What exactly is wrong with Arizona Immigration Law SB1070?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Fateweaver**

It changes a lot......err at least in the minds of those wanting to find something to complain about.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:It's a very long border, you know. You could employ everyone in the country to stand watch and there'd still be gaps.

No there wouldn't. besides, its my country not yours. Butt out.

Because basic geography can only be understood by people living there? I understand if googlemaps is all too new for you, but how about an atlas? The border is a bit under 2,000 miles, whether you live there or not this doesn't change. There are presently around 20,000 employees in the United States Border Patrol, which is a lot of people and a lot of expense. Despite this, there are a lot of illegal aliens in the US, because a border just under 2,000 miles long is a really hard thing to protect 24/7. What part of that depends on a physical presence in the United States.

Which is why physical protection is basically an expensive, losing game. Reducing the incentive for illegal aliens is much cheaper, but unfortunately the illegal workers are very important in some very politically influential industries.

That would be illega under the law. The person would win a lot of money for violating their civil rights. The officer would be fired.

That's two of you who've taken the post at face value? Is my writing that real that people can't help but be drawn into the story? Something must be happening that makes the obvious silliness of that post not register?

Or is it, possibly, just possibly, that you ignore the silliness of the post because it makes rebuttal easier, and allows you to ignore the real point - that being identified as a likely illegal immigrant based on skin colour is a really offensive thing to have happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Again, this is only being made an "issue" by the legal citizens who are afraid they'll be harassed unfairly. Will it happen? Probably. Is it an issue so long as everything is in order? Nope. It's only an issue because people want to make it an issue.

Being required to have papers on you to prove you're a legal citizen, that's only an issue if you make it an issue. But having to buy health insurance, that government oppression.

**SilverMK2**

Redbeard wrote:Being required to carry "papers" (as you call them) is nothing new. We're already required to carry government IDs, whether these are driver's licences, or IDs-for-those-without-licences.

This changes nothing.

I'm pretty sure that there is no law in the US which requires you to carry ID at all times. You must be able to produce a driving license/etc if you are driving a car, but you are not otherwise required to have ID on you. Again, this is just as far as I am aware.

**Major Malfunction**

After reading three pages of tripe I must say I'm completely appalled at the double standard displayed here.

All the people arguing the AZ law will be abused somehow because "all the brown people will be stopped" are engaging in stereotyping and racial bigotry of the worst kind at several levels:

1. They assume all brown people look alike, and thus will not be distinguishable from one another when stopped by the same cop.

2. That only White Haters are cops and that police powers will be abused to carry out bigoted retribution on ethnic minorities.

3. That the only reason the law was enacted was to "git the fereners".

You social justices types should be ashamed of yourselves for regurgitating such group thought. Think for yourselves for crying out loud! How weak are you that you must simply mouth what the talking heads you watch feed you?

The facts:

1. The United States is a country with only two borders with other countries (on the continental mainland at least): Mexico and Canada.

2. It is easier for Mexicans and Canadians to enter our country illegally in large numbers just on the basis of proximity.

3. Border violence on the Mexican border is staggering. More murders have occurred in Juarez on one year than occurred in the entire country of the United States in the same period. (Source: FBI crime stats).

4. Illegal immigrants by their very nature are going to avoid other laws as well; they are already criminals.

5. The Federal Government has done little to stem the tide of illegals entering the country. Unless you count PresBO torpedoing the economy.

(Hey... maybe that's his plan. He'll kill businesses and stifle economic growth and all those illegals will just go home when the jobs dry up. But I digress. )

6. On the basis of the above that profiling persons of Hispanic origin (if unknown to the officer) is a prudent measure.

On a related note, why is someone wanting to see an aliens paperwork not acceptable when the very nature of the agreement that allows an alien in the country legally REQUIRES THEM TO CARRY PAPERS?

I have friends that have immigrated into this country legally and they fought long and hard for that ability. To propose turning a blind eye to illegals is a slap in the face to every legal immigrant in this nation. The ones I know are mad as hell about the illegals getting off scott free.

**Ahtman**

The Green Git wrote:are engaging in stereotyping and racial bigotry of the worst kind at several levels

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

**IceRaptor**

The Green Git wrote:
How weak are you that you must simply mouth what the talking heads you watch feed you?
...
Unless you count PresBO torpedoing the economy.

