly, they are part of the Obama Islamic Secret Society to Impose Sharia in America (OPISSISA).

Just wait until the people of Arizona hear about this.

Aren't you just Mr. Funny Bunny today. You're so f...ing funny, you're to funny to F.

Arizona loves Shriners because only legals are eligible for membership.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm female and white and, oh, so grateful for the crumbs from your table, Mr. Astorbilt. You are just so fu@&ing wonderful, you're too wonderful to f@&%.

For your information, there are more cows in Wyoming that both sheep and lawyers.

Wow, aren't you just a bundle of joy. If we imported cows into DC, would you support statehood?

Thanks, I always try to bring joy to those without. I already support statehood--but those imported cows from wyoming will fly before DC gets statehood.