Wow. Hypocrisy in the less than 200 words. Sir or Madam, I am impressed. Rarely has such skill been seen outside of Usenet.

The Green Git wrote:
I have friends that have immigrated into this country legally and they fought long and hard for that ability. To propose turning a blind eye to illegals is a slap in the face to every legal immigrant in this nation. The ones I know are mad as hell about the illegals getting off scott free.

Seconded. It's very difficult for many people who would be solidly contributing members to society to legally immigrate. We've had a family friend with a M.S. in Finance turned away, which deprived his company of a worker in a six-figure job. But the paperwork around legal immigration was so onerous that even with $20K in immigration attorney's fees, his family was still kicked out. And he still wants to be a US citizen because he loves it here! Just nuts and sad, really.

**Major Malfunction**

Ahtman wrote:You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Stereotype: Stereotypes are generalizations, or assumptions, that people make about the characteristics of all members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about what people in that group are like.

For example, "All cops will abuse AZ SB1070 because they are cops and harrass everyone that's brown." That's stereotyping.

Bigotry: Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

For example, "All you people for AZ SB1070 are stupid and wrong".

I'm pretty sure the words mean exactly what I think they mean, and Websters pretty much backs up that belief. Now as to what you believe they mean, that's irrelevant. The words mean what the dictionary says they mean.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Redbeard wrote:Being required to carry "papers" (as you call them) is nothing new. We're already required to carry government IDs, whether these are driver's licences, or IDs-for-those-without-licences.

This changes nothing.

I'm pretty sure that there is no law in the US which requires you to carry ID at all times. You must be able to produce a driving license/etc if you are driving a car, but you are not otherwise required to have ID on you. Again, this is just as far as I am aware.

You are required to truthfully give your identity if stopped by the police. They may detain you for clarification if you cannot do so or they distrust your veracity.

**sebster**

The Green Git wrote:1. They assume all brown people look alike, and thus will not be distinguishable from one another when stopped by the same cop.

Hahaha. Third line and it's already bonkers. This is going to be good.

For the record, people can look quite distinct and it would still be impossible for a policeman to know more a few hundred. Do you know everyone one of 5 to 5.5 million white people living in Arizona, or do all white people look the same to you?

2. That only White Haters are cops and that police powers will be abused to carry out bigoted retribution on ethnic minorities.

Mwhaha. Ha.

Oh yeah, this is going to be good.

You social justices types should be ashamed of yourselves for regurgitating such group thought. Think for yourselves for crying out loud! How weak are you that you must simply mouth what the talking heads you watch feed you?

Hey, that's my first spotting of Beck's 'social justice is evil' meme. I feel like I've made an important socio-political discovery, in the field of whackjobology.

1. The United States is a country with only two borders with other countries (on the continental mainland at least): Mexico and Canada.

2. It is easier for Mexicans and Canadians to enter our country illegally in large numbers just on the basis of proximity.

Canadians are swarming across the border? When's that wall getting built?

Also hahahaha.

5. The Federal Government has done little to stem the tide of illegals entering the country. Unless you count PresBO torpedoing the economy.

Hahaha. Obama's so bad he sent the country into recession before taking office. Not as bad as Clinton, though, he sunk the economy before he even won the primary.

6. On the basis of the above that profiling persons of Hispanic origin (if unknown to the officer) is a prudent measure.

On careful consideration of the presence of moonpie in my wife's petard, the policy should be considered forthwith.

On a related note, why is someone wanting to see an aliens paperwork not acceptable when the very nature of the agreement that allows an alien in the country legally REQUIRES THEM TO CARRY PAPERS?

You know how some uniformed dude saying 'papers please used to be a sure fire way of a movie establishing you're in a police state. Yeah. It's because governments that go about demanding to know who is where all the time are bad governments.

I have friends that have immigrated into this country legally and they fought long and hard for that ability. To propose turning a blind eye to illegals is a slap in the face to every legal immigrant in this nation. The ones I know are mad as hell about the illegals getting off scott free.

Damn Canadians hordes swarming across the border.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its less than 2000 miles but lets go with that and further adjust to 1700 meters per mile (a little off).
A fence.
A camera every 200 meters. Thats 17,000 cameras. One person can watch 10 cameras. Thats 1,700 people or 5,100. Thats a 3rd of the new hires the IRS is starting up to implement the fine provisions of the healtchare bill.

The plan to fence off 700 miles with camera surveillence ended up blowing out to about 50 billion, which is a big number. How much would it cost to police US companies employing illegal aliens?

Or inversely, and what should be done. Pull US forces back to US territory. That will take care of it, plus have the niceness of pulling us out of all those entangling wars and events. Let the rest fo the world go its own way.

Problematically US wealth is based on trade relations with the rest of the world.

**Major Malfunction**

IceRaptor wrote:Wow. Hypocrisy in the less than 200 words. Sir or Madam, I am impressed. Rarely has such skill been seen outside of Usenet.

Usenet? I predate Usenet. Try RelayNet.

Seriously though how is me thinking PresBO is screwing the US economy listening to talking heads? Everywhere a TV is on the usual suspects are still sucking Obama's man pole... no negative news there. However, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know Social Security running into the red and a Trillion dollar deficit are bad things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Hahaha. Third line and it's already bonkers. This is going to be good.

I don't expect you to actually argue the point. Name calling and deflection is SOP for Liberals right about now. Don't feel bad... you're right on script.

**sebster**

The Green Git wrote:
Ahtman wrote:You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Stereotype: Stereotypes are generalizations, or assumptions, that people make about the characteristics of all members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about what people in that group are like.

For example, "All cops will abuse AZ SB1070 because they are cops and harrass everyone that's brown." That's stereotyping.

I actually kind of get why so many of the usual rightwing suspects who are capable of better debate generally don't bother, sooner or later someone like The Green Git is going to come and make your whole side look ridiculous, so what's the point?

Meanwhile, GG, if you really don't understand what you did wrong just think about it. You did indeed get a definition from a reputable dictionary. You did indeed apply that definition accurately to the subject matter. What you didn't do is check that your new definition is like anything anyone in this thread has actually said. It's at that final hurdle that your argument falls down. Unfortunately it's a very big hurdle, and pretty much makes your argument a load of gibberish.

**Frazzled**

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/28/lawmakers-push-border-security-reid-steps-immigration-debate/

Lawmakers Push Border Security as Reid Steps Back From Immigration Debate

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to re-prioritize climate change may put immigration reform "back to square one" but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say that's just where Congress needs to be -- securing the border before dealing with millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to re-prioritize climate change may put immigration reform "back to square one" but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say that's just where Congress needs to be -- securing the border before dealing with millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

A bipartisan group of House members was sending a letter to President Obama on Wednesday asking him to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.'s southern border to assist Border Patrol agents. They note that Obama can act without requiring Congress to pass legislation.

"I support immigration reform but that means that you secure the border first," Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said Wednesday.

"We protect the borders of other nations better than our own," added Ted Poe R-Texas.

Giffords, who represents the district that borders Mexico and is south and east of Tucson, said she spoke with a Border Patrol agent who described night time activity down there as "western. It gets violent and dangerous."

She said the threat from violence associated with illegal entry into the country is real and Arizona is "sick and tired" of living in fear.

In the letter, the lawmakers note that assaults against Border Patrol agents increased 46 percent from 752 incidents in 2007 to 1,097 incidents in 2008, and that with the violent drug war across the border from El Paso, Texas, could spill over.

"We urge you to deploy the National Guard to the US-Mexico border, as has been requested by a number of border state governors and Members of Congress. We ask that any National Guard troops that are deployed should be provided with very clear guidance of proper rules of engagement and should be armed and allowed to defend themselves if fired upon or attacked," reads the letter.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the southern border in Arizona is as safe as it ever has been.

"I know that border I think as well as anyone, and I will tell you it is as secure now as it has ever been," Napolitano said.

"The Border Patrol is better staffed than at any point in its history -- more than 20,000 personnel. Since 2004, the number of boots on the ground along the southwest border has increased by 80 percent," she told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Napolitano argued that border security has stopped many illegals from attempting to cross the border, saying six or seven years ago, the number of illegal apprehensions in the Tucson sector was 600,000 whereas now it's 200,000.

After threatening to bring up immigration reform -- and losing the critical support of GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham on both immigration and a climate change bill -- Reid said Tuesday he doesn't have an immigration bill to bring to the floor for debate.

That angered Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., the most vocal supporter of changing immigration law. But Gutierrez said he is confident Congress can pass both pieces of legislation this summer.

"I guess we’re back to square one,: he said. "This is a roller coaster here. But I’m used to it. I take the anti-nausea medicine. I go up and down and the heights and thrills don't give me pain any more," he said.

**sebster**

The Green Git wrote:I don't expect you to actually argue the point. Name calling and deflection is SOP for Liberals right about now. Don't feel bad... you're right on script.

The point? Dude, your post was utter nonsense. There's no point to debate. I had a bit of a go as I went along but who are we kidding, honestly.

I mean, my second sentence showed fairly clearly the first mistake you made - assuming that racism must be involved in a person not knowing the entire racial population of a state - but you ignored that. So really, why do anything but laugh?

**agnosto**

Redbeard wrote:Being required to carry "papers" (as you call them) is nothing new. We're already required to carry government IDs, whether these are driver's licences, or IDs-for-those-without-licences.

This changes nothing.

Years ago, the supreme court made a ruling that states could require residents to carry identification; however, to my knowledge there is no state with a law like this. If you are not driving/operating a motor vehicle, you do not have to carry ID. That's why police have the authority to hold someone, "under suspicion" for 24 hours; it's to verify their identity....you know, when they're not carrying anything or it's disputable.

All that said, the police state that our country is becoming since 9/11 will rectify this soon. Be afraid.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954904575110124037066854.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954904575110124037066854.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:You are required to truthfully give your identity if stopped by the police. They may detain you for clarification if you cannot do so or they distrust your veracity.

However, does that mean you have to carry ID, or you just have to give your details (and possibly they then check your details via radio etc?)?

In the UK there are only certain ways the police can legally "force" you to give your details (ie you don't have to give your details if you are stopped under Act 44 of the terrorism law, but you do if you are stopped under anti-social behaviour laws).

**agnosto**

SilverMK2 wrote:However, does that mean you have to carry ID, or you just have to give your details (and possibly they then check your details via radio etc?)?
In the UK there are only certain ways the police can legally "force" you to give your details (ie you don't have to give your details if you are stopped under Act 44 of the terrorism law, but you do if you are stopped under anti-social behaviour laws).

It's a state by state basis. The United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

**Redbeard**

agnosto wrote:
Years ago, the supreme court made a ruling that states could require residents to carry identification; however, to my knowledge there is no state with a law like this. If you are not driving/operating a motor vehicle, you do not have to carry ID. That's why police have the authority to hold someone, "under suspicion" for 24 hours; it's to verify their identity....you know, when they're not carrying anything or it's disputable.

Okay, so let's rephrase this.

States issue IDs, both Driver's Licences, and State IDs. This is the current state of affairs.

If they stop you, and you don't have one of them on you, they can detain you, "under suspicion" for 24 hours.

And how does the Arizona law change this? Is "being detained under suspicion", the current state of affairs, if you have no "papers" not the same thing?

P.S. - As I stated earlier in this thread, I am a legal immigrant to the US. I am also required, by law, to carry my green card on me at all times. That's another form of "papers", and that's another example of the status quo. I don't see why this Arizona thing is a big deal.

**Frazzled**

Exactly.

**agnosto**

Redbeard wrote:As I stated earlier in this thread, I am a legal immigrant to the US. I am also required, by law, to carry my green card on me at all times. That's another form of "papers", and that's another example of the status quo. I don't see why this Arizona thing is a big deal.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it; I usually have ID on me anyway; however, there's a large, vocal population....tea party people that will scream to the heavens if, "the dam gubnent" wants to force everyone to do something, anything, even mandatory BO screenings.

**IceRaptor**

The Green Git wrote:
Seriously though how is me thinking PresBO is screwing the US economy listening to talking heads? Everywhere a TV is on the usual suspects are still sucking Obama's man pole... no negative news there.

I am willing to be charitable to a point, but there's more than enough criticism floating around to easily stumble upon - you don't even have to try every hard . It's perfectly reasonable to request someone to 'think for themselves', but using a target's opposition 'group think' - such as the above comment - places you firmly in the 'follower' category.

Incidentally, group-think is a vice, but a necessary one at some level. Most of us will not have unique opinions from some segment of the 200+ million fellow Americans, much less the 6+ billion of the world population, on every topic. I'd be willing to wager that a person probably shares an large portion of their opinions matrix with at least one other person in the world.

The Green Git wrote:
However, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know Social Security running into the red and a Trillion dollar deficit are bad things.

Both are complex issues, and often reduced to simple 'good and bad' by people who are unwilling to invest the time to develop a more comprehensive understanding. Deficits per se are not inherently bad, if other preconditions hold - they expand the economic sphere to encompass a larger segment of population. The US deficit is worrying because the de-facto use of the dollar in oil trading has weakened, making those suppositions of American dominance (and thus the ability to defer payout) a weaker proposition. So yes, those are both issues to be concerned about, but I would argue that you do need to carefully consider them instead of making the blanket assumption they are bad.

**Fateweaver**

Frazzled wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/28/lawmakers-push-border-security-reid-steps-immigration-debate/

Lawmakers Push Border Security as Reid Steps Back From Immigration Debate

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to re-prioritize climate change may put immigration reform "back to square one" but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say that's just where Congress needs to be -- securing the border before dealing with millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to re-prioritize climate change may put immigration reform "back to square one" but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say that's just where Congress needs to be -- securing the border before dealing with millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

A bipartisan group of House members was sending a letter to President Obama on Wednesday asking him to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.'s southern border to assist Border Patrol agents. They note that Obama can act without requiring Congress to pass legislation.

"I support immigration reform but that means that you secure the border first," Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said Wednesday.

"We protect the borders of other nations better than our own," added Ted Poe R-Texas.

Giffords, who represents the district that borders Mexico and is south and east of Tucson, said she spoke with a Border Patrol agent who described night time activity down there as "western. It gets violent and dangerous."

She said the threat from violence associated with illegal entry into the country is real and Arizona is "sick and tired" of living in fear.

In the letter, the lawmakers note that assaults against Border Patrol agents increased 46 percent from 752 incidents in 2007 to 1,097 incidents in 2008, and that with the violent drug war across the border from El Paso, Texas, could spill over.

"We urge you to deploy the National Guard to the US-Mexico border, as has been requested by a number of border state governors and Members of Congress. We ask that any National Guard troops that are deployed should be provided with very clear guidance of proper rules of engagement and should be armed and allowed to defend themselves if fired upon or attacked," reads the letter.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the southern border in Arizona is as safe as it ever has been.

"I know that border I think as well as anyone, and I will tell you it is as secure now as it has ever been," Napolitano said.

"The Border Patrol is better staffed than at any point in its history -- more than 20,000 personnel. Since 2004, the number of boots on the ground along the southwest border has increased by 80 percent," she told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Napolitano argued that border security has stopped many illegals from attempting to cross the border, saying six or seven years ago, the number of illegal apprehensions in the Tucson sector was 600,000 whereas now it's 200,000.

After threatening to bring up immigration reform -- and losing the critical support of GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham on both immigration and a climate change bill -- Reid said Tuesday he doesn't have an immigration bill to bring to the floor for debate.

That angered Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., the most vocal supporter of changing immigration law. But Gutierrez said he is confident Congress can pass both pieces of legislation this summer.

"I guess we’re back to square one,: he said. "This is a roller coaster here. But I’m used to it. I take the anti-nausea medicine. I go up and down and the heights and thrills don't give me pain any more," he said.

I approve this message. Pull the damn Guard out of Afghan; let the active military deal. Send the reserves down south to secure the border, give them the same rules of engagement as in a combat zone and let's stop the flow where it start.

Of course Napalitano is going to say the border is secure. She's the moron who said our national flight security is doing it's job even though some dude got on board an airliner and thankfully failed to detonate the bomb in his pants. If that's considered having everything under control she should be fired.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:
Redbeard wrote:As I stated earlier in this thread, I am a legal immigrant to the US. I am also required, by law, to carry my green card on me at all times. That's another form of "papers", and that's another example of the status quo. I don't see why this Arizona thing is a big deal.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it; I usually have ID on me anyway; however, there's a large, vocal population....tea party people that will scream to the heavens if, "the dam gubnent" wants to force everyone to do something, anything, even mandatory BO screenings.

The tea partiers are actually the ones criticizing PresBO for NOT doing his job as far as illegal immigrants. Nice strawman though. Try again.

**Wrexasaur**

Redbeard wrote:Being required to carry "papers" (as you call them) is nothing new. We're already required to carry government IDs, whether these are driver's licences, or IDs-for-those-without-licences.

This changes nothing.

Cite the law that requires me to carry I.D. at all times. If it is a state law, please refer to Arizona law for comparison.

I don't know the answer to this question, and it is a complicated question.

If this were a law requiring legal immigrants to have I.D. while driving, there wouldn't be much of a problem, but it isn't.

As I said before, this whole car analogy thing sucks.

**Fateweaver**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100428/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1831

This dude is full of win.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

It isn't a big deal to be forced to carry papers. Its responsible. I hope every single mother fether in the US of Goddamn A is forced to carry some form of ID at all times. I have had too since I was 10, it isnt hard, suck it the feth up and drive the feth on.

Why should you resent having to prove who you are? If anything itll help you out immediately, unless of course, your hiding something.

**agnosto**

Fateweaver wrote:The tea partiers are actually the ones criticizing PresBO for NOT doing his job as far as illegal immigrants. Nice strawman though. Try again.

Huh? I was refering to the fact that tea party members state they stand for personal freedom and smaller central government and how that relates to them being against any laws that would require everyone, citizen or not, to carry a biometric identification card. Try going back and read the link I posted on the subject a little higher up.

**Wrexasaur**

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It isn't a big deal to be forced to carry papers. Its responsible. I hope every single mother fether in the US of Goddamn A is forced to carry some form of ID at all times. I have had too since I was 10, it isnt hard, suck it the feth up and drive the feth on.

Why should you resent having to prove who you are? If anything itll help you out immediately, unless of course, your hiding something.

The 4th amendment I assume.... CHECK HIM, HE IS HIDING THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!!

The ease which complications involving the law surrounding this, get brushed aside in this debate, is getting a bit annoying.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

It is a complicated issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A very complicated one.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html

Why not just stick these in everyone? It would seem to be a more effective way to monitor civil society. One that would appear to be based on racially profiling a large section of society, simply because the cops can pick on this part without fear of angering the rest.

**Fateweaver**

agnosto wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:The tea partiers are actually the ones criticizing PresBO for NOT doing his job as far as illegal immigrants. Nice strawman though. Try again.

Huh? I was refering to the fact that tea party members state they stand for personal freedom and smaller central government and how that relates to them being against any laws that would require everyone, citizen or not, to carry a biometric identification card. Try going back and read the link I posted on the subject a little higher up.

If it controls immigration most Tea Partiers won't be against it.

Tea Party is not against the Federal government, it's against the government doing what the states can handle.

It IS the job of the Federal Government to keep it's citizens safe. It is failing in it's job so therefore it falls onto the shoulders of the states.

**Frazzled**

Fateweaver wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:The tea partiers are actually the ones criticizing PresBO for NOT doing his job as far as illegal immigrants. Nice strawman though. Try again.

Huh? I was refering to the fact that tea party members state they stand for personal freedom and smaller central government and how that relates to them being against any laws that would require everyone, citizen or not, to carry a biometric identification card. Try going back and read the link I posted on the subject a little higher up.

If it controls immigration most Tea Partiers won't be against it.

Tea Party is not against the Federal government, it's against the government doing what the states can handle.

It IS the job of the Federal Government to keep it's citizens safe. It is failing in it's job so therefore it falls onto the shoulders of the states.

**agnosto**

Fateweaver wrote:

Tea Party is not against the Federal government, it's against the government doing what the states can handle.

It IS the job of the Federal Government to keep it's citizens safe. It is failing in it's job so therefore it falls onto the shoulders of the states.

I never said they were against the federal government, I just said they were against BIG government and believe in personal freedoms which is why they are against the health care reform bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html

(you'll have to click the mission statement on the top right of the screen):
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx

**Fateweaver**

Well duh. But it's not just tea partiers, it's conservatives as a whole.

Mandatory insurance is wrong no matter what. Requiring ID's if it keeps this countries citizens safe is not wrong in the eyes of many conservatives.

The government protecting it's citizens should be first and foremost. Anything to do that is not going to piss off conservatives. That's why they didn't bitch about the illegal wire taps on phones of people suspected of or knowing to have ties to terrorist networks.